-
Continuation of the discussion from the Solar Eclipse (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71409.0) 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 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71409.msg1940139#msg1940139), 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.
(http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/images/Sirius%20Transit%20Data%20-%201988%20to%201989.jpg)
No leap seconds for 1988
For 1989 we add a single leap second: 0.5 (maximum value) + 1 = 1.5
(http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/images/Sirius%20Transit%20Data%20-%201989%20to%201990.jpg)
One leap second for 1990: 0.6 (maximum value ) + 1 = 1.6
(http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/images/Sirius%20Transit%20Data%20-%201990%20to%201991.jpg)
No leap seconds for 1991
(http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/images/Sirius%20Transit%20Data%20-%201991%20to%201992.jpg)
One leap second for 1992: 0.5 (maximum value) + 1 = 1.5
(http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/images/Sirius%20Transit%20Data%20-%201992%20to%201993.jpg)
One leap second for 1993: 0.8 (maximum value) + 1 = 1.8
(http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/images/Sirius%20Transit%20Data%20-%201993%20to%201994.jpg)
One leap second for 1994: 1 (maximum value) + 1 = 2
(http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/images/Sirius%20Transit%20Data%20-%201994%20to%201998.jpg)
Leap seconds for the years 1995, 1997, 1998
0.5 (maximum value) + 1 = 1.5
(http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/images/Sirius%20Transit%20Data%20-%201998%20to%202007.jpg)
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/
(https://s9.postimg.org/elwt8kzbz/sa1.jpg)
(https://s18.postimg.org/g1rdbygh5/sa2.jpg)
(https://s1.postimg.org/227vdp9csv/sa3.jpg)
(https://s4.postimg.org/4oc5mwe8t/sa4.jpg)
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
ar = 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)."
(http://www.enterprisemission.com/Eclipse-Allais-Pendulum-motions.jpg)
"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:
(https://s3.postimg.org/8epkfv84z/Capture.jpg)
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:
(https://web.archive.org/web/20110502081059im_/http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/rose5.jpg)
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:"
(https://web.archive.org/web/20110502081059im_/http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/rose3.jpg)
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:
(http://starburstfound.org/electrograviticsblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Mont-3-1024x720.jpg)
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)
(http://jnaudin.free.fr/images/elghatab.jpg)
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)."
(http://www.enterprisemission.com/DePalma%27s--Spinning-Ball--2-grid.jpg)
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.
(http://www.esotericscience.com/spinball.gif)
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.
(https://s22.postimg.org/x002plw4x/pre1.jpg)
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 (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/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."
(http://electric-cosmos.org/NGC7319quasarLabeled.jpg)
A higher magnification image of the quasar shows a "jet" of matter extending out from the center of NGC 7319 toward the quasar:
(http://electric-cosmos.org/NGC7319quasar2.jpg)
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."
(http://electric-cosmos.org/NGC7319quasarLabeled.jpg)
A higher magnification image of the quasar shows a "jet" of matter extending out from the center of NGC 7319 toward the quasar:
(http://electric-cosmos.org/NGC7319quasar2.jpg)
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_equation). The parameters describing the orbit that are typically used in the solution of Kepler's equation are called Keplerain elements (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_elements#Keplerian_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 (http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/). 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.
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/SiriusPrecession1950-2008_zpsd83hremv.png)
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
ar = 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.
(https://s9.postimg.org/elwt8kzbz/sa1.jpg)
(https://s18.postimg.org/g1rdbygh5/sa2.jpg)
(https://s1.postimg.org/227vdp9csv/sa3.jpg)
(https://s4.postimg.org/4oc5mwe8t/sa4.jpg)
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. (http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/ill_be_here_all_week_stand_up_comedian_joke)]
<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?
-
<Expected gratuitous introductory remark. At least this one is a bit more entertaining than most of them have been.>
Both the Stellarium software and the SIMBAD database are nothing more than video games.
SIMBAD is an astrometric database designed for and used by professional astronomers and others. The information it provides is used to accurately point instruments, as well as to calibrate instruments or validate calibration. Stellarium provides a convenient visualization of data that is almost as accurate as the data provided by SIMBAD (differing in position by up to a few seconds of arc in the cases I've checked). Stellarium accurately locates other celestial objects, like planets, minor planets, and the moon (which SIMBAD isn't concerned with) as well. All these objects are located accurately enough to use the coordinates to reliably point equipment to within a small fraction of a degree of their true locations in the sky.
So, no, they are both more than just "video games", and their existence is apparently a thorn in your side.
The Sagnac stuff
Your amateurish approach to science is best evidenced by your words.
You mean the SAGNAC EFFECT.
Excuse me. I should have said "stuff about the Sagnac effect." Better? It's still irrelevant, of course, but I suppose you feel obligated to find something to complain about.
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.
You must be slow on the uptake now. I have no reason to do that, nor any interest in doing so. If it's important to you, feel free to do so yourself. I thought I'd made that clear.
<More irrelevant stuff>
Absent any evidence that the astrometric catalog positions at epoch 1950 and 2000 were wrong, here's some more validation of Stellarium's results against SIMBAD locations, and precession. Again, both of these show 1° in RA and 1° in declination.
Aldebaran (ecliptic latitude -5.5°)
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/PrecessionAldebaran1950-2008_zpsesdiufyj.png)
Canopus (ecliptic latitude -75.9°)
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/PrecessionCanopus1950-2008_zpssvwi5iet.png)
As noted earlier, the ecliptic poles do not precess, whereas precession is maximum along the ecliptic, analogous to circumferential speed of rotation at earth's poles and equator. These plots are consistent with that fact. Recall that Sirius is at ecliptic latitude -39.6°, and the distance it precessed over the same period was between these distances, as would be expected. The difference is even bigger than the plots suggest because the meridians of Right Ascension converge toward the celestial poles, so the vertical grid lines 1 minute of RA apart on the plot for Canopus should only be about 60% as far apart as the 1-minute lines for Aldebaran (or Sirius), but that's kind of a pain to do, and these plots convey the most important information (agreement between data sets and consistency in precessed locations) well enough.
So... to counter all the evidence that exists and shows clearly that Sirius does, in fact, precess as expected, you need to find some reliable information that the 1950 or 2000 (or both) astrometric locations for Sirius were grossly off. Otherwise, you're just outta' luck "proving" that Sirius doesn't precess!
Until you can do that, you have no argument.
-
Everything comes down to this issue: does the Earth orbit the Sun, or does the Sun orbit above the flat surface of the Earth?
In the geocentrical version of the universe, precession is explained by the fact that it is the stars/solar system themselves which are subjected to this kind of motion.
The Earth does not undergo axial precession.
If the Earth is stationary, and precession has a very different explanation, then yes both the Stellarium software and the SIMBAD database are simple video games, nothing more.
The ORBITAL solar gravitational potential effect is not being registered by the GPS satellites' clocks.
Please enlighten yourself:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846706#msg1846706
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.
That is why your presentation using the Stellarium/SIMBAD arguments are useless.
The Earth is not orbiting the Sun at all.
The orbital solar gravitational potential is missing.
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.
This is a basic fact of science, completely ignored by the creators of the Stellarium software or by the authors of the SIMBAD database.
As if this wasn't enough, the ORBITAL Sagnac effect is also missing: GPS satellites do not register/record this effect at all, which is much larger in magnitude than the rotational Sagnac.
Please convince yourself:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1917978#msg1917978
(https://s4.postimg.org/4oc5mwe8t/sa4.jpg)
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.
Then, you have a huge problem on your hands.
Since BOTH the orbital solar gravitational potential effect and the orbital Sagnac effect are missing, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled.
This means that the existence of ether is proven 100%.
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.
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.
I have proven to you that the Earth does not orbit the Sun, which means that the Stellarium software and the SIMBAD database are video games, based on the false heliocentrical hypothesis.
If you want anybody to even look in your direction, you are going to have to explain the missing orbital solar gravitational potential effect and the missing orbital Sagnac effect.
-
Everything comes down to this issue: does the Earth orbit the Sun, or does the Sun orbit above the flat surface of the Earth?
Here's the actual question (linking back to the thread this thread branched from):
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?
The answer, as you have been shown is it doesn't!
Here's the assertion that question is based on:
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.
This assertion, as you have been shown with real data, is clearly wrong.
Since 1950, precession has caused Sirius to shift about 3/4 degree with respect to the vernal equinox, and, thus, also with respect to the solstices. You have not shown any reliable data that says otherwise.
In order for you to be correct, the catalog data that has been relied upon by many knowledgeable people operating precision equipment, would have to be significantly wrong. Yet it has been used, successfully, for decades.
<quotes with no context>
Unless you can explain this paradox, you should shut the [expletive deleted] up, and accept that the distance from Earth is Sirius is much smaller than we have been led to believe.
There is no paradox. The phenomenon you base your claim on simply does not exist.
In the geocentrical version of the universe, precession is explained by the fact that it is the stars/solar system themselves which are subjected to this kind of motion.
The Earth does not undergo axial precession.
You say that, repeatedly, but have no convincing data to back that up. The stars (including Sirius) move with respect to the equator and equinoxes in a way that is entirely consistent with axial precession.
Deny it all you want, but until you can demonstrate that the carefully measured and cataloged positions of the stars for the last century have been grossly wrong all along, you have nothing but opinion to stand on. A vast amount of research and data collection that have relied on those cataloged positions succeeded, but would have failed if they were wrong.
Your opinion is not a substitute for data that has been repeatedly demonstrated to be correct.
If the Earth is stationary, and precession has a very different explanation, then yes both the Stellarium software and the SIMBAD database are simple video games, nothing more.
But, you may splutter... but, but, but... those are just numbers you read from a screen (or a book).
You see... I told you!
Continuing...
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.
So, apparently, these resources are actually useful tools, not toys, as you would like to believe. This also suggests (but doesn't "prove", since proof is not possible (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof)) that the model they are based on is correct.
<repeats of some irrelevant stuff that was irrelevant the first time it was brought up here>
You really need to stop repeating all that irrelevant stuff. It's not working and only makes it obvious that you're trying to avoid the question being asked: where's your data that shows the published star catalogs are grossly wrong? I'm still waiting for that, and expect a long wait.
-
In order for you to be correct, the catalog data that has been relied upon by many knowledgeable people operating precision equipment, would have to be significantly wrong.
It is significantly wrong since it relies upon the wrong astronomical context: heliocentrism.
In geocentrism, the precession is due to other causes, the motion of the entire solar system/stars.
That is why I told you that everything comes to down to this very issue: does the Earth orbit the Sun or is it the other way around?
Your avoidance of the issues presented here speaks volumes: you have chosen to live in a fantasy world of your own.
You need to wake up.
The ORBITAL solar gravitational potential effect is not being registered by the GPS satellites' clocks.
Please enlighten yourself:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846706#msg1846706
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.
That is why your presentation using the Stellarium/SIMBAD arguments are useless.
The Earth is not orbiting the Sun at all.
The orbital solar gravitational potential is missing.
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.
This is a basic fact of science, completely ignored by the creators of the Stellarium software or by the authors of the SIMBAD database.
As if this wasn't enough, the ORBITAL Sagnac effect is also missing: GPS satellites do not register/record this effect at all, which is much larger in magnitude than the rotational Sagnac.
Please convince yourself:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1917978#msg1917978
(https://s4.postimg.org/4oc5mwe8t/sa4.jpg)
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.
Then, you have a huge problem on your hands.
Since BOTH the orbital solar gravitational potential effect and the orbital Sagnac effect are missing, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled.
This means that the existence of ether is proven 100%.
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.
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.
This is the real world starring you in the face.
Go ahead and run to your fantasy world to hide from reality.
where's your data that shows the published star catalogs are grossly wrong?
Let us examine the entire interval of 20 years using your figure of 2.6 seconds.
(http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/images/Sirius%20Transit%20Data%20-%201988%20to%201989.jpg)
No leap seconds for 1988
For 1989 we add a single leap second: 0.5 (maximum value) + 1 = 1.5
(http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/images/Sirius%20Transit%20Data%20-%201989%20to%201990.jpg)
One leap second for 1990: 0.6 (maximum value ) + 1 = 1.6
(http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/images/Sirius%20Transit%20Data%20-%201990%20to%201991.jpg)
No leap seconds for 1991
(http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/images/Sirius%20Transit%20Data%20-%201991%20to%201992.jpg)
One leap second for 1992: 0.5 (maximum value) + 1 = 1.5
(http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/images/Sirius%20Transit%20Data%20-%201992%20to%201993.jpg)
One leap second for 1993: 0.8 (maximum value) + 1 = 1.8
(http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/images/Sirius%20Transit%20Data%20-%201993%20to%201994.jpg)
One leap second for 1994: 1 (maximum value) + 1 = 2
(http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/images/Sirius%20Transit%20Data%20-%201994%20to%201998.jpg)
Leap seconds for the years 1995, 1997, 1998
0.5 (maximum value) + 1 = 1.5
(http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/images/Sirius%20Transit%20Data%20-%201998%20to%202007.jpg)
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.
In fact, let's add the yearly values for the data of the experiment and compare them with the 52 seconds theoretical value (2.6 s x 20 years).
Total = 20.2 seconds
A discrepancy/difference of 31.8 seconds.
For the period 1999-2004 (no leap seconds), the data never exceeded 0.5 seconds.
That is, if we compare the theoretical value (2.6 x 6 = 15.6 seconds) with what actually recorded in real time (3.5 seconds) we can see that there is difference of 12.1 seconds, totally unaccounted for.
https://web.archive.org/web/20100305042618/http://www.siriusresearchgroup.com/diagrams/SiriusTransitObservations.shtml
http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/SiriusResearch.shtml
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
Now, let us go back to the precise calculations.
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.
I have direct and undeniable proofs at my disposal, while you are playing video games with Stellarium and SIMBAD.
-
In order for you to be correct, the catalog data that has been relied upon by many knowledgeable people operating precision equipment, would have to be significantly wrong.
It is significantly wrong since it relies upon the wrong astronomical context: heliocentrism.
Why do you keep posting the same old . . . . ? Do think that by repeating it often enough it will seem more credible.
Not likely that we would fall for anything from someone who could claim from these photos
Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun « on: February 10, 2008, 12:28:26 AM » (http://).
(http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_crop.jpg) and (http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_50.jpg)
that There are no 149.000.000 million kilometers between the Sun and the Earth; as these photographs clearly show, right behind the ISS/Atlantis is the Sun, at just a few kilometers (or even less) in the background.
Between the ISS/Atlantis and the Sun are only a few kilometers and not the 148.999.600 kilometers we have been lied to with.
If you deduce these heights from those photos, you must be totally devoid of any 3-D perception, like most flat earthers.
But, of course, you are significantly wrong since you rely upon the wrong astronomical context:neo-Flat Earthism.
"Neo" because the ancient Babylonians and Chinese were flat-earthers, but they had a much more realistic model than you.
Don't waste you time with reams of copy-pasta, I guess you know about water and duck's backs and delete keys.
-
Everything comes down to this issue: does the Earth orbit the Sun, or does the Sun orbit above the flat surface of the Earth?
In the geocentrical version of the universe, precession is explained by the fact that it is the stars/solar system themselves which are subjected to this kind of motion.
The Earth does not undergo axial precession.
If the Earth is stationary, and precession has a very different explanation, then yes both the Stellarium software and the SIMBAD database are simple video games, nothing more.
The ORBITAL solar gravitational potential effect is not being registered by the GPS satellites' clocks.
Please enlighten yourself:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846706#msg1846706
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.
That is why your presentation using the Stellarium/SIMBAD arguments are useless.
The Earth is not orbiting the Sun at all.
The orbital solar gravitational potential is missing.
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.
This is a basic fact of science, completely ignored by the creators of the Stellarium software or by the authors of the SIMBAD database.
As if this wasn't enough, the ORBITAL Sagnac effect is also missing: GPS satellites do not register/record this effect at all, which is much larger in magnitude than the rotational Sagnac.
Please convince yourself:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1917978#msg1917978
(https://s4.postimg.org/4oc5mwe8t/sa4.jpg)
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.
Then, you have a huge problem on your hands.
Since BOTH the orbital solar gravitational potential effect and the orbital Sagnac effect are missing, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled.
This means that the existence of ether is proven 100%.
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.
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.
I have proven to you that the Earth does not orbit the Sun, which means that the Stellarium software and the SIMBAD database are video games, based on the false heliocentrical hypothesis.
If you want anybody to even look in your direction, you are going to have to explain the missing orbital solar gravitational potential effect and the missing orbital Sagnac effect.
Again, can you quote any of the scientists who you claim prove the earth is stationary, actually saying 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.
Relax Sandyman.... news had just come in that had confirmed the earth is a sphere, perpetual
Motion does not exist and history as we know it has been ratified. So all is good.
Don't you find it strange that you quote scientists and historical sources in one breath..... then in the next one dismiss both science and history.... don't you find that strange. It appears that any reference no matter how dubious they are but support your 'views' are according to you are ok.....but those that are opposed to what you believe are work of the devil. Do you not see a pattern developing here that points to you operating on a 'belief first' mode...... have a belief then find stuff that if distorted a bit might be used to support it. Stuff you don't like or find difficult to explain; Newton, Maxwell, Einstien, Pauli......most everyone... is rejected out of hand.
-
Relax Sandyman.... news had just come in that had confirmed the earth is a sphere, perpetual
Motion does not exist and history as we know it has been ratified. So all is good.
Don't you find it strange that you quote scientists and historical sources in one breath..... then in the next one dismiss both science and history.... don't you find that strange. It appears that any reference no matter how dubious they are but support your 'views' are according to you are ok.....but those that are opposed to what you believe are work of the devil. Do you not see a pattern developing here that points to you operating on a 'belief first' mode...... have a belief then find stuff that if distorted a bit might be used to support it. Stuff you don't like or find difficult to explain; Newton, Maxwell, Einstien, Pauli......most everyone... is rejected out of hand.
The earth is spherically shaped. I addressed this question to all flat earthers in the world :
Dear flat earthers, tell me the name of one (JUST ONE) prominent western scientist (who was born in the last 2500 years) who believed that the earth is flat? Can you imagine conspiracy of that scale? Is the conspiracy of such magnitude even possible, what do you think? You see, if you are ignorant you don't have to be stupid, also...wake up...the earth is round and motionless...
Aviation and gyros still bother me, but the evidence in favor of the round earth is overwhelming...
However, the earth is at rest, no doubts about that!
-
All of you have been warned against using the quote trees unnecessarily, right?
Maxwell
The original set of ether equations published by J.C. Maxwell in 1861 are invariant under Galilean transformations, which makes STR/GTR null and void:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1918701#msg1918701 (five consecutive messages)
As Boney M once said
"The world is just a great big non Euclidean onion"
Two of my favorite BM songs...
-
In order for you to be correct, the catalog data that has been relied upon by many knowledgeable people operating precision equipment, would have to be significantly wrong.
It is significantly wrong
Yet it works anyway. That would show that you are incorrect. Thanks for sharing your opinion, though.
since it relies upon the wrong astronomical context: heliocentrism.
In geocentrism, the precession is due to other causes, the motion of the entire solar system/stars.
That is why I told you that everything comes to down to this very issue: does the Earth orbit the Sun or is it the other way around?
That's easy: the former. This is well established even though you'd prefer it to be the latter. Actually, both sun and earth orbit the barycenter of the solar system, but that's so close to the center of the sun that "the earth orbits the sun" is an adequate description for most descriptions.
Your avoidance of the issues presented here speaks volumes: you have chosen to live in a fantasy world of your own.
Now that's funny!
Remember, I'm the one presenting tested and verified data. You're doing all you can to obfuscate and avoid doing exactly that; the reason is obvious: you have no tested and verified data that shows what you claim.
You need to wake up.
The ORBITAL solar gravitational potential effect is not being registered by the GPS satellites' clocks.
<same ol' irrelevant stuff>
where's your data that shows the published star catalogs are grossly wrong?
Let us examine the entire interval of 20 years using your figure of 2.6 seconds.
<gratuitous repetition of the gratuitous collection of graphs and tabulation of leap seconds presented here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71409.msg1940153#msg1940153)>
In fact, let's add the yearly values for the data of the experiment and compare them with the 52 seconds theoretical value (2.6 s x 20 years).
Total = 20.2 seconds
A discrepancy/difference of 31.8 seconds.
For the period 1999-2004 (no leap seconds), the data never exceeded 0.5 seconds.
That is, if we compare the theoretical value (2.6 x 6 = 15.6 seconds) with what actually recorded in real time (3.5 seconds) we can see that there is difference of 12.1 seconds, totally unaccounted for.
https://web.archive.org/web/20100305042618/http://www.siriusresearchgroup.com/diagrams/SiriusTransitObservations.shtml
http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/SiriusResearch.shtml
At least this addresses the topic of discussion.
Here's the deal:
We have Mr. Homann's assertion that Sirius' location in celestial coordinates did not precess at all over the period 1988 - 2008 (or did much more slowly than expected).
We have star catalogs from 1950 and 2000 that show about 0.5° of precession over 50 years. The locations for Sirius in those catalogs has been continuously tested by use and found reliable.
How can we reconcile these conflicting results?
Here's my list in order of decreasing probability:
1) The catalogs are correct. The model of precession is correct. Mr. Homann's data and analysis are simply in error (or falsified, but there's no compelling reason to assume that; see Hanlon's Razor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor)).
2) At least one of the catalogs is incorrect and Sirius is not where it was (or is) expected to be.
3) Both catalogs are correct, but Sirius' precession is highly irregular, much faster during the period from 1950 to the beginning of Mr. Homann's observations, then slowing down or stopping altogether during his period of investigation.
Both 2) and 3) are unlikely to the point of impossibility because there are no reports of oddities like this from the astronomical community at large; the discrepancies would be obvious to professionals and reasonably-well equipped amateurs, as well as anyone else calibrating equipment using astrometric techniques.
The idea that Mr. Homann's data and analysis, which contains known and suspected errors and flaws, and was not peer reviewed (which would likely confirm the suspected flaws, or turn up other errors and shortcomings), as already discussed, is more reliable than decades of work by the entire professional and amateur astronomical community, other scientists, and engineers, is simply untenable.
Unless you can offer another possibility, 1) is the only explanation that has any realistic chance of being correct.
So... do you have any evidence (not opinion) to support any other possibility? Yes or no? If yes, let's see it.
Heliocentrists have to explain the acceleration of the rate of precession, and also have to account for these facts:
<repeated list of "facts">
No they don't. It's already been explained. Here's a summary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession#Values).
Besides, if the precession rate is accelerating, that immediately takes item 3) from the list above out of consideration.
Now, let us go back to the precise calculations.
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.
Already discussed. Nothing new. [Apologies for the lack of a direct link to the previous discussion. The search and history functions are still disabled.]
Precession has nothing to do with the law of attractive gravitation.
Opinion.
I have direct and undeniable proofs at my disposal, while you are playing video games with Stellarium and SIMBAD.
"Direct and undeniable proofs?" Where? You express a single experiment with known errors and questionable validity, plenty of opinions, and misinterpretations or deliberate misrepresentations. That's all. Well... there's also been a frantic attempt to change the subject to anything else.
I have presented data from published catalogs, well-tested by a large community over the better part of a century, consistently showing that Sirius precesses no differently than other stars, exactly as expected; you have not made any credible case that demonstrates that this is wrong, just diversion, opinion, and a single unreliable study. You simply have no case at all.
-
alphaomega, relax.
You've presented your case, I have done the same.
I fully trust the readers to discover which version is true.
-
sandokhan, I believe in Politics they would call this the Filibuster... I'm sure you know what that means... In case you don't, let me copy and paste the entire law section on it... I'll Double Space and Increase the font size for your convenience... IF YOU DO NOT READ ALL OF THIS... THEN MY POINT IS PROVEN... and if you do read it... Find out what that means Somewhere in the text presented below....
This shall be my first post of many on Filibustering...
fil·i·bus·ter
ˈfiləˌbəstər/Submit
noun
1. an action such as a prolonged speech that obstructs progress in a legislative assembly while not technically contravening the required procedures.
"it was defeated by a Senate filibuster in June"
synonyms: stonewalling, delaying tactics, procrastination, obstruction, temporizing
"many hours in committee are characterized by filibuster"
2. historical
a person engaging in unauthorized warfare against a foreign country.
verb
1. act in an obstructive manner in a legislature, especially by speaking at inordinate length.
"several measures were killed by Republican filibustering"
Filibuster and Cloture Cartoon of Senate Filibuster, ca. 1870s
Using the filibuster to delay or block legislative action has a long history. The term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s, when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill.
In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster. As the House of Representatives grew in numbers, however, revisions to the House rules limited debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.
In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, he threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate.
Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as "cloture." The new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a 60 day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or 60 of the current one hundred senators.
Many Americans are familiar with the filibuster conducted by Jimmy Stewart, playing Senator Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra's film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but there have been some famous filibusters in the real-life Senate as well. During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for "pot-likkers." Long once held the Senate floor for 15 hours. The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
1. Origins of the filibuster [1]
We have many received wisdoms about the filibuster. However, most of them are not true. The most persistent myth is that the filibuster was part of the founding fathers’ constitutional vision for the Senate: It is said that the upper chamber was designed to be a slow-moving, deliberative body that cherished minority rights. In this version of history, the filibuster was a critical part of the framers’ Senate.
However, when we dig into the history of Congress, it seems that the filibuster was created by mistake. Let me explain.
The House and Senate rulebooks in 1789 were nearly identical. Both rulebooks included what is known as the “previous question” motion. The House kept their motion, and today it empowers a simple majority to cut off debate. The Senate no longer has that rule on its books.
What happened to the Senate’s rule? In 1805, Vice President Aaron Burr was presiding over the Senate (freshly indicted for the murder of Alexander Hamilton), and he offered this advice. He said something like this. You are a great deliberative body. But a truly great Senate would have a cleaner rule book. Yours is a mess. You have lots of rules that do the same thing. And he singles out the previous question motion. Now, today, we know that a simple majority in the House can use the rule to cut off debate. But in 1805, neither chamber used the rule that way. Majorities were still experimenting with it. And so when Aaron Burr said, get rid of the previous question motion, the Senate didn’t think twice. When they met in 1806, they dropped the motion from the Senate rule book.
Why? Not because senators in 1806 sought to protect minority rights and extended debate. They got rid of the rule by mistake: Because Aaron Burr told them to.
Once the rule was gone, senators still did not filibuster. Deletion of the rule made possible the filibuster because the Senate no longer had a rule that could have empowered a simple majority to cut off debate. It took several decades until the minority exploited the lax limits on debate, leading to the first real-live filibuster in 1837.
2. The Not-So-Golden Age of the Senate
Conventional treatments of the Senate glorify the 19th century as the “golden age” of the Senate: We say that filibusters were reserved for the great issues of the day and that all senators cherished extended debate. That view misreads history in two ways.
First, there were very few filibusters before the Civil War. Why so few filibusters? First, the Senate operated by majority rule; senators expected matters would be brought to a vote. Second, the Senate did not have a lot of work to do in those years, so there was plenty of time to wait out the opposition. Third, voting coalitions in the early Senate were not nearly as polarized as they would later become.
All that changed by mid-century. The Senate grew larger and more polarized along party lines, it had more work to do, and people started paying attention to it. By the 1880s, almost every Congress began to experience at least one bout of obstructionism: for instance, over civil rights, election law, nominations, even appointment of Senate officers—only some of these “the great issues of the day.”
There is a second reason that this was not a golden age: When filibusters did occur, leaders tried to ban them. Senate leaders tried and failed repeatedly over the course of the 19th and early 20th centuries to reinstate the previous question motion. More often than not, senators gave up their quest for reform when they saw that opponents would kill it by filibuster—putting the majority’s other priorities at risk. Unable to reform Senate rules, leaders developed other innovations such as unanimous consent agreements. These seem to have been a fallback option for managing a chamber prone to filibusters.
3. The adoption of cloture
Why was reform possible in 1917 when it had eluded leaders for decades? And why did the Senate choose supermajority cloture rather than simple majority cloture? [2]
First, the conditions for reform. After several unsuccessful efforts to create a cloture rule in the early 1900s, we saw a perfect storm in March of 1917: a pivotal issue, a president at his bully pulpit, an attentive press, and a public engaged in the fight for reform. At the outset of World War I, Republican senators successfully filibustered President Wilson’s proposal to arm merchant ships—leading Wilson in March of 1917 to famously brand the obstructionists as a “little group of willful men.” He demanded the Senate create a cloture rule, the press dubbed the rule a “war measure,” and the public burned senators in effigy around the country.
Adoption of Rule 22 occurred because Wilson and the Democrats framed the rule as a matter of national security. They fused procedure with policy, and used the bully pulpit to shame senators into reform.
Second, why did senators select a supermajority rule? A bipartisan committee was formed to negotiate the form of the rule. Five of the six Democrats supported a simple majority rule; one Republican supported a supermajority rule, and one Republican preferred no rule. Negotiators cut a deal: Cloture would require two-thirds of senators voting. Opponents promised not to block or weaken the proposal; supporters promised to drop their own proposal for simple majority cloture—a proposal supported by at least 40 senators. The cloture rule was then adopted, 76-3.
4. Conclusions
We can draw at least three lessons from this history:
First, the history of extended debate in the Senate belies the received wisdom that the filibuster was an original, constitutional feature of the Senate. The filibuster is more accurately viewed as the unanticipated consequence of an early change to Senate rules.
Second, reform of Senate rules is possible. There are conditions that can lead a bipartisan supermajority to agree to change Senate rules. The minority has often held the upper hand in these contests, however, given the high barrier to reform imposed by inherited Senate rules.
EARTH IS ROUND
Third, and finally, the Senate adopted a supermajority rule not because senators were uniformly committed to the filibuster. Senators chose a two-thirds rule because a minority blocked more radical reform. Short-term, pragmatic considerations almost always shape contests over reform of Senate rules.
A filibuster in the United States Senate is a dilatory or obstructive tactic used in the United States Senate to prevent a measure from being brought to a vote. The most common form of filibuster occurs when one or more senators attempts to delay or block a vote on a bill by extending debate on the measure. The Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish, and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn"[1] (usually 60 out of 100) bring the debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII.
The ability to block a measure through extended debate was an inadvertent side effect of an 1806 rule change, and was infrequently used during much of the 19th and 20th centuries. In 1970, the Senate adopted a "two-track" procedure to prevent filibusters from stopping all other Senate business. The minority then felt politically safer in threatening filibusters more regularly, which became normalized over time to the point that 60 votes are now required to end debate on nearly every controversial legislative item. As a result, the modern "filibuster" rarely manifests as an extended floor debate. Instead, "the contemporary Senate has morphed into a 60-vote institution — the new normal for approving measures or matters — a fundamental transformation from earlier eras."[2] This effective supermajority requirement has had very significant policy and political impacts on Congress and the other branches of government.
Beginning in 1917 with the cloture rule and especially since the 1970s, there have been efforts to limit the practice. These include laws that explicitly limit Senate debate, notably the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 that created the budget reconciliation process. More recently, changes in 2013 and 2017 now require only a simple majority to invoke cloture on nominations, although legislation still requires 60 votes.
One or more senators may still occasionally hold the floor for an extended period, sometimes without the advance knowledge of the Senate leadership. However, these "filibusters" usually result only in brief delays and are not outcome-determinative, since the Senate's ability to act ultimately depends upon whether there are sufficient votes to invoke cloture and proceed to a final vote on passage. However, such brief delays can be politically relevant when exercised shortly before a major deadline (such as avoiding a government shutdown) or before a Senate recess.
Contents [hide]
1 History
1.1 Constitutional design: simple majority voting
1.2 Accidental creation and early use of the filibuster
1.3 The emergence of cloture (1917-1969)
1.4 The two-track system, 60-vote rule, and rise of the routine filibuster (1970 onward)
1.5 Recent efforts to limit filibusters
1.5.1 Minor 2013 changes
1.5.2 Abolition for nominations, 2013 & 2017
2 Exceptions
3 Policy and political effects
3.1 Institutional effects
3.2 Major presidential policy initiatives
3.2.1 Bill Clinton
3.2.2 George W. Bush
3.2.3 Barack Obama
3.2.4 Donald Trump
4 Process for limiting or eliminating the filibuster
5 Other forms of filibuster
6 Longest filibusters
7 See also
8 References
History[edit]
Constitutional design: simple majority voting[edit]
Although not explicitly mandated, the Constitution and its framers clearly envisioned that simple majority voting would be used to conduct business. The Constitution provides, for example, that a majority of each House constitutes a quorum to do business.[3] Meanwhile, a small number of super-majority requirements were explicitly included in the original document, including conviction on impeachment charges (2/3 of Senate)[4], expelling a member of Congress (2/3 of the chamber in question)[5], overriding presidential vetoes (2/3 of both Houses)[6], ratifying treaties (2/3 of Senate)[7], and proposing constitutional amendments (2/3 of both Houses).[8] Through negative textual implication, the Constitution also gives a simple majority the power to set procedural rules: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."[9]
Commentaries in The Federalist Papers confirm this understanding. In Federalist No. 58, the Constitution's primary drafter James Madison defended the document against routine super-majority requirements, either for a quorum or a "decision":
"It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution, cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale.
"In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences."[10]
In Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton described super-majority requirements as being one of the main problems with the previous Articles of Confederation, and identified several evils which would result from such a requirement:
"To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. ... The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.[11]
Accidental creation and early use of the filibuster[edit]
In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing senators to move the previous question (by simple majority vote), which meant ending debate and proceeding to a vote. But in 1806, the Senate's presiding officer, Vice President Aaron Burr argued that the previous-question motion was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated.[12] The Senate agreed and modified its rules.[12] Because it created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, filibusters became theoretically possible.
Nevertheless, in the early 19th century the principle of simple-majority voting in the Senate was well established, and particularly valued by Southern slave-holding states. New states were admitted to the Union in pairs to preserve the sectional balance in the Senate, most notably in the Missouri Compromise of 1820.
Until the late 1830s, however, the filibuster remained a solely theoretical option, never actually exercised. The first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837.[13] In 1841, a defining moment came during debate on a bill to charter the Second Bank of the United States. Senator Henry Clay tried to end the debate via majority vote, and Senator William R. King threatened a filibuster, saying that Clay "may make his arrangements at his boarding house for the winter." Other senators sided with King, and Clay backed down.[12]
-
The two-track system, 60-vote rule, and rise of the routine filibuster (1970 onward)[edit]
After a series of filibusters in the 1960s over civil rights legislation, the Senate put a "two-track system" into place in 1970 under the leadership of Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and Majority Whip Robert Byrd. Before this system was introduced, a filibuster would stop the Senate from moving on to any other legislative activity. Tracking allows the majority leader—with unanimous consent or the agreement of the minority leader—to have more than one bill pending on the floor as unfinished business. Under the two-track system, the Senate can have two or more pieces of legislation pending on the floor simultaneously by designating specific periods during the day when each one will be considered.[27][28]
Number of cloture motions filed, voted on, and invoked by the U.S. Senate since 1917.
Cloture voting in the United States Senate since 1917.[29]
The notable side effect of this change was that by no longer bringing Senate business to a complete halt, filibusters on particular legislation became politically easier for the minority to sustain.[30][31][32][33] As a result, the number of filibusters began increasing rapidly, eventually leading to the modern era in which an effective supermajority requirement exists to pass legislation, with no practical requirement that the minority party actually hold the floor or extend debate.
In 1975, the Senate revised its cloture rule so that three-fifths of sworn senators (60 votes out of 100) could limit debate, except for changing Senate rules which still requires a two-thirds majority of those present and voting to invoke cloture.[34][35] However, by returning to an absolute number of all Senators (60) rather than a proportion of those present and voting, the change also made any filibusters easier to sustain on the floor by a small number of senators from the minority party without requiring the presence of their minority colleagues. This further reduced the majority's leverage to force an issue through extended debate.
The Senate also experimented with a rule that removed the need to speak on the floor in order to filibuster (a "talking filibuster"), thus allowing for "virtual filibusters".[36] Another tactic, the post-cloture filibuster—which used points of order to delay legislation because they were not counted as part of the limited time allowed for debate—was rendered ineffective by a rule change in 1979.[37][38][39]
As the filibuster has evolved from a rare practice that required holding the floor for extended periods into a routine 60-vote supermajority requirement, Senate leaders have increasingly used cloture motions as a regular tool to manage the flow of business, often even in the absence of a threatened filibuster. Thus, the presence or absence of cloture attempts is not necessarily a reliable indicator of the presence or absence of a threatened filibuster. Because filibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is present is always a matter of judgment.[40]
Recent efforts to limit filibusters[edit]
In 2005, a group of Republican senators led by Majority Leader Bill Frist proposed having the presiding officer, Vice President Dick Cheney, rule that a filibuster on judicial nominees was unconstitutional, as it was inconsistent with the President's power to name judges with the advice and consent of a simple majority of senators.[41][42] This was a response to the Democrats' threat to filibuster some judicial nominees of President George W. Bush. Senator Trent Lott, the junior senator from Mississippi, used the word "nuclear" to describe the plan, and so it became known as the "nuclear option".[43]
With Republicans effectively controlling the Senate 55-45, a group of 14 senators—seven Democrats and seven Republicans, collectively dubbed the "Gang of 14"—reached an agreement to defuse the conflict. The seven Democrats promised not to filibuster Bush's nominees except under "extraordinary circumstances", while the seven Republicans promised to oppose the "nuclear option" unless they thought a nominee was being filibustered under non-extraordinary circumstances. Thus, there would be 62 votes to invoke cloture in most cases, and 52 votes to oppose the nuclear option.[44][45][46] This agreement was successful in the short term, but it expired in January 2007, at the end of the second session of the 109th United States Congress.[47]
From April to June 2010, under Democratic control, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration held a series of monthly public hearings on the history and use of the filibuster in the Senate.[48] In response to the use of the filibuster in the 111th Congress, all Democratic senators returning to the 112th Congress signed a petition to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) requesting that the filibuster be reformed, including abolishing secret holds and reducing the amount of time allotted for post-cloture debate.
Minor 2013 changes[edit]
During the 113th Congress, two packages of amendments were adopted on January 25, 2013.[49] Changes to standing orders affecting just the 2013–14 Congress (Senate Resolution 15) were passed by a vote of 78 to 16, allowing Reid, the majority leader, to prohibit a filibuster on a motion to begin consideration of a bill.[49] Changes to the permanent Senate rules (Senate Resolution 16) were passed by a vote of 86 to 9.[49][50]
The changes removed the 60-vote requirement to begin debate on legislation, and allowed the minority two amendments to measures that reached the Senate floor. This change was implemented as a standing order that expired at the end of the term in which it was passed.[51][52] The new rules also reduced the amount of time allowed for debate after a motion to proceed from 30 hours to four hours. Additionally, they stated that a filibuster on a motion to proceed could be blocked with a petition signed by eight members of the minority, including the minority leader.[52] For district court nominations, the new rules reduced the maximum time between cloture and a confirmation vote from 30 hours to two hours.[52] Finally, if senators wished to block a bill or nominee after the motion to proceed, they had to be present in the Senate and debate.[53][51]
Despite these changes, 60 votes were still required to overcome a filibuster, and the "silent filibuster"—in which a senator can delay a bill even if they leave the floor—remained in place.[53][51]
Abolition for nominations, 2013 & 2017[edit]
On November 21, 2013, the Senate used the so-called "nuclear option," voting 52–48 — with all Republicans and three Democrats opposed — to eliminate the use of the filibuster on executive branch nominees and judicial nominees, except to the Supreme Court. At the time of the vote, there were 59 executive branch nominees and 17 judicial nominees awaiting confirmation.[54]
The Democrats' stated motivation was what they saw as an expansion of filibustering by Republicans during the Obama administration, especially with respect to nominations for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[55][56] Republicans had asserted that the D.C. Circuit was underworked[54] and cited a need to cut costs by reducing the number of judges.[57] Democrats responded that Republicans had not raised these concerns earlier, when President Bush had made nominations to the court, and argued that the size of the court needed to be maintained because of the complexity of the cases it hears.[58][59] Senate Democrats who supported the "nuclear option" also did so out of frustration with filibusters of executive branch nominees for agencies such as the Federal Housing Finance Agency.[55]
In 2015, Republicans took control of the Senate and kept the 2013 rules in place.[60] Finally, on April 6, 2017, the Senate eliminated the sole remaining exception to the 2013 change by invoking the "nuclear option" for Supreme Court nominees. This was done in order to allow a simple majority to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The vote to change the rules was 52 to 48 along party lines.[61]
Exceptions[edit]
The only bills that are not currently subject to effective 60-vote requirements are those considered under provisions of law that limit time for debating them.[62] These limits on debate allow the Senate to hold a simple-majority vote on final passage without obtaining the 60 votes normally needed to close debate. As a result, many major legislative actions in recent decades have been adopted through one of these methods.
Reconciliation is a procedure created in 1974 as part of the congressional budget process. In brief, the annual budget process begins with adoption of a budget resolution (passed by simple majority in each house, not signed by President, does not carry force of law) that sets overall funding levels for the government. The Senate may then consider a budget reconciliation bill, not subject to filibuster, that reconciles funding amounts in any annual appropriations bills with the amounts specified in the budget resolution. However, under the Byrd rule no non-budgetary "extraneous matter" may be considered in a reconciliation bill. The presiding officer, relying always (as of 2017) on the opinion of the Senate parliamentarian, determines whether an item is extraneous, and a 60-vote majority is required to include such material in a reconciliation bill.
The Congressional Review Act, adopted in 1995, allows Congress to review and repeal administrative regulations adopted by the Executive Branch within 60 legislative days. This procedure will most typically be used successfully shortly after a party change in the presidency. It was used once in 2001 to repeal an ergonomics rule promulgated under Bill Clinton), was not used in 2009, and was used 14 times in 2017 to repeal various regulations adopted in the final year of the Barack Obama presidency.
Policy and political effects[edit]
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
The modern-era filibuster — and the effective 60-vote supermajority requirement it has led to — have had very major policy and political effects, both institutionally and on specific major policy initiatives from Presidents of both parties.
Institutional effects[edit]
Congress. The supermajority rule has made it very difficult, often impossible, for Congress to pass any but the most non-controversial legislation in recent decades. During times of unified party control, majorities have attempted (with varying levels of success) to enact their major policy priorities through the budget reconciliation process, resulting in legislation constrained by budget rules. Meanwhile, public approval for Congress as an institution has fallen to its lowest levels ever, with large segments of the public seeing the institution as ineffective.[citation needed] Shifting majorities of both parties — and their supporters — have often been frustrated as major policy priorities articulated in political campaigns are unable to obtain passage following an election.
The Presidency. Presidents of both parties have increasingly filled the policymaking vacuum with expanded use of executive power, including executive orders in areas that had traditionally been handled through legislation. For example, Barack Obama effected major changes in immigration policy by issuing work permits to some undocumented workers,[citation needed] while Donald Trump has issued several significant executive orders since taking office in 2017 along with undoing many of Obama's initiatives.[citation needed] As a result, policy in these areas is increasingly determined by executive preference, and is more easily changed after elections, rather than through more permanent legislative policy.
Judiciary. The Supreme Court's caseload has declined significantly, with various commenters suggesting that the decline in major legislation has been a major cause.[63] Meanwhile, more policy issues are resolved judicially without action by Congress — despite the existence of potential simple majority support in the Senate — on topics such as the legalization of same-sex marriage.[citation needed]
Major presidential policy initiatives[edit]
The implied threat of a filibuster — and the resulting 60-vote requirement in the modern era — have had major impacts on the ability of recent Presidents to enact their top legislative priorities into law. The effects of the 60-vote requirement are most apparent in periods where the President and both Houses of Congress are controlled by the same political party, typically early in a presidential term.
Bill Clinton[edit]
In 1993-94, President Bill Clinton enjoyed Democratic majorities in both chambers of the 103rd Congress, including a 57-43 advantage in the Senate. Yet the Clinton health care plan of 1993, formulated by a task force led by First Lady Hillary Clinton, was unable to pass in part due to the filibuster. As early as April 1993, a memo to the task force noted that "While the substance is obviously controversial, there is apparently great disquiet in the Capitol over whether we understand the interactivity between reconciliation and health, procedurally, and in terms of timing and counting votes for both measures...."[64]
George W. Bush[edit]
In 2001, President George W. Bush was unable to obtain any Democratic support for his tax cut proposals. As a result, the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were each passed using reconciliation, which required that the tax cuts expire within the 10-year budget window to avoid violating the Byrd rule in the Senate. The status of the tax cuts would remain unresolved until the late 2012 " fiscal cliff," with a significant portion of the cuts being made permanent by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Barack Obama.
Barack Obama[edit]
In 2009-10, President Barack Obama briefly enjoyed an effective 60-vote Democratic majority (including independents) in the Senate during the 111th Congress. During that time period, the Senate passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as the ACA or "Obamacare," on Dec. 24, 2009 by a vote of 60-39 (after invoking cloture by the same 60-39 margin). However, Obama's proposal to create a public health insurance option was removed from the health care legislation because it could not command 60-vote support.
House Democrats did not approve of all aspects of the Senate bill, but after 60-vote Senate control was permanently lost in February 2010 due to the election of Scott Brown to fill the seat of the late Ted Kennedy, House Democrats decided to pass the Senate bill intact and it became law. Several House-desired modifications to the Senate bill — those sufficient to pass scrutiny under the Byrd rule — were then made under reconciliation via the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, which was enacted days later following a 56-43 vote in the Senate.
The near-60-vote Senate majority that Democrats held throughout the 111th Congress was also critical to passage of other major Obama initiatives, including the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (passed 60-38, two Republicans voting yes)[citation needed] and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (passed 60-39, three Republicans voting yes).[citation needed] However, the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act, which would have created a cap-and-trade system and established a national renewable electricity standard to combat climate change, never received a Senate floor vote with Majority Leader Harry Reid saying "it's easy to count to 60."[65]
Donald Trump[edit]
In 2017, President Donald Trump and the 115th Congress have envisioned a strategy to use an FY17 reconciliation bill to repeal Obamacare, followed by an FY18 reconciliation bill to pass tax reform. A reconciliation strategy is being pursued since nearly all Democrats are expected to oppose these policies, making a filibuster threat insurmountable due to the 60-vote requirement. The House passed the American Health Care Act of 2017 by a vote of 217-213 on May 4, 2017, and the Senate Parliamentarian must rule on whether any provisions must be stricken (as "extraneous" non-budgetary matter) under the Byrd rule before proceeding under reconciliation.
Process for limiting or eliminating the filibuster[edit]
According to the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), Senate rules can be changed by a simple majority vote. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change could itself be filibustered, requiring two-thirds of senators who are present and voting to end debate. (This differs from the usual requirement for three-fifths of sworn senators.)[1]
-
However, despite this two-thirds requirement being written into the Senate rules, any Senator may attempt to nullify a Senate rule by making a point of order that the rule is unconstitutional, or just that the meaning of the rule should not be followed. The presiding officer is generally expected to rule in favor of the rules of the Senate, but any ruling from the chair may be appealed and overturned by a simple majority of Senators. This happened in 2013, when Harry Reid of the Democratic Party made a point of order that "the vote on cloture under rule XXII for all nominations other than for the Supreme Court of the United States is by majority vote." Although there is no simple majority vote provision in the text of rule XXII,[66] Reid's point of order was sustained by a 52-48 vote, and that ruling established a Senate precedent that cloture on nominations other than those for the Supreme Court requires only a simple majority.[1] On April 6, 2017, that precedent was further changed by Mitch McConnell and the Republican majority to include Supreme Court nominations.[67][68]
Other forms of filibuster[edit]
While talking out a measure is the most common form of filibuster in the Senate, other means of delaying and killing legislation are available. Because the Senate routinely conducts business by unanimous consent, one member can create at least some delay by objecting to the request. In some cases, such as considering a bill or resolution on the day it is introduced or brought from the House, the delay can be as long as a day.[69] However, because this is a legislative day, not a calendar day, the majority can mitigate it by briefly adjourning.[70]
In many cases, an objection to a request for unanimous consent will compel a vote. While forcing a single vote may not be an effective delaying tool, the cumulative effect of several votes, which take at least 15 minutes apiece, can be substantial. In addition to objecting to routine requests, senators can force votes through motions to adjourn and through quorum calls. Quorum calls are meant to establish the presence or absence of a constitutional quorum, but senators routinely use them to waste time while waiting for the next speaker to come to the floor or for leaders to negotiate off the floor. In those cases, a senator asks for unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. If another senator objects, the clerk must continue to call the roll of senators, just as they would with a vote. If a call shows no quorum, the minority can force another vote by moving to request or compel the attendance of absent senators. Finally, senators can force votes by moving to adjourn, or by raising specious points of order and appealing the ruling of the chair.
The most effective methods of delay are those that force the majority to invoke cloture multiple times on the same measure. The most common example is to filibuster the motion to proceed to a bill, then filibuster the bill itself. This forces the majority to go through the entire cloture process twice in a row. If, as is common, the majority seeks to pass a substitute amendment to the bill, a further cloture procedure is needed for the amendment.
The Senate is particularly vulnerable to serial cloture votes when it and the House have passed different versions of the same bill and want to go to conference (i.e., appoint a special committee of both chambers to merge the bills). Normally, the majority asks for unanimous consent to:
Insist on its amendment(s), or disagree with the House's amendments
Request, or agree to, a conference
Authorize the presiding officer to appoint members of the special committee
If the minority objects, those motions are debatable (and therefore subject to a filibuster) and divisible (meaning the minority can force them to be debated, and filibustered, separately).[69] Additionally, after the first two motions pass, but before the third does, senators can offer an unlimited number of motions to give the special committee members non-binding instructions, which are themselves debatable, amendable, and divisible.[71] As a result, a determined minority can cause a great deal of delay before a conference.
Longest filibusters[edit]
Below is a table of the ten longest filibusters to take place in the United States Senate since 1900.
Longest filibusters in the U.S. Senate since 1900[72][73]
Senator Date (began) Measure Hours & minutes
1 Strom Thurmond (D-SC) August 28, 1957 Civil Rights Act of 1957 24:18
2 Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY) October 17, 1986 Defense Authorization Act (1987), amendment 23:30
3 Wayne Morse (I-OR) April 24, 1953 Submerged Lands Act (1953) 22:26
4 Ted Cruz (R-TX) September 24, 2013 Continuing Appropriations Act (2014) 21:18
5 Robert M. La Follette, Sr. (R-WI) May 29, 1908 Aldrich–Vreeland Act (1908) 18:23
6 William Proxmire (D-WI) September 28, 1981 Debt ceiling increase (1981) 16:12
7 Huey Long (D-LA) June 12, 1935 National Industrial Recovery Act (1933), amendment 15:30
8 Jeff Merkley (D-OR) April 4, 2017 Opposition to Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court confirmation 15:28
9 Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY) October 5, 1992 Revenue Act (1992), amendment 15:14
10 Chris Murphy (D-CT) June 15, 2016 Nominally H.R. 2578; supporting gun control measures 14:50
-
Brilliant.
-
Enjoy (courtesy of Boots):
-
and FURTHERMORE!
Earth–Moon–Earth communication
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from EME (communications))
Earth–Moon–Earth communication (EME), also known as moon bounce, is a radio communications technique that relies on the propagation of radio waves from an Earth-based transmitter directed via reflection from the surface of the Moon back to an Earth-based receiver.
History[edit]
The use of the Moon as a passive communications satellite was proposed by W.J. Bray of the British General Post Office in 1940. It was calculated that with the available microwave transmission powers and low noise receivers, it would be possible to beam microwave signals up from Earth and reflect off the Moon. It was thought that at least one voice channel would be possible.[1]
The "moon bounce" technique was developed in parallel by the United States military and the Hungarian group lead by Zoltán Bay in the years after World War II. The first successful reception of echoes off the Moon being carried out at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey on January 10, 1946 by John H. DeWitt as part of Project Diana.[2] It was followed by Zoltan Bay's group on February 6, 1946.[3] The Communication Moon Relay project that followed led to more practical uses, including a teletype link between the naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and United States Navy headquarters in Washington, DC. In the days before communications satellites, a link free of the vagaries of ionospheric propagation was revolutionary.
Later, the technique was used by non-military commercial users, and the first amateur detection of signals from the Moon took place in 1953.
Current EME communications[edit]
EME SSB Transmission
MENU0:00
A single sideband contact between IZ1BPN in Italy and PI9CAM at the Dwingeloo Radio Observatory. IZ1BPN's transmission is shifted up in pitch slightly to compensate for PI9CAM's transmission being Doppler Shifted down. At the end of IZ1BPN's transmission you can hear the echo of his signal returning from the Moon, again pitched down by Doppler Shift.
Problems playing this file? See media help.
Amateur radio (ham) operators utilize EME for two-way communications. EME presents significant challenges to amateur operators interested in working weak signal communications. Currently, EME provides the longest communications path any two stations on Earth can utilize for bi-directional communications.
Amateur operations use VHF, UHF and microwave frequencies. All amateur frequency bands from 50 MHz to 47 GHz have been used successfully, but most EME communications are on the 2 meter, 70-centimeter, or 23-centimeter bands. Common modulation modes utilized by amateurs are continuous wave with Morse Code, digital (JT65) and when the link budgets allow, voice.
Recent advances in digital signal processing have allowed EME contacts, admittedly with low data rate, to take place with powers in the order of 100 Watts and a single Yagi antenna.
World Moon Bounce Day, June 29, 2009, was created by Echoes of Apollo and celebrated worldwide as an event preceding the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon landing. A highlight of the celebrations was an interview via the Moon with Apollo 8 astronaut Bill Anders. He was also part of the backup crew for Apollo 11. The University of Tasmania in Australia with their 26m dish was able to bounce a data signal off the surface of the Moon which was received by a large dish in the Netherlands - Dwingeloo Radio Observatory. The data signal was successfully resolved back to data setting a world record for the lowest power data signal returned from the Moon with a transmit power of 3 milliwatts - about 1,000th of the power of a strong flashlight filament globe. The second World Moon Bounce Day was April 17, 2010 coinciding with the 40th anniversary of the conclusion of the Apollo 13 mission.
In October 2009 media artist Daniela de Paulis proposed to the CAMRAS radio amateur association based at the Dwingeloo Radio Observatory (NL) to use Moonbounce for a live image transmission performance. As a result of her proposal, in December 2009 CAMRAS radio operator Jan van Muijlwijk and radio operator Daniel Gautchi made the first image transmission via the Moon using the open source software MMSSTV. De Paulis called the innovative technology Visual Moonbounce and used it in several of her art projects. in particular a live performance called OPTICKS during which digital images are sent to the Moon and back in real time and projected live.[citation needed]
Echo delay and time spread[edit]
Radio waves propagate in vacuum at the speed of light c, exactly 299,792,458 m/s.
Propagation time to the Moon and back is therefore 2d/c
d is distance (average distance at any given time)
or about 2.4 s at perigee
or about 2.7 s at apogee
or about 2.56 s on average, but for message coding 2.25 s is used
The Moon is nearly spherical, and its radius corresponds to milliseconds of wave travel time. The trailing parts of an echo, reflected from irregular surface features near the edge of the lunar disk, are delayed from the leading edge by as much as twice this value.
Most of the Moon's surface appears relatively smooth at the typical microwave wavelengths used for amateur EME. Most amateurs do EME contacts below 6 GHz, and differences in the moon's reflectivity are somewhat hard to discern above 1 GHz.
Lunar reflections are by nature quasi-specular (like those from a shiny ball bearing). The power useful for communication is mostly reflected from a small region near the center of the disk.
The Moon is nearly spherical, with the reflection differential being the Moon's radius divided by the speed of light, ~5.8 ms (electromagnetic wave travel time).
The effective time spread of an echo amounts to no more than 0.1 ms.
There is one note with respect to antenna polarization: Reflections from a smooth surface preserve linear polarization but reverses the sense of circular polarizations.
At shorter wavelengths the lunar surface appears increasingly rough, so reflections at 10 GHz and above contain a significant Diffuse Component as well as a quasi-specular component.
The Diffuse Component is depolarized, and can be viewed as a source of low level system noise.
Significant portions of the Diffused Component arise from regions farther out toward the lunar rim. The median time spread can then be as much as several milliseconds.
In all practical cases, however, time spreading is small enough that it does not cause significant smearing of CW keying or intersymbol interference in the slowly keyed modulations commonly used for digital EME.
Faster message keying may encounter the Diffused Component as significant system noise.
EME Time Spreading does have one very significant effect. Signal components reflected from different parts of the lunar surface travel different distances and arrive at Earth with random phase relationships.
As the relative geometry of the
transmitting station
receiving station
reflecting lunar surface
changes, signal components may sometimes add and sometimes cancel.
The dynamic addition and cancellation will create large amplitude fluctuations. These amplitude variations are referred to as Libration Fading. These Libration Fading amplitude variations will be well correlated over the Coherence Bandwidth (typically a few kHz). The Libration Fading components are related to the inverse[disambiguation needed] of the time spread.
Modulation types and frequencies for EME[edit]
VHF
CW
JT65A
JT65B
UHF
CW
JT65C
SSB
Microwave
CW
SSB
JT4F or G
Other factors influencing EME communications[edit]
Doppler Effect at 144 MHz band is 300 Hz at Moonrise or Moonset. The Doppler Offset goes to around Zero when the Moon is overhead. At other frequencies other Doppler Offsets will exist. The 300 Hz offset is the average Doppler Offset for the 144 MHz band.
At moonrise, returned signals will be shifted approximately 300 Hz higher in frequency due to the Doppler effect between Earth and the Moon.
In the Northern Hemisphere, as the Moon traverses the sky to a point due south the Doppler effect approaches nothing. As the Moon sets, signals are shifted lower in frequency until at Moonset they are shifted 300 Hz lower.
Doppler effects cause many problems when tuning into and locking onto signals from the Moon.
Polarization effects can reduce the strength of received signals. One component is the geometrical alignment of the transmitting and receiving antennas; many antenna produce a preferred plane of polarization. Transmitting and receiving station antennas may not be aligned from the perspective of an observer on the moon. This component is fixed by the alignment of the antennas and stations may include a facility to rotate antennas to adjust polarization. Another component is Faraday rotation on the Earth-Moon-Earth path; the plane of polarization of radio waves rotates as they pass through ionized layers of the Earth's atmosphere. This effect is more pronounced at lower VHF frequencies and becomes less significant at 1296 MHZ and above. Some of the polarization mismatch loss can be alleviated by using a larger antenna array (more Yagi elements or a larger dish). [4]
Gallery[edit]
The Communication Moon Relay project (also known as simply Moon Relay, or, alternatively, Operation Moon Bounce) was a telecommunication project carried out by the United States Navy. Its objective was to develop a secure and reliable method of wireless communication by using the Moon as a natural communications satellite - a technique known as EME (Earth-Moon-Earth) communications. Most of the project's work took place during the 1950s at the United States Naval Research Laboratory. Operation Moon Relay was spun off from a classified military espionage program known as Passive Moon Relay (PAMOR) which sought to eavesdrop on Soviet military radar signals reflected from the Moon.
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Development
3 Expansion
4 Results
5 References
Background[edit]
Communication Moon Relay grew out of many ideas and concepts in radio espionage. Some impetus for the project was provided by post-World War II efforts to develop methods of tracking radio signals, particularly those originating in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Other sources included earlier proposals to use the Moon as a radio wave reflector, which date back to 1928. The first proof of this concept was the Project Diana program of the U.S. Army Signal Corps in 1946, which detected radar waves bounced off the Moon. This attracted the attention of Donald Menzel. Menzell was a staff member of the Harvard College Observatory and a former United States Navy Reserve commander, who proposed that the Navy undertake a program to use the Moon as a secure communications satellite.
Prior to the Moon Relay project, long distance wireless communication around the curve of the Earth was conducted by skywave ("skip") transmission, in which radio waves are refracted by the Earth's ionosphere, which was sometimes disrupted by solar flares and geomagnetic storms. Before artificial satellites, the Moon provided the only reliable celestial object from which to reflect radio waves to communicate between points on opposite sides of the Earth.
An entry in Trexler's notebook regarding moon bounce communications.
The developments in Moon circuit communications eventually came to the attention of James Trexler, a radio engineer at the Naval Research Laboratory. His interest was piqued by a paper published by researchers at an ITT laboratory. Trexler developed plans for a system designed to intercept Soviet radar signals by detecting the transmissions that bounced off the Moon. This program, codenamed "Joe," began making regular observations in August 1949. Within a year, "Joe" was made an official Navy intelligence program, the Passive Moon Relay (PAMOR).
In September 1950, a new parabolic antenna for the PAMOR project was completed at Stump Neck, Maryland. The first tests of this antenna were impressive; the returning signal was of much higher fidelity than expected. This presented the possibility of using a Moon circuit as a communications circuit. Unfortunately for PAMOR, collecting Soviet radar signals would require a larger antenna. Efforts began to have such an antenna constructed at Sugar Grove, West Virginia.
Development[edit]
With the PAMOR project requiring a larger antenna, the Stump Neck antenna was pushed into service for testing whether communication via the Moon was possible. This marked the emergence of the Moon Relay as a separate project. Test transmissions between Stump Neck and Washington, DC were carried out; the first satellite transmission of voice occurred on July 24, 1954. These were followed by the first transcontinental test of the system on November 20, 1955; the receiving site was the U.S. Navy Electronics Laboratory in San Diego, California. After corrections to reduce signal loss, the transmissions were extended to Wahiawa, Hawaii.
The Navy received the new system favorably. A Navy contract for the project soon followed the successful tests, and, among other things, it was recommended that American submarines use Moon-reflection paths for communications to shore.
Expansion[edit]
The Moon Relay project was soon transferred to the Communications Section of the Radar Division of the Naval Research Laboratory. Under this department, the system was upgraded to use the ultra high frequency (UHF) band. The experimental system was transformed into a fully operational lunar relay system linking Hawaii with Washington, DC, which became functional in 1959. The new system was officially inaugurated in January 1960, when Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Arleigh Burke sent a message to Commander, Pacific Fleet Felix Stump using the system.
The finished system used two sets of transmitters at Annapolis, Maryland and the Opana Radar Site in Hawaii and two sets of receivers at Cheltenham, Maryland and Wahiawa, Hawaii. It was later expanded to accommodate ship-to-shore transmissions to and from the USS Oxford (AGTR-1).
Results[edit]
The Moon Relay system became obsolete in the later 1960s as the Navy implemented its artificial satellite communication system. However, the information gleaned from the project in fact made the later artificial system possible. Additionally, the equipment used in the Communications Moon Relay project was of much use to U.S. Navy astronomers, as they used it to examine the Moon when the Moon was not in a position conducive to radio transmission. Although relatively short-lived, the Moon Relay served as a bridge to modern American military satellite systems.
-
instead of verbally water boarding all of us... how about the cliff note version?
CAN A BROTHER GET AN AHMEN??
PRAISE JESUS!!!!
-
alphaomega, relax.
You've presented your case, I have done the same.
I fully trust the readers to discover which version is true.
I'm good with that.
-
Wait, there may be logical thinking people out there that read all of this and have not determined that if Alpha and Sandy both live in the USA, that Alpha is breaking the law by owning Sandy like that. Slavery was abolished here many years ago, you can't own someone like that.
So Alpha has presented actual data regarding the claim made, Sandy danced and squirmed and threw turds all over my screen. No I would say it isn't even a question, Sandy lost again.
-
The ORBITAL solar gravitational potential effect is not being registered by the GPS satellites' clocks.
I wonder why?
Just possibly because there can be no change in the "gravitational potential effect" for any object following a geodesic in spacetime, in orbit if you want to call it that.
Ever thought of that? You might try reading: Schwarzschild geodesics (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_geodesics)
That's much too deep for me, but I'm sure a person of your expertise will find it a breeze!
-
However, the earth is at rest, no doubts about that!
Nope. It's moving. No doubts about that.
Things like the Sagnac effect prove that. But that is for another thread.
All of you have been warned against using the quote trees unnecessarily, right?
Yes, trees, where you quote a quote which contains a quote which contains a quote and so on.
It is fundamentally different to just quoting a post, even if you break that post up.
The original set of ether equations published by J.C. Maxwell in 1861 are invariant under Galilean transformations, which makes STR/GTR null and void:
Nope. And once again, off topic.
I fully trust the readers to discover which version is true.
Good, you will finally shut up.
The readers will realise your's is a pile of crap, just copied and pasted crap which has been refuted or just off topic spam. Your actions show you have no faith in your arguments.
-
and FURTHERMORE!
Results[edit]
The Moon Relay system became obsolete in the later 1960s as the Navy implemented its artificial satellite communication system. However, the information gleaned from the project in fact made the later artificial system possible. Additionally, the equipment used in the Communications Moon Relay project was of much use to U.S. Navy astronomers, as they used it to examine the Moon when the Moon was not in a position conducive to radio transmission. Although relatively short-lived, the Moon Relay served as a bridge to modern American military satellite systems.
Stop it this instant! You are making more sense than SandyCan and we can't have that!
-
Just possibly because there can be no change in the "gravitational potential effect" for any object following a geodesic in spacetime, in orbit if you want to call it that.
You do not understand the nature of the problem.
The ROTATIONAL gravitational potential is being observed and accounted for in the programming of the GPS satellites' clocks.
However, the much larger ORBITAL solar gravitational potential is totally missing, even though it is certainly predicted by GTR.
"The most lethal experimental observation to GR is the absence of the gravitational slowing of the GPS clocks, that is predicted by GR, but not observed.
Hence, the effect of the solar gravitational potential on the GPS clocks, having orbital
plane closely parallel to the earth-sun axis, during the 6 hours closer from the sun, should cause a total delay of more than 24ns, which would be recovered during the 6 hours farther from the sun. The corresponding 12 hours periodic sinusoidal
variation in the time display of the GPS clocks would be more than two orders of magnitude larger than the stability and precision of these clocks within this period. However, observations show no sign of such variation."
Learn the subject from the greatest expert in the world on GPS technology:
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5789.pdf
More information here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846706#msg1846706
That is, the GPS satellites are orbiting the Sun AS IF the velocity of the Earth is a constant along this orbit (which, in the heliocentrical theory, cannot be).
Things like the Sagnac effect prove that.
Really?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71409.msg1940490#msg1940490
Then, you, the heliocentrist, have a huge problem.
Since BOTH the orbital solar gravitational effect and the orbital Sagnac effect are missing, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled.
That means, automatically, the existence of ether.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721
Believe or not, each and every devoted disciple of STR/GTR, upon discovering these facts is forced to give up on the STR/GTR.
GPS technology instantly disproves both STR and GTR.
The latest viewpoint is MLET (Modified Lorentz Ether Theory). Those who still believe in the theory of relativity simply have not been exposed to these basic facts of science, which totally make GTR null and void.
-
Just possibly because there can be no change in the "gravitational potential effect" for any object following a geodesic in spacetime, in orbit if you want to call it that.
If your ramblings resulted in slightly sensible hypotheses people might put a little weight in what you say.
But when you end up with your idiotic "radical chronology", totally ridiculous heights for the sun, moon, planets and stars etc, etc,
no-one is going to bother reading your pages of text.
Get used to it!
What makes the whole idea of a flat earth a total laughing stock is that there are
so many "maps",
so many guesses at the heights and movements of the celestial bodies,
so many explanations for "gravity" etc, etc.
Yet, you and everyone else swear that their model is the one true flat earth! What a joke.
By the way, please use the "[quote][/quote]" facility, so that we can identify you current victim.
PS We have an earth "model" that works and you don't!
-
Only an idiot can accept with his eyes closed what the history books tell him, without first verifying if the events described in those pages are true.
Here are two examples, with 100% proofs.
The biography of Dionysius Exiguus, the central pillar of modern chronology, has been falsified: convince yourself.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1638504#msg1638504
Pompeii and Herculaneum were destroyed at least after 1750 AD, again convince yourself:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1683424#msg1683424 (five consecutive messages)
And finally the architects of the Gizeh pyramid knew how to apply the arctangent formula, including error analysis:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1834389#msg1834389 (four consecutive messages)
You see, that is why people by the hundreds of thousands read my messages, they know full well that my messages always include the best possible information, which cannot be found elsewhere.
-
You see, that is why people by the hundreds of thousands read my messages, they know full well that my messages always include the best possible information, which cannot be found elsewhere.
No, they are far more likely to skip over the walls of nonsense.
-
Come on sandy, give us one quote from one of the modern, amazing physicists you use as a source saying their work proves the earth is stationary
-
Just possibly because there can be no change in the "gravitational potential effect" for any object following a geodesic in spacetime, in orbit if you want to call it that.
If your ramblings resulted in slightly sensible hypotheses people might put a little weight in what you say.
But when you end up with your idiotic "radical chronology", totally ridiculous heights for the sun, moon, planets and stars etc, etc,
no-one is going to bother reading your pages of text.
Get used to it!
What makes the whole idea of a flat earth a total laughing stock is that there are
so many "maps",
so many guesses at the heights and movements of the celestial bodies,
so many explanations for "gravity" etc, etc.
Yet, you and everyone else swear that their model is the one true flat earth! What a joke.
By the way, please use the "[quote][/quote]" facility, so that we can identify you current victim.
PS We have an earth "model" that works and you don't!
There is much funnier FE Ideas than "Gravity" "Celestial Movements" and "Maps"
Did you forget about Moonshrimp, Ice Wall Guards and (my personal favorite) *FACT* Sunlight Warms and Moonlight Cools.
Fortunately, These claims have to be taken JUST as serious... So, lets talk about the Ice Wall Guard industry before we talk get into the mathematic mumbo jumbo talk...
-
Only an idiot can accept with his eyes closed what the history books tell him, without first verifying if the events described in those pages are true.
Here are two examples, with 100% proofs.
The biography of Dionysius Exiguus, the central pillar of modern chronology, has been falsified: convince yourself.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1638504#msg1638504
Pompeii and Herculaneum were destroyed at least after 1750 AD, again convince yourself:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1683424#msg1683424 (five consecutive messages)
And finally the architects of the Gizeh pyramid knew how to apply the arctangent formula, including error analysis:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1834389#msg1834389 (four consecutive messages)
You see, that is why people by the hundreds of thousands read my messages, they know full well that my messages always include the best possible information, which cannot be found elsewhere.
I don't think that many people do read it. You ramble on for pages and pages. You seem to be unable to make a succinct argument. For instance I have tried several times to figure out why you think Pompeii was destroyed so recently. You make the claim but then you like to pages of stuff generally with more links inside it and it's mostly just you talking.
Can you not give a summery in a paragraph or two, giving your reader the option to go more in depth if they choose?
Because honestly I can't figure out how you get there at all as it is buried in piles of other stuff.
-
*FACT* Sunlight Warms and Moonlight Cools.
;D ;D ;D Are you daring to suggest that moonlight is not cooler the being in the "shade" at night. ;D ;D ;D
Being exposed to direct full moonlight is definitely cooler than being in the "shade" at night.
Of course, being exposed to a clear night sky is very slightly cooler still!
I have "measured" the temperature of the clear night sky to be around -30°C, while any "shading" objects measured around 5°C.
Many IR thermometers will not read a negative temperature, but mine will read from -50°C to 330°C (-58°F to 625°F).
During the day, being in the shade shields you from the heat of the sun, so is cooler, but
during the night, being in the "shade" shields you from the cold of the night sky (and a clear night sky is very cold), so is warmer.
There is no easy way to expose the thermometer or object to just the moonlight without using a warmer shading object.
But a few have used amateur astronomical telescopes and have some interesting results:[youtube][/youtube]
Moon temperature experiment thru a mirrored telescope. Joel Harris
The moon increased the reading on his IR thermometer from 19.5°F to 62.5°F. Even then his IR thermometer would be "seeing" the telescope barrel as well.
So measuring the moon's temperature is a matter of stopping radiation from other sources (the sky or surrounding objects) from reaching the IR thermometer.
It's not rocket science, but still miles over the head of most flat earthers.
Here is a relevant writeup: SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, SPACE, Heat from the Moon (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-from-the-moon/) - a few errors because it is largely a scan of an old document.
-
If the Earth is stationary, and precession has a very different explanation, then yes both the Stellarium software and the SIMBAD database are simple video games, nothing more.
If the Earth is stationary and Stellarium is wrong then you or someone with your help(you provide equations and data and so on) should be able to make similar program as Stellarium but for flat earth. Its just equations and little programming. I wonder why there isn't yet any such flat earth stellariums out there. All your side seems to be able to achieve is animation of yellow dot circling above flat earth map.
-
*FACT* Sunlight Warms and Moonlight Cools.
;D ;D ;D Are you daring to suggest that moonlight is not cooler the being in the "shade" at night. ;D ;D ;D
Being exposed to direct full moonlight is definitely cooler than being in the "shade" at night.
Of course, being exposed to a clear night sky is very slightly cooler still!
I have "measured" the temperature of the clear night sky to be around -30°C, while any "shading" objects measured around 5°C.
Many IR thermometers will not read a negative temperature, but mine will read from -50°C to 330°C (-58°F to 625°F).
During the day, being in the shade shields you from the heat of the sun, so is cooler, but
during the night, being in the "shade" shields you from the cold of the night sky (and a clear night sky is very cold), so is warmer.
There is no easy way to expose the thermometer or object to just the moonlight without using a warmer shading object.
But a few have used amateur astronomical telescopes and have some interesting results:[youtube][/youtube]
Moon temperature experiment thru a mirrored telescope. Joel Harris
The moon increased the reading on his IR thermometer from 19.5°F to 62.5°F. Even then his IR thermometer would be "seeing" the telescope barrel as well.
So measuring the moon's temperature is a matter of stopping radiation from other sources (the sky or surrounding objects) from reaching the IR thermometer.
It's not rocket science, but still miles over the head of most flat earthers.
Here is a relevant writeup: SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, SPACE, Heat from the Moon (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heat-from-the-moon/) - a few errors because it is largely a scan of an old document.
I'm trying to follow... If you have two 5 gallon buckets of water at (lets say) 12am in your back yard both exposed to the light of a full moon... They should be the same temperature after an hour.
If you cover one bucket with (let say) an umbrella so that it is in the shade from the moonlight... are you telling me that it will gradually warm up and the bucket exposed to the moonlight will gradually cool off?
-
If you cover one bucket with (let say) an umbrella so that it is in the shade from the moonlight... are you telling me that it will gradually warm up and the bucket exposed to the moonlight will gradually cool off?
Not quite. Covered bucket does not cool so fast as the buckets which are not covered.
-
have you tested this?
so what is zapping the energy? The Moonlight?
-
have you tested this?
No need. Others have.
so what is zapping the energy? The Moonlight?
Space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_cooling
-
no need? Others have?
Are you serious?
Other people have been to space!
-
no need? Others have?
Are you serious?
Other people have been to space!
These were answers for two different thing and you put these just together. "No need. Others have." means that I don't have the need to test this bucket thing because others have done it.
And "Space" was answer to your "what is zapping the energy".
-
If you cover one bucket with (let say) an umbrella so that it is in the shade from the moonlight... are you telling me that it will gradually warm up and the bucket exposed to the moonlight will gradually cool off?
Not quite. Covered bucket does not cool so fast as the buckets which are not covered.
This has nothing to do with the moon. Anyone in the food industry knows if you put a covered bucket of something hot in the walk in refrigerator the next day it can still be warm and bad. You have to leave it uncovered so the heat can escape easier.
This also applies to left over food at your house. Don't put it in the fridge covered when it's still hot.
-
I'm trying to follow... If you have two 5 gallon buckets of water at (lets say) 12am in your back yard both exposed to the light of a full moon... They should be the same temperature after an hour.
If you cover one bucket with (let say) an umbrella so that it is in the shade from the moonlight... are you telling me that it will gradually warm up and the bucket exposed to the moonlight will gradually cool off?
Both are hotter than their environment, both in regards to convection, evaporative cooling and radiation.
As such, they will both try to cool down, and one method is radiative cooling where it radiates energy off into space.
All objects do this, and it is why some objects glow red hot, and why the sun warms us.
In equilibrium, it radiates the same amount of energy as it takes in, meaning it wont get hotter or cooler.
If you place an umbrella above it one of 2 things can happen, the umbrella can start reflecting that radiation, some of which is reflected back to the bucket. This results in the bucket effectively not radiating as much energy as some of it just comes straight back.
The other is for the umbrella to absorb it, warm up (it is already warm so it doesn't actually need to warm up) and in turn radiate heat some of which will radiate back down to the bucket.
This is also why it is cooler at night, because Earth radiates away so much energy it cools down.
-
I think we are discussing different things...
Flat Earth Logic says that the Sunlight Warms things and the Moonlight Cools things...
So, conventional wisdom is that if you put two 5 gallon buckets of water side by side and block the sunlight from hitting one bucket, it will be cooler than the bucket of water in direct sunlight.
What Flat Earth Logic claims, is that if you repeat this at night, the bucket that is in Direct Moonlight will be cooler than the bucket of water right next to it...
.... How are we talking about sealed containers of food in the fridge? How are we talking about radiation escaping into the atmosphere?
Flat Earth Logic says that Moonlight has different properties than Sunlight, most importantly... that it actively cools objects in contact with it...
Silly Inflatearth wants to send me youtube videos as proof of this... But I have youtube videos as well... lets test it in the back yard....
How are we talking about food in a refrigerator? Jesus Christ on a Cross gentlemen... I miss Jane... where is she...
-
So test a bucket with a full moon, then try to find a night with the same weather conditions and no moon and test it again. If there is no difference, the moon has nothing to do with it. The hard part is finding two nights a month apart that share fairly identical weather conditions.
-
I think we are discussing different things...
Flat Earth Logic says that the Sunlight Warms things and the Moonlight Cools things...
So, conventional wisdom is that if you put two 5 gallon buckets of water side by side and block the sunlight from hitting one bucket, it will be cooler than the bucket of water in direct sunlight.
What Flat Earth Logic claims, is that if you repeat this at night, the bucket that is in Direct Moonlight will be cooler than the bucket of water right next to it...
.... How are we talking about sealed containers of food in the fridge? How are we talking about radiation escaping into the atmosphere?
Flat Earth Logic says that Moonlight has different properties than Sunlight, most importantly... that it actively cools objects in contact with it...
Silly Inflatearth wants to send me youtube videos as proof of this... But I have youtube videos as well... lets test it in the back yard....
How are we talking about food in a refrigerator? Jesus Christ on a Cross gentlemen... I miss Jane... where is she...
Sealed containers in a fridge is a bit of a seg-way, but the idea is the same.
The night is cold, typically much colder than the water, meaning it would tend to lose energy, i.e. cool down, just like a container in a fridge.
If you put things in the way, such as an umbrella or a lid, you stop various forms of cooling. I just focused on radiative cooling, but there is also the evaporation of the water which the umbrella will hinder to some extent, and a lid certainly would, and convective cooling which again, the umbrella would disrupt and a lid would stop.
So the point is merely putting a bucket of water out an night will result in it cooling down, regardless of if the moon is there or not.
Putting things in the way, even if done to "stop the moon light" will result in that cooling effect being diminished.
Thus if you compare a bucket in the shade to one in direct moonlight with no obstructions, the one in moonlight will get colder. But the same happens if you remove the moonlight (from it being a moonless night) and instead just have a shaded bucket and an exposed bucket.
This is not the same with the day, as now the equilibrium temperature is much hotter and the water is typically cooler.
If you like, you can try the same in the day by getting a piece of red-hot iron and placing one in the shade and one in the sun, and seeing which is cooler. That would have a similar effect, but the radiation from the sun still might win.
-
So test a bucket with a full moon, then try to find a night with the same weather conditions and no moon and test it again. If there is no difference, the moon has nothing to do with it. The hard part is finding two nights a month apart that share fairly identical weather conditions.
What is your highest level of education? Seriously...
Why would you need to find two separate nights a month apart with EXACTLY the same weather conditions? Wouldn't it make more sense to test the two buckets with a foot or two of distance between them?
Jesus Christ the logic on this site is lacking
-
Why would you need to find two separate nights a month apart with EXACTLY the same weather conditions? Wouldn't it make more sense to test the two buckets with a foot or two of distance between them?
Jesus Christ the logic on this site is lacking
He actually meant half a month. One with a full moon, and one with no moon (i.e. at the time of the new moon).
This allows you to repeat your simple experiment where you can then attempt to separate the effects of exposing the bucket to the cold night and the exposure to the moon's light.
Your simple experiment applies 2 both these effects to the test bucket. This means you are unable to tell if the cooling is a result of the moon's light or simply exposure to the cold night.
By repeating it half a month later you have one trial where you have your control covered bucket vs the one exposed to the cold night, which allows you to see the effect of exposure to the cold night.
You also get a trial where you have your control bucket vs the one exposed to the cold night and the moon.
By combining the results you can see if there is a significant effect of exposure to the moon.
But it does require getting the 2 nights quite similar. It wont work if one night is very humid at 10 C, while the other night is bone dry at 5 C. The other important part is to make sure the buckets all start the same. Again, it is pointless if one set starts at 30 C while the other starts at 20 C.
My idea overcomes that. Rather than using an umbrella to shade the bucket, you have a tall side wall to shade it from all bar light coming from straight along its axis (if you like you can have an umbrella as another comparison).
You then have 2, both at the same angle of elevation, with one pointing 2 the moon and one pointing away.
This works best away from civilisation so there can't be interference from that, on a cloudless night.
This way your control is now exposed to the cold night while the other is exposed to the cold night and the moon.
-
Christ on a Cross...
-
This way your control is now exposed to the cold night while the other is exposed to the cold night and the moon.
If you are testing for the effect of moonlight, wouldn't you want to insulate the samples from everything but moonlight or no moonlight?
-
:'(
-
This way your control is now exposed to the cold night while the other is exposed to the cold night and the moon.
If you are testing for the effect of moonlight, wouldn't you want to insulate the samples from everything but moonlight or no moonlight?
No, you want the samples to be as similar as possible such that the only difference is one has moonlight the other doesn't.
That means if you insulate one, you need to insulate the other.
That means if you block radiation from leaving one, you need to do it to the other as well, but if you do that, how do you let the moonlight in?
-
the dumbness astounds me.
You do the test on the same night so the weather of a clear full moon night is constant between both 5 gallon buckets of water...
One bucket (the control) is filled with water and left alone and exposed to the light of the moon (which according to FE logic will sap away energy by the power of moon light)...
The other bucket... two feet away (lets say) is put in the shade from the moonlight via umbrella or some other complicated device.... It is important that the umbrella or other complicated device is not touching the bucket but merely blocking the moonlight.
Both buckets have the same access to open ambient air, but one is protected from the energy sapping moonlight that FE lore dictates.
You jerks got me to explain it again... how dare you... No wonder everyone here thinks the earth is flat....
Anyways... IF the bucket that is exposed to the moonlight (after an hour) is cooler than the bucket that is protected by the same moonlight, then the moonlight (the variable, which is what we are measuring) has an energy stealing property....
Or, as InFlatEarth says.... Moonlight Cools, Sunlight Warms...
But instead of trying this backyard science experiment to prove your point, you silly geese would rather debate radiation evaporation into the atmosphere or putting water in a PVC Pipe pointed towards the moon... or site youtube videos from other dumb dumbs that confuse the science in order to make a stupid point.
I would also recommend preforming this experiment during the day to see if the sun does in deed add energy.... who knows, maybe the sunlight cools and the moonlight warms... This is certainly a way to check it out...
My hypothesis is that the moonlight's warmth is too negligible to detect with standard thermometers. But if I do this experiment, i'd be called a liar unless the moon's light saps energy... so I'm not in a rush at the moment. The level of confirmation bias here is... well the reason this site exists! Congrats...
-
This experiment should be done on a clear moonless night. One bucket in the open and one bucket shaded from the sky. You'll find the bucket in the open will cool more than the shaded bucket.
The second experiment is to place both buckets out in the open on a clear moonlit night. But, place a barrier that doesn't allow moonlight to one of the buckets but doesn't block it from the open sky. In this case you'll find both buckets will cool the same amount.
Anybody with an above ground swimming pool knows that on clear cool nights the pool temperature drops more than on cloudy cool night. It's due to radiational cooling to the open sky that cool exposed things faster than things outside but under cover. Dew on a car parked in the street but not on the one in the carport.
Both of these experiments will prove that moonlight has nothing to do with the cooling. Easily testable and repeatable. A FEer should do this test and report the results so that nobody can claim a REer lied.
Mike
-
I just had one of the funniest most offensively non-PC posts ever created... but I'm not here for that.
Consider every ones feelings considered.
You're welcome
-
the dumbness astounds me.
Do you mean your "dumbness"?
You do the test on the same night so the weather of a clear full moon night is constant between both 5 gallon buckets of water...
One bucket (the control) is filled with water and left alone and exposed to the light of the moon (which according to FE logic will sap away energy by the power of moon light)...
The other bucket... two feet away (lets say) is put in the shade from the moonlight via umbrella or some other complicated device.... It is important that the umbrella or other complicated device is not touching the bucket but merely blocking the moonlight.
Both buckets have the same access to open ambient air, but one is protected from the energy sapping moonlight that FE lore dictates.
You jerks got me to explain it again... how dare you... No wonder everyone here thinks the earth is flat....
Anyways... IF the bucket that is exposed to the moonlight (after an hour) is cooler than the bucket that is protected by the same moonlight, then the moonlight (the variable, which is what we are measuring) has an energy stealing property....
Or, as InFlatEarth says.... Moonlight Cools, Sunlight Warms...
But instead of trying this backyard science experiment to prove your point, you silly geese would rather debate radiation evaporation into the atmosphere or putting water in a PVC Pipe pointed towards the moon... or site youtube videos from other dumb dumbs that confuse the science in order to make a stupid point.
I would also recommend preforming this experiment during the day to see if the sun does in deed add energy.... who knows, maybe the sunlight cools and the moonlight warms... This is certainly a way to check it out...
My hypothesis is that the moonlight's warmth is too negligible to detect with standard thermometers. But if I do this experiment, i'd be called a liar unless the moon's light saps energy... so I'm not in a rush at the moment. The level of confirmation bias here is... well the reason this site exists! Congrats...
You want it so the only difference between the 2 is that one has the moon the other does not.
Making it so one has the moon and the other has an umbrella does not match that.
You have one with reduced access to ambient air. The umbrella is capable of disrupting the movement of that air.
You also have one protected from the energy sapping empty space.
We aren't the ones that think Earth is flat. We are just opposing your stupid idea which is inherently flawed and the kind of crap which leads to retarded conclusions like the moonlight cools.
If you don't believe us then you go perform the experiment. Basically just like you described, but instead of having it on a full moon so one bucket is exposed to the moon, have it on a moonless night. Go and tell us which bucket is colder. The one exposed, or the one which you seem to think will be shaded from nothing.
-
If you are testing for the effect of moonlight, wouldn't you want to insulate the samples from everything but moonlight or no moonlight?
No, you want the samples to be as similar as possible such that the only difference is one has moonlight the other doesn't.
That's what I said.
-
That's what I said.
My bad, I may have misunderstood you.
The issue is how you would do that, insulate it from everything except moonlight.
-
the dumbness astounds me.
Do you mean your "dumbness"?
You do the test on the same night so the weather of a clear full moon night is constant between both 5 gallon buckets of water...
One bucket (the control) is filled with water and left alone and exposed to the light of the moon (which according to FE logic will sap away energy by the power of moon light)...
The other bucket... two feet away (lets say) is put in the shade from the moonlight via umbrella or some other complicated device.... It is important that the umbrella or other complicated device is not touching the bucket but merely blocking the moonlight.
Both buckets have the same access to open ambient air, but one is protected from the energy sapping moonlight that FE lore dictates.
You jerks got me to explain it again... how dare you... No wonder everyone here thinks the earth is flat....
Anyways... IF the bucket that is exposed to the moonlight (after an hour) is cooler than the bucket that is protected by the same moonlight, then the moonlight (the variable, which is what we are measuring) has an energy stealing property....
Or, as InFlatEarth says.... Moonlight Cools, Sunlight Warms...
But instead of trying this backyard science experiment to prove your point, you silly geese would rather debate radiation evaporation into the atmosphere or putting water in a PVC Pipe pointed towards the moon... or site youtube videos from other dumb dumbs that confuse the science in order to make a stupid point.
I would also recommend preforming this experiment during the day to see if the sun does in deed add energy.... who knows, maybe the sunlight cools and the moonlight warms... This is certainly a way to check it out...
My hypothesis is that the moonlight's warmth is too negligible to detect with standard thermometers. But if I do this experiment, i'd be called a liar unless the moon's light saps energy... so I'm not in a rush at the moment. The level of confirmation bias here is... well the reason this site exists! Congrats...
You want it so the only difference between the 2 is that one has the moon the other does not.
Making it so one has the moon and the other has an umbrella does not match that.
You have one with reduced access to ambient air. The umbrella is capable of disrupting the movement of that air.
You also have one protected from the energy sapping empty space.
We aren't the ones that think Earth is flat. We are just opposing your stupid idea which is inherently flawed and the kind of crap which leads to retarded conclusions like the moonlight cools.
If you don't believe us then you go perform the experiment. Basically just like you described, but instead of having it on a full moon so one bucket is exposed to the moon, have it on a moonless night. Go and tell us which bucket is colder. The one exposed, or the one which you seem to think will be shaded from nothing.
nope... I mean you specifically... please wave your hand back and forth as quickly as you can, like you are fanning yourself off after eating a Carolina Reaper (side to side or up and down... doesn't matter) and then move your face forward until the quick succession of slappings you provide yourself for as long as it takes saves you from the obvious over dose of dumb brownies you must must have consumed...
Umbrella is effecting the ambient Air flow... Jesus H.
For the others, please understand that while it does take some level of intelligence to respond with something on that level of dumb... please do not expect a thought provoking response if your trump card, hammer down, end game critique has gone full retard ... the smart response would be something more along the lines of... how far away does the umbrella have to be from the bucket in order to effectively block the moonlight (I don't know, lets find out), or how would you ensure that the device you are using does not effect the bucket in any way other than blocking the moonlight... possible ambient air effects might throw off your results if it is too close, much like putting a blanket over it... (Very interesting, we will have to test it to find out)
No... that would have been smart. Instead it was, AMBIENT AIR WILL BE EFFECTED BY THE UMBRELLA I'M SMARTER THAN YOU, YOU ILLUMINATI SHILL... O'DOYLE RULES!!!
Please, at least be proud that you are smart enough to know the English language and that you have a seemingly solid grasp on the correct order to put words in that allows other people to understand what you wish to communicate... but that appears to be the extent of your capabilities.
If you would like a recommendation (I'd prefer to call it a homework assignment) Slap yourself for a good solid 5 minutes... And really go for it... be brave... Then, Read all of Jane's posts... practice in a mirror responding the way she does. Continue with the slap fest. Rest... have a snack, converse with your family... Slap yourself some more, Ask if they would be willing to help you with your homework assignment... let them slap you some... Shower, go to sleep, Think about Jane some more...
Then, tell us how you feel the next day... I doubt you'll be any smarter... but maybe you'll be a little less impulsive...
-
nope... I mean you specifically
Right, so you don't want to admit you were wrong, or just can't understand why you were wrong so you feel you need to just dismiss reality as dumbness.
Umbrella is effecting the ambient Air flow... Jesus H.
Jesus H? Not Jesus C?
Yes, it does. Do you know how convective air currents work?
how would you ensure that the device you are using does not effect the bucket in any way other than blocking the moonlight
I already pointed out that it would effect it and there is no way to stop it unless you set up 2 systems which are effectively identical were the only difference is one is pointing towards the moon the other is not.
No... that would have been smart. Instead it was, AMBIENT AIR WILL BE EFFECTED BY THE UMBRELLA I'M SMARTER THAN YOU, YOU ILLUMINATI SHILL... O'DOYLE RULES!!!
And instead of providing any kind of rational response your response is basically:
"UR RETARD DUH!!! ME RIGHT!!!"
If you would like a recommendation (I'd prefer to call it a homework assignment) Slap yourself for a good solid 5 minutes... And really go for it... be brave... Then, Read all of Jane's posts... practice in a mirror responding the way she does. Continue with the slap fest. Rest... have a snack, converse with your family... Slap yourself some more, Ask if they would be willing to help you with your homework assignment... let them slap you some... Shower, go to sleep, Think about Jane some more...
So you want me to blatantly lie, spout pure bullshit and insult those that don't agree with me?
Now that all those insults are out of the way, are you capable of providing a rational argument, actually refuting what has been said? Perhaps you can act like an adult and admit you were wrong?
Perhaps you can do the experiment suggested and see if you are wrong?
-
i want you to test... not speculate...
Have you completed your homework assignment?
-
i want you to test... not speculate...
Have you completed your homework assignment?
It isn't speculation. It is simple physics.
It isn't my fault you refuse to accept them.
As for your homework, how about you go fuck yourself instead?
-
Also, as you pointed out, me doing the experiment would be pointless. You wouldn't accept the result.
If I do this experiment, i'd be called a liar unless physics has magically changed, so I'm not in a rush at the moment.
-
it's speculation until you try it... It's not plain physics, it's not nothing on a site that doesn't believe on how the world works...
But, I will respond to one thing you said though... something about being an adult and responding to some blathering rant you were trying to sound relevant on.
After you complete your homework.
-
Also, as you pointed out, me doing the experiment would be pointless. You wouldn't accept the result.
If I do this experiment, i'd be called a liar unless physics has magically changed, so I'm not in a rush at the moment.
I was talking about me, and the original context of my experiment was directed at InFlatEarth who makes outrageous claims.
I don't have the means to refute all claims of FE make believe, I don't have a rocket, I don't have a super high altitude balloon... but the FE claim that Magical Moonlight Cools and Sunlight Warms is simple enough to test... But he will not test it with me so, I am in no rush. Furthermore, my professional life deals with aspects of satellites (GPS) and my previous time in the Navy deals with aspects of satellites (Comms, GPS, Talking dirty to my girl on the phone while in the middle of the ocean) seeing the dish that points to the satellite and how it moves back and forth as the ship sways in order to maintain connection... I do not have to prove the holes in the running theory here.
The only thing I have to do... Is look in the mirror and admit to myself that I visit this website and figure out a way to make peace with that. FE'rs here are too committed to trying to stu.....
I watched one FE Youtube video that said 100 PROOFS that the earth is flat... Guess what... they were all stupid except for 1 point that made me go Hmmm...
I researched it and learned another useless piece of information about space and how the universe works... But, I'll be honest with you... that piece of knowledge has only come up in that exact context... HEY, YOU KNOW I WAS WATCHING A STUPID FE YOUTUBE VIDEO AND I LEARNED THAT BLAH BLAH BLAH... I should leave... I am ashamed in myself... I have a kid, and I would be so embarrassed if he grew up and found my posts on this site...
-
it's speculation until you try it... It's not plain physics, it's not nothing on a site that doesn't believe on how the world works...
But, I will respond to one thing you said though... something about being an adult and responding to some blathering rant you were trying to sound relevant on.
After you complete your homework.
So you will continue to act as a child.
It is simple physics. I didn't think I would have to convince someone using physics.
It is not speculation. It is a conclusion based upon physics.
What you are doing is akin to saying I can't jump today until I try it and a statement regarding me jumping would be pure speculation.
And as you said (implicitly), me doing the experiment is pointless.
I was talking about me, and the original context of my experiment was directed at InFlatEarth who makes outrageous claims.
And now you have effectively the same thing, but with me.
I am talking about an experiment that is directed at you, who is making outrageous claims and rejecting physics.
Me doing the experiment will be pointless. You will likely just reject the results and claim I am a liar.
You are acting just like InFlatEarth.
but the FE claim that Magical Moonlight Cools and Sunlight Warms is simple enough to test... But he will not test it with me so, I am in no rush.
You mean like your claim that covering the bucket wont effect it and that simply exposing it to the cold night wont effect it?
That sure sounds simple enough to test, but you don't want to. So I am in no rush.
I do not have to prove the holes in the running theory here.
Everyone has to prove the claims they make.
I would be so embarrassed if he grew up and found my posts on this site...
Is that because you know you are wrong with some of them?
-
*Drinks a glass of water* SPPPPPPPIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTT
What is my outrageous claim again?
-
Quote from: RocketSauce on Today at 02:39:14 PM
I do not have to prove the holes in the running theory here.
Quote from: JackBlack
Everyone has to prove the claims they make.
Well... where to begin with this...
Prove the Earth is Flat, since that is the claim on this entire website
Prove that the Moonlight Cools
Prove the Ice Wall
Prove that Satellites do not exists and that the Sirius Satellite Radio network is more robust than any existing cell phone network provider
Prove... Just pick one... Prove anything... I am not making the claim, I am refuting the claim and no one is willing to prove it... They(you, whoever) wants to CLAIM as TRUTH that moonlight cools? How is that "my" claim to prove otherwise... I'm offering InFlatEarth (and whoever else believes in this) a manner to prove their claim and impress me...
Please.... I have a feeling you haven't started your homework....
-
Well... where to begin with this...
Prove the Earth is Flat, since that is the claim on this entire website
Prove that the Moonlight Cools
Prove the Ice Wall
Prove that Satellites do not exists and that the Sirius Satellite Radio network is more robust than any existing cell phone network provider
Prove... Just pick one... Prove anything... I am not making the claim, I am refuting the claim and no one is willing to prove it... They(you, whoever) wants to CLAIM as TRUTH that moonlight cools? How is that "my" claim to prove otherwise... I'm offering InFlatEarth (and whoever else believes in this) a manner to prove their claim and impress me...
So rather than even attempt a rational response you just spout off a load of crap.
Where have I ever claimed those things?
*Drinks a glass of water* SPPPPPPPIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTT
So retarded you can't even drink a glass of water without spitting it everywhere?
What is my outrageous claim again?
That your experiment adequately controls for confounding variables, that exposure to and cooling by the ambient environment and radiative cooling will not be effected by placing an obstacle in the way.
-
Some experimental methods that solve the "umbrella blocks air flow" problem.
1. Set out two identical bucket-and-thermometer setups, placed so that a nearby object (a fence, billboard, or sign for example) will cast a moon shadow across only one of them. The object should not be a building or a cinder block, brick, or stone wall, because these retain heat and retransmit it at night, which will skew the results. Collect temperature data for several nights before, during, and after the full moon (these are your Experimental data points). Do the same thing with the same setup on several nights before, during, and after the new moon (these are your Control data points). If the Control data shows consistent results between the two buckets, your setup is free of external temperature effects and your Experimental data can be used.
2. Set out two or more identical bucket-and-thermometer setups, placed so that a nearby object (a fence, billboard, or sign for example) will cast a moon shadow across one of them for part of the night, and across the other one for a different part of the night. Collect temperature data for several nights before, during, and after the full moon. If the moonlight is cooling the buckets (in addition to the effects of the lower atmospheric temperatures that are also cooling the buckets), you should see the rate of cooling drop off during the shadowed part of the night, then ramp up when the moonlight once again shines on the bucket. This rate change will happen at different times for bucket A and bucket B.
-
What if the umbrella is 5 feet away from the bucket, but casts enough shadow that it blocks the bucket from the moon?
God we are all retarded for being on this site.
-
What if the umbrella is 5 feet away from the bucket, but casts enough shadow that it blocks the bucket from the moon?
God we are all retarded for being on this site.
Not, not everyone, just lots.
The umbrella being there may still have some effect. As you are trying to detect if the moon cools or heats (or is too insignificant to detect) that minor effect of the umbrella may be enough to produce a false result. I'm not sure though. Go try it on a moonless night and see what happens.
-
Dude, you all need to get away from this place. It makes you crazy if you stay too long. I've gone through a handful of threads were people that mutually believe in the same thing (a spheroid shaped Earth) are going at each other because we're all tuned up by this place to attack anything on sight.
In other news, I visited some of the FE only parts of this website - good grief this whole flat earth thing is ridiculous. I haven't seen one post by an FE proponent that didn't start off with some ad hominem attack. I don't see how you folks have the stamina for this.
-
Dude, you all need to get away from this place. It makes you crazy if you stay too long. I've gone through a handful of threads were people that mutually believe in the same thing (a spheroid shaped Earth) are going at each other because we're all tuned up by this place to attack anything on sight.
In other news, I visited some of the FE only parts of this website - good grief this whole flat earth thing is ridiculous. I haven't seen one post by an FE proponent that didn't start off with some ad hominem attack. I don't see how you folks have the stamina for this.
Agreed!Sometimes one feels more like (https://www.dropbox.com/s/f6ajdikzppfjx0a/Alice%20in%20Wonderland.jpg?dl=1) but occasionally one feels like (https://www.dropbox.com/s/3oimjvxqs2d3bix/Off%20with%20their%20heads.jpeg?dl=1)off with his head!