And the trolling continues unabated.
This troll has no idea of the Simon Newcomb precise formula.
If you continue the older p = 50.2565 + 0.000222 (Y - 1900) trend, you get 50.2787 arcsec/yr for 2000, the middle range of the three data points from 1994 - 2002.5 in your table, a difference of 0.012266 arcsec from the reported value using the newer, more accurate, techniques. The increase in the precession rate is EXPONENTIAL.
According to the official astrophysics, the moon, which is continually receding in distance from Earth, is by far the biggest force acting on the Earth (in relation to the precession rate).
The sun would be the second largest force: its mass is slowly decreasing.
Both the lunar and solar forces have no influence on the precession rate.
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.
it won't continue to accelerate; at some point it will decelerate.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.
If the local gravity theory of lunisolar precession were correct, and this trend was extrapolated back a few hundred thousand years then precession would have been virtually non-existent even though the Sun and Moon exerted about the same gravitational influence as they do now. And if this trend were extrapolated forward a few million years the Earth might be wobbling so severely it would retrograde a day for every day it spins, and essentially stop moving or go into reverse!"
alphaomega CANNOT EXPLAIN THE EXPONENTIAL INCREASE IN THE PRECESSION RATE.
The desperate troll then writes this:
What about the other planets, which you just mentioned, then conveniently omitted?How in the world can you jump to "other planets" when the most important factors, solar/lunar components, have been ruled out already?
No other planets' supposed gravitational influence has any bearing on the increasing rate of precession: see below, the heliacal rising of Sirius proof.
Here is the troll's conclusion:
But, hey, I did learn something (marginally) useful, that the rate of precession is currently increasing ever so slightly, so it's all good!He has just been shown that the increase in the rate is EXPONENTIAL!
You conveniently jumped over the Allais effect and how it modifies the precessional rate:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66455.msg1775629#msg1775629Analysis. This long Foucault-type pendulum behaved in a very stable manner. However well after the end of the locally visible eclipse, at around 11:33 (to the recording resolution, i.e. between the readings at 11:29 and 11:36), some influence clearly acted for a short period to increase the precession rate.
More trolling.
How do these two statements square with each other? They're even in the same post.The first quote was from an RE website, which has to rely on elliptical orbits. They are explaining the binary star theory, which is a RE theory, but which does contradict your basic assertions.
Here is another proof that precession has nothing to do gravity: the heliacal rising of Sirius.
This is from Jed Buchwald, CALTECH and MIT:
The fact that Sirius seems to maintain its position relative to the position of the sun was a surprise to most scientists (aware of precession), when it was first noticed by the French scientific community following the Egyptian discoveries of Napoleon (and the Dendera Zodiac) in the early 1800’s. Perhaps to save the lunisolar theory of precession, or at least to make sense of physics as then taught, physicist, astronomer, mathematician Jean-Baptiste Biot (21 April 1774 – 3 February 1862) proclaimed that this phenomenon was an oddity of the latitude and horizon around Dendera, meaning it just seemed as if Sirius was immune to the effects of precession. And to this day this is the assumption of many astronomers and astrophysicists. Physicist Jed Z. Buchwald, professor of history and science and technology (Caltech and MIT) commented on this topic in his article Egyptian Stars Under Paris Skies, when he noted:
"The rising of Sirius, the brightest star in the heavens and important to Egyptians as the signal for the annual flooding of the Nile, was assumed by the French physicists to move with relation to the sun as do the constellations of the zodiac.
It does not, however, as we see here."
SIRIUS DEFIES PRECESSION.
The curved line dividing the lit from the dark regions represents the horizon near Dendera. The blue lines show the locations of the ecliptic with respect to the horizon at five helical risings separated by hundreds of years. The vernal points mark the equinoxes at these times, and the circled numbers on the lower right indicate the corresponding positions of Sirius.
Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes—and so from the solstices— throughout these many centuries, despite precession.HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?
How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?
If any local force here the "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky. The Sun/Moon/planets have nothing to do with precession.
In the official theory of astrophysics, Sirius 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.
At this point it would be interesting to mention that Otto Neugebauer, who wrote extensively about Babylonian astronomy, also discussed the so-called Solstice-Equinox-Sirius texts, which formed part of the “Astronomical Diaries”. These texts list equinoxes, solstices, heliacal risings and settings of Sirius from the period of around 600 BCE and around 330 BCE. Apparently, the position of Sirius relative to the solstices and equinoxes did not change over time with precession.
http://web.archive.org/web/20110723220446/http://www.siriusresearchgroup.com/articles/Sothis4.shtmlIt is recognized that from the beginning of the empire and during the entire dynastic period the rising of Sirius with the Sun always occurred around the time of the Summer solstice. These historical records do not lie: Sirius defies precession.
The implication of this astronomical fact is best explained by Jed Z. Buchwald, a distinguished Professor of History and Science, in his paper “Egyptian Stars under Paris Skies” (Caltech, Engineering & Science No. 4, 2003), where he discusses the meaning of the Zodiac that has been engraved in the ceiling of the temple of Dendera in Egypt:
“The solstice is, after all, extraordinarily hard to pin-point by observation, and in any case it was known from Greek texts that the Egyptians were particularly concerned with the heliacal rising of the brightest star in the sky, Sirius—that is, with the night when Sirius first appears, just before dawn. In Egyptian prehistory this event certainly preceded the annual flooding of the Nile, which was of obvious agricultural importance. Would not precession have moved Sirius along with the zodiacal stars, eventually decoupling its heliacal rising from the solstice, and so from the annual inundation? We know today that the inundation occurs after the June beginning of the rainy season in Ethiopia, where the Blue Nile rises. And yet Sirius’ heliacal rising remained a central marker of the year throughout Egyptian history.” (p 25)
".... despite precession, Sirius and the solstice must remain about the same distance in time from one another during most of Egyptian history. Indeed they do, though it’s doubtful that Burckhardt and Coraboeuf had thought it through. Because of Sirius’ position, and the latitudes at which the Egyptians observed the sky, both Sirius’ heliacal rising and the summer solstice remained nearly the same number of days apart throughout Egyptian history even though the zodiac moves slowly around the ecliptic." (pp 29)
Buchwald, who produced a revealing diagram on the ‘Heliacal Risings of Sirius’ in relation to the vernal points (for the period of 2900 BCE to 2941 CE at intervals of 1460 years) using TheSky software, makes it very clear that "Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes - and so from the solstices - throughout these many centuries, despite precession".
http://web.archive.org/web/20110723220459/http://www.siriusresearchgroup.com/articles/Sothis5.shtmlAccording to the current theory of lunisolar precession the pole, and therefore the equator of the Earth is supposed to “wobble” over a period of roughly 25800 years relative to the position of the fixed stars and the Sun. In other words, if we were to imagine the Earth ‘fixed’ in its revolution around the Sun at the time when Sirius is in conjunction with the Sun (e.g. during the Summer solstice), an observer would not only notice changes in the declination of Sirius and the other stars, but simultaneously equal changes in the declination of the Sun.
In practice, however, Sirius does not show any significant variations in its position relative to the Summer solstice.In order to account for the unusual motion of Sirius, which is minimal relative to the Summer solstice and exceptionally high with respect to the stars of the Zodiac,
Karine Gadré, the Associate Researcher at the Department of Astrophysics of the MidiPyrenees Observatory in Toulouse, France offers the following explanation:
“The low change in the celestial coordinates of Sirius comes from its high proper movement, which partly compensated the effects of precession under the Dynastic Period. […] In order to better understand how the proper movement of Sirius can partly compensate the effects of precession, do not only take into account the numerical values of the speed vector. Take also into account the position of Sirius on the celestial vault at a given instant and the direction of the speed vector.”Now we know that the proper motion of Sirius (i.e. of the Sirius system) over a period of some 5400 years is less than 2°:
"For a long time astronomers
had been noticing anomalies in Sirius' proper motion; this motion, well known since Halley's time is equal to 0.0375" in RA (Right Ascension) and to 1.207" in D, (Declination), which gives a yearly resultant motion of 1.32" in the direction of 204°, which is noticeably to the south. In 1834, Bessel showed that the anomalies consisted mainly of deviations between the star's theoretical position and its actual position; these distinctly periodic differences, especially in right ascension, may be as great as 0.321", which is a considerable amount with regard to meridian observations. Overall, instead of moving through space in a straight line, Sirius appears to display a wavy trajectory."
Dr. P. Blaize, Le Compagnon de Sirius, Bull. de la Société astronomique de France (1931)
EXPLAIN THE PERSEID METEOR SHOWER PARADOX, which directly disproves precession:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1775758#msg1775758https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1775914#msg1775914