Solar eclipse...

Quote from: Sentinel on August 05, 2017, 11:00:27 AM

Quote from: SGExtracts710 on August 05, 2017, 10:45:50 AM

Quote from: petej0 on August 05, 2017, 10:40:42 AM

Quote from: SGExtracts710 on August 05, 2017, 10:37:18 AM

question is, why in the video on the NASA site, having them SHOW and explain how it happens... the earth is spinning the opposite way of the moons rotation when our ENTIRE LIVES we have been told that the moon rotates the same way as the earth but the earth is 27x faster than the moon.... so in all actuality... the shadow of the Eclipse should be moving west to east as the earth is rotating the same way and faster than the moon!?!?!?! any video you look for this or ANY eclipse it ALWAYS shows the rotations in opposite directions... wtf is up with that!?

here is the LINK on NASA's site

https://nasasearch.nasa.gov/search?query=solar+eclipse&affiliate=nasa&utf8=%E2%9C%93

Here is the actual video link...



VIDEO MADE BY NASA.

so I just find that very confusing as I was a Advanced Physics major so those trajectories make NO sense what so ever.

It is confusing, but they are showing the eclipse from the moons perspective as it crosses the earth.  The moon is traveling slightly faster then the earths rotation, so the shadow moves west to east.

But how is that correct if the earth travels 27x faster than the moon.... how is the moon moving "slightly" faster than the earth. do you have the mathematical equation to show that "slightly faster" movement than the earth. cause last I checked it takes 27 days for a full orbit of the moon and our 24hou days aren't more than 27 days long so it is physically impossible for the moon to be moving :slightly faster" than the earth spinning the same way. and that still doesn't explain why the two are spinning in opposite directions. why would NASA release false information as fact?

Since you have claimed before to be a physics major you probs should know the difference between angular and orbital velocity in regard of different diameters, right?
Think of it, take your time, and then come back. 

Yes very aware of how that works, still doesn't explain why NASA has posted a video that shows OPPOSITE rotations of moon and earth as to show how the shadow will draw across the US continent.

and yea, atleast I can admit I didn't think of the suns angular disordinance relative to the rotation of the earth. in a sense yes, it would go west to east as the sun moves against our rotaion (as it stays fixed and we move CC) faster than the moon would allowing it to cast a shadow west to east.

still would love to know why the Nasa video is Lacking hard

Actually where in that video did NASA show opposite rotations of Moon and Earth? 

The moon's orbital velocity>earth's rotational velocity

yes very aware as I just stated up above...

same concept as a race track.. your inside lane will always be faster than your outside lane in relativity to speed/velocity.

Quote from: SGExtracts710 on August 05, 2017, 11:07:07 AM

Quote from: Sentinel on August 05, 2017, 11:00:27 AM

Quote from: SGExtracts710 on August 05, 2017, 10:45:50 AM

Quote from: petej0 on August 05, 2017, 10:40:42 AM

Quote from: SGExtracts710 on August 05, 2017, 10:37:18 AM

question is, why in the video on the NASA site, having them SHOW and explain how it happens... the earth is spinning the opposite way of the moons rotation when our ENTIRE LIVES we have been told that the moon rotates the same way as the earth but the earth is 27x faster than the moon.... so in all actuality... the shadow of the Eclipse should be moving west to east as the earth is rotating the same way and faster than the moon!?!?!?! any video you look for this or ANY eclipse it ALWAYS shows the rotations in opposite directions... wtf is up with that!?

here is the LINK on NASA's site

https://nasasearch.nasa.gov/search?query=solar+eclipse&affiliate=nasa&utf8=%E2%9C%93

Here is the actual video link...



VIDEO MADE BY NASA.

so I just find that very confusing as I was a Advanced Physics major so those trajectories make NO sense what so ever.

It is confusing, but they are showing the eclipse from the moons perspective as it crosses the earth.  The moon is traveling slightly faster then the earths rotation, so the shadow moves west to east.

But how is that correct if the earth travels 27x faster than the moon.... how is the moon moving "slightly" faster than the earth. do you have the mathematical equation to show that "slightly faster" movement than the earth. cause last I checked it takes 27 days for a full orbit of the moon and our 24hou days aren't more than 27 days long so it is physically impossible for the moon to be moving :slightly faster" than the earth spinning the same way. and that still doesn't explain why the two are spinning in opposite directions. why would NASA release false information as fact?

Since you have claimed before to be a physics major you probs should know the difference between angular and orbital velocity in regard of different diameters, right?
Think of it, take your time, and then come back. 

Yes very aware of how that works, still doesn't explain why NASA has posted a video that shows OPPOSITE rotations of moon and earth as to show how the shadow will draw across the US continent.

and yea, atleast I can admit I didn't think of the suns angular disordinance relative to the rotation of the earth. in a sense yes, it would go west to east as the sun moves against our rotaion (as it stays fixed and we move CC) faster than the moon would allowing it to cast a shadow west to east.

still would love to know why the Nasa video is Lacking hard

Actually where in that video did NASA show opposite rotations of Moon and Earth? 

I paid more attention to the video and now put 2 and 2 together and realize they are shoing the individualy path of the eclipse... not the rotations of both LOL.... minor Derp moment

As for your 15 mile high sun and 25 mile high stars, you are one of a kind

Then, you be the first REtard to explain the acceleration of the rate of axial precession as it applies to the Earth - Sirius distance:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032

Basic information the subject:

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

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

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

In 1900 the precession rate was 50.2564 (USNO).

In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).

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

<Big ol' table that illustrates sandokhan's ignorance of the concept of experimental error and what happens when you extrapolate too far>

Haven't we been through this before? Why, yes, we have, more than a year ago! Do you forget this, or hope your audience has, or maybe you think you can trot the same old bunk out to a new audience and someone will buy it?

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

Lol. Nope. Not even if "it has increased at an 'exponential' rate" were true.

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

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

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

Then you, the REtard, have a huge problem on your hands.

HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?

That's easy. It doesnt! Next.

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]

... and it doesn't. Exactly as expected.

In the official theory of astrophysics, Sirius is 8.6 LIGHT YEARS from Earth.

THAT IS 81 TRILLION KILOMETERS.

That sounds about right.

The Hipparcos astrometric catalog gives the parallax for Sirius (HIP 32349) as 379.21 milliarcseconds. That means that Sirius appears to change position due to parallax relative to vastly more distant stars by 0.37921 seconds of arc at opposite points on the earth's orbit. This gives a distance of 2.64 parsecs (1 parsec (pc) is the distance at which earth's orbit to produces 1 second of parallax). Since 1 parsec is 3.26 light years (ly), 2.64 pc * 3.26 ly/pc = 8.6 ly, and 8.6 ly * 9.461 X 10¹² km/ly = 8.14 X 10¹³ km (81.4 trillion km). So those figures check.

81 TRILLION(!) KILOMETERS is a big number (on a human scale, but not so much when dealing with astronomical distances; Sirius is one of the nearest stars). Note the all caps - that must mean that sandokhan thinks we're supposed to be IMPRESSED or something.

And yet it keeps up precisely with the exponential increase of the rate of precession.

Dr. Jad Buchwald (Caltech):

Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes—and so from the solstices— throughout these many centuries, despite precession.

<etc.>

Hmmm... that's an interesting assertion in view of the fact that Sirius has changed its position with respect to the equator and equinox by about 0.75° since 1950 (from the Becvar, Atlas of the Heavens II - Catalogue 1950 [GC 8833, on p.198] [Note: that link is a 12 Mb pdf file download], 06h 42.9m RA, −16° 39' Dec; by J2000: 06h 45m 08.91728s, −16° 42′ 58.0171″[nb]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius#cite_note-aaa474_2_653-2[/nb], and Stellarium for Sirius' location as of today:  06h 45m 56s, −16° 44′ 19″). Of that, about 0.025° is due to proper motion and the rest due to precession. Its PM in right ascension is in the opposite direction as its shift in RA due to precession and PM in declination is the same direction as precession. The upshot is that Sirius' proper motion is unrelated to precession of the equator and equinoxes, and it's no different from any other star in that regard.

Can you provide further citations with more up to date support for the assertion that Sirius is fixed with respect to the equator and equinoxes? According to modern observations, that assertion is clearly incorrect.

question is, why in the video on the NASA site, having them SHOW and explain how it happens... the earth is spinning the opposite way of the moons rotation when our ENTIRE LIVES we have been told that the moon rotates the same way as the earth but the earth is 27x faster than the moon.... so in all actuality... the shadow of the Eclipse should be moving west to east as the earth is rotating the same way and faster than the moon!?!?!?! any video you look for this or ANY eclipse it ALWAYS shows the rotations in opposite directions... wtf is up with that!?

here is the LINK on NASA's site

https://nasasearch.nasa.gov/search?query=solar+eclipse&affiliate=nasa&utf8=%E2%9C%93

Here is the actual video link...



VIDEO MADE BY NASA.

so I just find that very confusing as I was a Advanced Physics major so those trajectories make NO sense what so ever.

Maybe this will clear it up for you...

This shows it pretty well

Haven't we been through this before?



You tried your best to minimize the fact that the rate of axial precession is actually accelerating.

At first you tried to DENY THE DATA.

Then, realizing your mistake, you accepted the final figures.

The published constants are certainly close enough for my needs.

They should be.

They were calculated by none other than Simon Newcomb.

The figures are very clear.



Not even if "it has increased at an 'exponential' rate" were true.

But it is true.

The rate is accelerating.

Please explain why.

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

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

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

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



Sirius has shifted a total of 0.5391° relative to the Ecliptic and Equinoxes in the 50 years between epoch J1950.0 and J2000.0, according to Stellarium.

You tried that shit before.

It didn't work then, it won't work now.

".... despite precession, Sirius and the solstice must remain about the same distance in time from one another during most of Egyptian history. Indeed they do, though it’s doubtful that Burckhardt and Coraboeuf had thought it through. Because of Sirius’ position, and the latitudes at which the Egyptians observed the sky, both Sirius’ heliacal rising and the summer solstice remained nearly the same number of days apart throughout Egyptian history even though the zodiac moves slowly around the ecliptic." (pp 29)

Buchwald, who produced a revealing diagram on the ‘Heliacal Risings of Sirius’ in relation to the vernal points (for the period of 2900 BCE to 2941 CE at intervals of 1460 years) using TheSky software, makes it very clear that "Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes - and so from the solstices - throughout these many centuries, despite precession".

According to the current theory of lunisolar precession the pole, and therefore the equator of the Earth is supposed to “wobble” over a period of roughly 25800 years relative to the position of the fixed stars and the Sun. In other words, if we were to imagine the Earth ‘fixed’ in its revolution around the Sun at the time when Sirius is in conjunction with the Sun (e.g. during the Summer solstice), an observer would not only notice changes in the declination of Sirius and the other stars, but simultaneously equal changes in the declination of the Sun. In practice, however, Sirius does not show any significant variations in its position relative to the Summer solstice.

In order to account for the unusual motion of Sirius, which is minimal relative to the Summer solstice and exceptionally high with respect to the stars of the Zodiac, Karine Gadré,  the Associate Researcher at the Department of Astrophysics of the MidiPyrenees Observatory in Toulouse, France offers the following explanation:

“The low change in the celestial coordinates of Sirius comes from its high proper movement, which partly compensated the effects of precession under the Dynastic Period. […] In order to better understand how the proper movement of Sirius can partly compensate the effects of precession, do not only take into account the numerical values of the speed vector. Take also into account the position of Sirius on the celestial vault at a given instant and the direction of the speed vector.”

Now we know that the proper motion of Sirius (i.e. of the Sirius system) over a period of some 5400 years is less than 2°:

"For a long time astronomers had been noticing anomalies in Sirius' proper motion; this motion, well known since Halley's time is equal to 0.0375" in RA (Right Ascension) and to 1.207" in D, (Declination), which gives a yearly resultant motion of 1.32" in the direction of 204°, which is noticeably to the south. In 1834, Bessel showed that the anomalies consisted mainly of deviations between the star's theoretical position and its actual position; these distinctly periodic differences, especially in right ascension, may be as great as 0.321", which is a considerable amount with regard to meridian observations. Overall, instead of moving through space in a straight line, Sirius appears to display a wavy trajectory."

Dr. P. Blaize, Le Compagnon de Sirius, Bull. de la Société astronomique de France (1931)



An Egypto-Julian calendar reveals that New Year Day (beginnings of Sothic Cycles) of the Egyptian calendar synchronized with the following tetraeterises:

Heliopolis, Egypt:
4225 BC July 15
2767 BC July 16
1311 BC July 17
145 AD July 18


This proves that Sirius is not precessing like other stars, since in this 4,370 years time period, the calendar dates have only changed by 3 calendar days!

Moreover, the heliacal rising of Sirius appears to keep up with the calendar.

This heliacal rise of Sirius also appears to be a fixed date according to the Julian calendar for over 4,000 years.


HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?


If any local force here in "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.

Haven't we been through this before?



You tried your best to minimize the fact that the rate of axial precession is actually accelerating.

At first you tried to DENY THE DATA.

Then, realizing your mistake, you accepted the final figures.

The published constants are certainly close enough for my needs.

They should be.

They were calculated by none other than Simon Newcomb.

The figures are very clear.



Not even if "it has increased at an 'exponential' rate" were true.

But it is true.

The rate is accelerating.

Please explain why.

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

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

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

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



Sirius has shifted a total of 0.5391° relative to the Ecliptic and Equinoxes in the 50 years between epoch J1950.0 and J2000.0, according to Stellarium.

You tried that shit before.

It didn't work then, it won't work now.

".... despite precession, Sirius and the solstice must remain about the same distance in time from one another during most of Egyptian history. Indeed they do, though it’s doubtful that Burckhardt and Coraboeuf had thought it through. Because of Sirius’ position, and the latitudes at which the Egyptians observed the sky, both Sirius’ heliacal rising and the summer solstice remained nearly the same number of days apart throughout Egyptian history even though the zodiac moves slowly around the ecliptic." (pp 29)

Buchwald, who produced a revealing diagram on the ‘Heliacal Risings of Sirius’ in relation to the vernal points (for the period of 2900 BCE to 2941 CE at intervals of 1460 years) using TheSky software, makes it very clear that "Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes - and so from the solstices - throughout these many centuries, despite precession".

According to the current theory of lunisolar precession the pole, and therefore the equator of the Earth is supposed to “wobble” over a period of roughly 25800 years relative to the position of the fixed stars and the Sun. In other words, if we were to imagine the Earth ‘fixed’ in its revolution around the Sun at the time when Sirius is in conjunction with the Sun (e.g. during the Summer solstice), an observer would not only notice changes in the declination of Sirius and the other stars, but simultaneously equal changes in the declination of the Sun. In practice, however, Sirius does not show any significant variations in its position relative to the Summer solstice.

In order to account for the unusual motion of Sirius, which is minimal relative to the Summer solstice and exceptionally high with respect to the stars of the Zodiac, Karine Gadré,  the Associate Researcher at the Department of Astrophysics of the MidiPyrenees Observatory in Toulouse, France offers the following explanation:

“The low change in the celestial coordinates of Sirius comes from its high proper movement, which partly compensated the effects of precession under the Dynastic Period. […] In order to better understand how the proper movement of Sirius can partly compensate the effects of precession, do not only take into account the numerical values of the speed vector. Take also into account the position of Sirius on the celestial vault at a given instant and the direction of the speed vector.”

Now we know that the proper motion of Sirius (i.e. of the Sirius system) over a period of some 5400 years is less than 2°:

"For a long time astronomers had been noticing anomalies in Sirius' proper motion; this motion, well known since Halley's time is equal to 0.0375" in RA (Right Ascension) and to 1.207" in D, (Declination), which gives a yearly resultant motion of 1.32" in the direction of 204°, which is noticeably to the south. In 1834, Bessel showed that the anomalies consisted mainly of deviations between the star's theoretical position and its actual position; these distinctly periodic differences, especially in right ascension, may be as great as 0.321", which is a considerable amount with regard to meridian observations. Overall, instead of moving through space in a straight line, Sirius appears to display a wavy trajectory."

Dr. P. Blaize, Le Compagnon de Sirius, Bull. de la Société astronomique de France (1931)



An Egypto-Julian calendar reveals that New Year Day (beginnings of Sothic Cycles) of the Egyptian calendar synchronized with the following tetraeterises:

Heliopolis, Egypt:
4225 BC July 15
2767 BC July 16
1311 BC July 17
145 AD July 18


This proves that Sirius is not precessing like other stars, since in this 4,370 years time period, the calendar dates have only changed by 3 calendar days!

Moreover, the heliacal rising of Sirius appears to keep up with the calendar.

This heliacal rise of Sirius also appears to be a fixed date according to the Julian calendar for over 4,000 years.


HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?


If any local force here in "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.

Don't have have to explain any of what you're asking...nor could I because I'm not strong enough in celestial mechanics to do so. 

However, the fact that the current math spherical & celestial coordinate system works and not only explains what we observe but accurately predicts future eclipses.  The same math that predicts the upcoming eclipses for the next thousand years to within minutes and a fraction of degrees of latitude/longitude.

You may not like it but unless you can show the math that predicts this months eclipse is wrong then your out of water.

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLE/5MKLE-214173.pdf

This link show eclipse path table based on the equations in the above link.  Nobody has to blindly accept the data as all the equations, assumptions, and methodologies are provided for verification.

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpath/SEpath2001/SE2017Aug21Tpath.html

Asking a bunch of misleading questions doesn't change the fact the that eclipses are well understood, the math describes exactly what has been observed, and is accurate to reliable predict eclipses for the next thousand years.  The math is testable and repeatable.  The very definition of an analytical solution. 

Mike

I paid more attention to the video and now put 2 and 2 together and realize they are shoing the individualy path of the eclipse... not the rotations of both LOL.... minor Derp moment

Good, then.
Any other questions/issues about the solar eclipse in the spheroid heliocentric model?

Haven't we been through this before?

< Good one!>

Well, haven't we?

You tried your best to minimize the fact that the rate of axial precession is actually accelerating.

At first you tried to DENY THE DATA.

Where?

Then, realizing your mistake, you accepted the final figures.

Where?

When shown reliable information that fills a gap or corrects an error in understanding, I say so, learn, and move on. You?

Why don't you link to the conversations where you claim these things happen? What are you trying to hide?

The published constants are certainly close enough for my needs.

Would you mind linking to earlier posts instead of only quoting out of context? Thanks!

They should be.

They were calculated by none other than Simon Newcomb.

Really?!?? Wowzers!!!! Simon Newcomb hizownself??? I'm very, very deeply awed and impressed! I guess. Maybe. Is that supposed to be significant in and of itself?

The figures are very clear.

<This, again? Still haven't figured out what experimental error is yet? Tsk!>

Not even if "it has increased at an 'exponential' rate" were true.

But it is true.

The rate is accelerating.

Please explain why.

Already did, but you're still not going to like it.

Since you invoke Wikipedia, here are quotes from the article you mention:

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession#Cause

The precession of the equinoxes is caused by the gravitational forces of the Sun and the Moon, and to a lesser extent other bodies, on the Earth. It was first explained by Sir Isaac Newton.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession#Values

In reality, more elaborate calculations on the numerical model of the Solar System show that the precessional constants have a period of about 41,000 years, the same as the obliquity of the ecliptic. Note that the constants mentioned here are the linear and all higher terms of the formula above, not the precession itself. That is,
p = A + BT + CT2 + …
is an approximation of
p = a + b sin (2πT/P), where P is the 410-century period.

...

The classical explanation: there are more things involved than just Sun-Earth-Moon.  Nice bluff, though. Too bad (for you) that it didn't work.

Note how that quote automatically links back to its source. That way you can see the context it was made within and links in that post take you to the one it's in response to. Pretty cool, huh? UNLESS, of course, you want to make it as difficult as you can to follow your argument, or to obfuscate and make disingenuous assertions; Knowing your style, I can see why you'd want to obscure and make as much as you can difficult to check.

Anyway, remember, that wikipedia article you recommended did say

The precession of the equinoxes is caused by the gravitational forces of the Sun and the Moon, and to a lesser extent other bodies, on the Earth. It was first explained by Sir Isaac Newton.

Yet it says nothing at all about precession, as measured, destroying Newtonian Mechanics. I wonder why?

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

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

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

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

Now there's a phenomenal example of jumping to conclusions. It's good to see you get some exercise. Don't you remember, that wikipedia article you referenced says:

The precession of the equinoxes is caused by the gravitational forces of the Sun and the Moon, and to a lesser extent other bodies, on the Earth. It was first explained by Sir Isaac Newton.

Perhaps there are other masses in the solar system, like, say, oh, maybe other planets?

Do you even read the things you cite, or do you just skim them looking for some "good stuff" that you can misinterpret or intentionally misrepresent?

Sirius has shifted a total of 0.5391° relative to the Ecliptic and Equinoxes in the 50 years between epoch J1950.0 and J2000.0, according to Stellarium.

You tried that shit before.

You never refuted it, either. Can you show, with actual data, not anecdotes, that it's incorrect?

It didn't work then, it won't work now.

Really? So are you saying that in 1950 Sirius was at RA 06h 45m 08.91728s, Dec −16° 42′ 58.0171″, same as Jan 1 2000, and all the catalogs and atlases of the time were wrong? Or are you saying that Sirius is now (and in 2000) really at RA 06h 42.9m, Dec −16° 39', same as it was in 1950 and all the atlases and catalogs now are wrong? Or is it somewhere else entirely? Specific numbers, please, and their source.

Have you even checked to see if it's where the catalogs say it is? I do realize you may recoil in horror at being asked to actually dirty your hands by going outside to take some measurements, when you'd much rather spend your time trolling the Internet for arcane BS and then bloviating about it here. The latter is much more fun while being unproductive at the same time - perfect for you!

<poorly-cited quotes and anecdotes>

HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?

It's not. Simple as that.

Instead of carrying on about this by citing out of context quotes and questionable references, why don't you actually go out in the real world and check to see if your argument has any merit?

Can you show that Sirius is not at RA 06h 46m, Dec −16° 44′ now? Do you have any hard evidence that Sirius was not at RA 06h 43m, Dec −16° 39' in 1950? That's a difference of 3 minutes of Right Ascension, almost three-quarters of a degree. A change in position that large is easily detected in many currently-available amateur telescopes, and has been in professional telescopes for much more than a century. A change in position with respect to other stars in the vicinity could be detected by even the most basic instruments for centuries.

If any local force here in "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.

You're right. It doesn't.

For some reason you want to think Sirius is immune to precession in spite of reliable (and verifiable) evidence to the contrary, but you're clearly wrong. It's what you do, I guess.

alphaomega, you are trying for the upteenth time to bullshit your readers.

They can see that you have no valid arguments at all, that you are wasting everybody's time here, again.

And they do not react well at all to being treated like this: you are simply insulting their intelligence.


Your quotes are useless.

They do not address at all the situation I described: a sure sign of cognitive dissonance on your part.


Here is the situation.

The rate of axial precession is ACCELERATING.

No scientist can explain why.

You cannot bring in the influence of other planets, as their contribution is infinitesimal, in fact it would have constituted the first line of attack by astrophysicists in order to explain the acceleration of the precession; they, unlike you, know that they cannot bring such a silly argument to the table.

ONLY the gravitational effect from the Sun and from the Moon matters.


Here are the facts.

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

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

In 1900 the precession rate was 50.2564 (USNO).

In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).

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


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

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


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


You never refuted it, either. Can you show, with actual data, not anecdotes, that it's incorrect?

But I did in very certain terms.

It seems you are back to your old shenanigans, where a most direct proof has to be run by you once, twice, thrice, four times, maybe even five times before you get the point.


The orbit of Sirius represents one of the greatest mysteries in modern astronomy.

Read the facts which are not taken into consideration neither by the folks over at the Stellarium, nor by yourself.

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)


Listen to the experts in the field.

Jed Buchwald (Caltech)

Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes—and so from the solstices— throughout these many centuries, despite precession.

".... despite precession, Sirius and the solstice must remain about the same distance in time from one another during most of Egyptian history."

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."



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.


It 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.

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".


Further proof.



An Egypto-Julian calendar reveals that New Year Day (beginnings of Sothic Cycles) of the Egyptian calendar synchronized with the following tetraeterises:

Heliopolis, Egypt:
4225 BC July 15
2767 BC July 16
1311 BC July 17
145 AD July 18


This proves that Sirius is not precessing like other stars, since in this 4,370 years time period, the calendar dates have only changed by 3 calendar days!

Moreover, the heliacal rising of Sirius appears to keep up with the calendar.

This heliacal rise of Sirius also appears to be a fixed date according to the Julian calendar for over 4,000 years.


HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?


If any local force here in "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.


Next time we meet you are going to have to explain the Perseid meteor shower paradox: a most direct contradiction of your whimsical beliefs.

Why wait?

HERE IS THE PERSEID METEOR SHOWER PARADOX: a most direct contradiction of Newtonian mechanics.


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).


You see alphaomega, this is the kind of proofs that the readers are waiting for: they can see most directly that you are trying to bullshit your way in any debate, and that your false beliefs can be debunked immediately.

Please read the rule about quote trees.  Don't quote everything that has ever been said when people are perfectly capable of reading the same things you are capable of quoting.

sandokhan trying to bore the thread to death like he has done to hundreds of others

sandokhan trying to bore the thread to death like he has done to hundreds of others

I guess he has no answers for posters who present him with evidence.

Mike

Why wait?

HERE IS THE PERSEID METEOR SHOWER PARADOX: a most direct contradiction of Newtonian mechanics.

So what? How does that affect or explain the solar eclipse.

Quote from: sandokhan on August 05, 2017, 10:04:16 PM

Why wait?

HERE IS THE PERSEID METEOR SHOWER PARADOX: a most direct contradiction of Newtonian mechanics.

So what? How does that affect or explain the solar eclipse.

It doesn't...not without a bunch of conjecture and assumption.  Otherwise there would be an actual analytical model to show why it contradicts Newtonian mechanics.  Since there isn't, it's all just smoke and mirrors.

Mike

Quote from: rabinoz on August 06, 2017, 03:58:30 PM

Quote from: sandokhan on August 05, 2017, 10:04:16 PM

Why wait?

HERE IS THE PERSEID METEOR SHOWER PARADOX: a most direct contradiction of Newtonian mechanics.

So what? How does that affect or explain the solar eclipse.

It doesn't...not without a bunch of conjecture and assumption.  Otherwise there would be an actual analytical model to show why it contradicts Newtonian mechanics.  Since there isn't, it's all just smoke and mirrors.

Mike

It is always smoke and mirrors with Sandy.

alphaomega, you are trying for the upteenth time to bullshit your readers.

It's good to know you have a sense of humor, but your attempt at irony is too obvious.

They can see that you have no valid arguments at all, that you are wasting everybody's time here, again.

And they do not react well at all to being treated like this: you are simply insulting their intelligence.

One thing that's certain is that you don't react well when someone shows you're wrong, and, even worse, explains, in detail, why.

Your quotes are useless.

They do not address at all the situation I described: a sure sign of cognitive dissonance on your part.

Ah, yes... good ol' "cognitive dissonance". Where would you be without that mostly meaningless and easily abused term at your disposal.

Here is the situation.

The rate of axial precession is ACCELERATING.

No scientist can explain why.

You think so? You must not read the information source you recommend here:

THE INCREASING RATE OF THE ANNUAL PRECESSION IS A BASIC FACT OF SCIENCE.
...
It is even listed in the wikipedia page on the axial precession subject.

This one? The one that says:

Simon Newcomb's calculation at the end of the 19th century for general precession (p) in longitude gave a value of 5,025.64 arcseconds per tropical century, and was the generally accepted value until artificial satellites delivered more accurate observations and electronic computers allowed more elaborate models to be calculated. Lieske developed an updated theory in 1976, where p equals 5,029.0966 arcseconds per Julian century. Modern techniques such as VLBI and LLR allowed further refinements, and the International Astronomical Union adopted a new constant value in 2000, and new computation methods and polynomial expressions in 2003 and 2006; the accumulated precession is:

pA = 5,028.796195×T + 1.1054348×T² + higher order terms,
in arcseconds, with T, the time in Julian centuries (that is, 36,525 days) since the epoch of 2000.

The rate of precession is the derivative of that:

p = 5,028.796195 + 2.2108696×T + higher order terms.
The constant term of this speed (5,028.796195 arcseconds per century in above equation) corresponds to one full precession circle in 25,771.57534 years (one full circle of 360 degrees divided with 5,028.796195 arcseconds per century)[24] although some other sources put the value at 25771.4 years, leaving a small uncertainty.

The precession rate is not a constant, but is (at the moment) slowly increasing over time, as indicated by the linear (and higher order) terms in T. In any case it must be stressed that this formula is only valid over a limited time period. It is clear that if T gets large enough (far in the future or far in the past), the T² term will dominate and p will go to very large values. In reality, more elaborate calculations on the numerical model of the Solar System show that the precessional constants have a period of about 41,000 years, the same as the obliquity of the ecliptic. Note that the constants mentioned here are the linear and all higher terms of the formula above, not the precession itself. That is,

p = A + BT + CT2 + …
is an approximation of

p = a + b sin (2πT/P), where P is the 410-century period.
Theoretical models may calculate the proper constants (coefficients) corresponding to the higher powers of T, but since it is impossible for a (finite) polynomial to match a periodic function over all numbers, the error in all such approximations will grow without bound as T increases. In that respect, the International Astronomical Union chose the best-developed available theory. For up to a few centuries in the past and the future, all formulas do not diverge very much. For up to a few thousand years in the past and the future, most agree to some accuracy.

Note the highlighted phrase "more elaborate calculations on the numerical model of the Solar System show that the precessional constants have a period of about 41,000 years". Whatever does "the numerical model of the Solar System" mean? Maybe that scientists know what's going on to a high enough precision to make reasonably accurate predictions for thousands of years, even if not perfectly enough for all time?

You cannot bring in the influence of other planets, as their contribution is infinitesimal

Why not? Because you say so? Nope. It doesn't work that way.

Fortunately, the universe doesn't care what you think. Because you're a blowhard that doesn't know what he's talking about, scientists don't either.

Remember, from your reference:

The precession of the equinoxes is caused by the gravitational forces of the Sun and the Moon, and to a lesser extent other bodies, on the Earth. It was first explained by Sir Isaac Newton.

"Lesser extent" is not the same as "infinitesimal", even if you want it to be.

in fact it would have constituted the first line of attack by astrophysicists in order to explain the acceleration of the precession; they, unlike you, know that they cannot bring such a silly argument to the table.

ONLY the gravitational effect from the Sun and from the Moon matters.

Nope. See above. You're talking about a small, but non-negligible, effect. The planets, etc. are a small, but non-negligible, effect.

Here are the facts.

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

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

In 1900 the precession rate was 50.2564 (USNO).

In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).

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

Or, the newer techniques produce better accuracy. From the information you're working from, you really can't say whether the rate is increasing, or the base measurement is simply more accurate, or a combination.

Let's see, just taking the numbers at face value... 0.000222"/year for 100 years is 0.0222"

Newcomb, 1900 yearly rate: 50.2564" + 0.000222"/year. Predicted value for 2000: 50.2564" + 0.0222" = 50.2786"

2000 measured yearly rate: 50.290966"

The 100-year forward prediction of a varying and difficult to measure value from 1900 differs from the year 2000 measured value by about 0.02%. Don't forget, the 2000-era measurement used a different, more accurate, technique. I'd say Bravo! to those 1900 guys.

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

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

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

You never refuted it, either. Can you show, with actual data, not anecdotes, that it's incorrect?

But I did in very certain terms.

Really? Why didn't you provide a way to see this "certain refutation" instead of just claiming it? Is it because it doesn't really exist and you know it?

It seems you are back to your old shenanigans, where a most direct proof has to be run by you once, twice, thrice, four times, maybe even five times before you get the point.

There is no point. You seem to believe that repeating some baloney twice, thrice, four times, maybe even five times (or more?) will somehow make it true. It won't.

The orbit of Sirius represents one of the greatest mysteries in modern astronomy.

Read the facts which are not taken into consideration neither by the folks over at the Stellarium, nor by yourself.

It sounds like you are saying I can't take the coordinates that Stellarium reports as the location of Sirius for a particular time, and use them to accurately point a telescope at Sirius at that time. That's easy enough to check. I'll do that next winter, when Sirius is up in the evenings. Feel free to remind me to do this in case I forget.

You didn't answer this.

Instead of carrying on about this by citing out of context quotes and questionable references, why don't you actually go out in the real world and check to see if your argument has any merit?

Can you show that Sirius is not at RA 06h 46m, Dec −16° 44′ now? Do you have any hard evidence that Sirius was not at RA 06h 43m, Dec −16° 39' in 1950? That's a difference of 3 minutes of Right Ascension, almost three-quarters of a degree. A change in position that large is easily detected in many currently-available amateur telescopes, and has been in professional telescopes for much more than a century. A change in position with respect to other stars in the vicinity could be detected by even the most basic instruments for centuries.

I wonder why you didn't answer? [Not really... we all know perfectly well why you didn't answer. It would show you're wrong! Which, of course, you can never do because the carefully crafted but fragile facade would crumble.]

Instead, we get anecdotes like this:

In order to account for the unusual motion of Sirius, which is minimal relative to the Summer solstice and exceptionally high with respect to the stars of the Zodiac... which partly compensated the effects of precession under the Dynastic Period.  ...
Now we know that the proper motion of Sirius (i.e. of the Sirius system) over a period of some 5400 years is less than 2°:

Aha! some hard numbers.

Proper motion of less than 2° over 5400 years.

2° / 5400 yr = 0.00037°/yr

0.00037°/yr * 3600 arcsec/deg = 1.332 arcsec/yr

This is very close to the recently measured value for the proper motion of Sirius of 1330 milliarcsec/yr.

50 yr * 1.330 arcsec/yr = 66.5 arcsec, or about 1.1 minute of arc.

1.1 minute of arc / 60'/degree = 0.018°

Using the modern value, in 50 years, Sirius proper motion has caused it to move about 0.018°, while its celestial coordinates changed by more than 0.5°, mostly because of precession.

"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)

Could this "wavy trajectory" be caused by some conventional phenomenon, like, say, a Sirius was a binary star system, but was so bright that its companion was hard to see?

Why, what. A. Surprise!!

In 1844, the German astronomer Friedrich Bessel deduced from changes in the proper motion of Sirius that it had an unseen companion. On January 31, 1862, American telescope-maker and astronomer Alvan Graham Clark first observed the faint companion, which is now called Sirius B, or affectionately "the Pup".

As an interesting but largely irrelevant side note, the Clark telescope that first detected the companion of Sirius, an 18.5" aperture refractor, the largest in the world at the time, was initially commissioned by the University of Mississippi but when the American Civil War broke out before it was finished, it could not be delivered to Mississippi (in the South) from Massachusetts (in the North) and was sold to a benefactor who founded the Dearborn Observatory for the University of Chicago, in Michigan, USA (in the North) instead.

Listen to the experts in the field.

<more anecdotes>

HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?

If any local force here in "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.

Same as before. Sirius' proper motion isn't remotely synched up with precession. Even if you want to claim it is for three, four, five, or more times.

Next time we meet you are going to have to explain the Perseid meteor shower paradox: a most direct contradiction of your whimsical beliefs.

Oh, great... another "paradox"[nb]"Paradox" is sandokahn's description of "something I don't understand".[/nb]. And the classic sandokhan tactic "change the topic because I'm losing the argument" begins. Any over/under bets on how long before Tunguska shows up?

Your tricks don't work with me, or with the readers.

The wikipedia page you are quoting was written by amateurs (such as yourself), who are not experts in the field.

That is why they mention a hypothetical periodicity of some 41,000 years without having knowledge of the actual orbital equations.

Let us see what the actual experts in the field have to say on the subject.

Dr. W.M. Smart

Regius Professor of Astronomy at Glasgow University
President of the Royal Astronomical Society from 1949 to 1951







The calculations for the stability of the Earth supposed heliocentrical orbit (including eccentricity, precession and much more) ARE NOT VALID AFTER A PERIOD OF 300 YEARS.


Moreover, the 41,000 supposed periodicity mentioned in the vickypedia article cannot be true, since the Milankovitch cycle is not true either, and RELIES ON THE SAME FIGURE OF 41,000 YEARS.


Here are the precise facts detailing the proof that the Earth has very recently undergone a massive pole shift, contradicting the whimsical calculations for the periodicity of 41,000 years, based on armchair deductions, totally detached from reality:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936055#msg1936055 (extinction of the mammoth, a most precise proof)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938384#msg1938384 (proofs from botany and zoology)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938393#msg1938393 (proofs from geography of the plants)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938396#msg1938396 (more proofs coming from zoology)


Your quotes amount to nothing at all, just as I have said from the very start.


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

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

The mass of Jupiter is DECREASING.

Now, you have more trouble on your hands.

Not only you have to explain the acceleration of the rate of precession, but also you'd have to account for these facts:

1. Solar mass is decreasing

2. Lunar distance from Earth is actually receding

3. Jupiter's mass is decreasing


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.

The experts tell us then that Sirius remains at the SAME DISTANCE from the solstices throughout history:

Dr. Jad Buchwald (Caltech):

Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes—and so from the solstices— throughout these many centuries, despite precession.

".... despite precession, Sirius and the solstice must remain about the same distance in time from one another during most of Egyptian history."


HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?


If any local force here in "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.


The star Sirius knows precisely how to account for Newcomb's constant, and not only that, it knows that this constant has actually increased its value.

This could only be possible if the distance Sun-Sirius is measured in mere kilometers, as the common etheric field encompassing these stars would be able move both stars in a precise manner, to account for the exponential rate of the acceleration of precession.


Using the modern value, in 50 years, Sirius proper motion has caused it to move about 0.018°, while its celestial coordinates changed by more than 0.5°, mostly because of precession.

You still don't get it.

Dr. Karine Gadre is the world's foremost expert on the motion of Sirius. Dr. Gadre's PhD dissertation on this subject amounts to some 300+ pages.


Please read carefully:

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.”


Do you understand basic English?


There is a most unusual motion of Sirius, which is minimal relative to the Summer solstice and exceptionally high with respect to the stars of the Zodiac.

That is why at each and every solstice its distance is minimal throughout the centuries, while exceptionally high with respect to the stars of the Zodiac.

An orbit in the shape of a huge waveform, which defies modern astronomy.


Thus its proper motion is synched up with the precession, and there are great anomalies in this proper motion, unaccounted for by modern astronomy.

Listen to the experts in the field.


“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.”

"For a long time astronomers had been noticing anomalies in Sirius' proper motion; this motion, well known since Halley's time is equal to 0.0375" in RA (Right Ascension) and to 1.207" in D, (Declination), which gives a yearly resultant motion of 1.32" in the direction of 204°, which is noticeably to the south. In 1834, Bessel showed that the anomalies consisted mainly of deviations between the star's theoretical position and its actual position; these distinctly periodic differences, especially in right ascension, may be as great as 0.321", which is a considerable amount with regard to meridian observations. Overall, instead of moving through space in a straight line, Sirius appears to display a wavy trajectory."

Dr. P. Blaize, Le Compagnon de Sirius, Bull. de la Société astronomique de France (1931)


Your constant bullshitting cannot change the facts.


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."



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 DOES SIRIUS KNOW HOW TO ACCOUNT FOR NEWCOMB'S CONSTANT?

HOW CAN SIRIUS CALCULATE IN ADVANCE THE EXPONENTIAL INCREASE IN THE ACCELERATION OF THE RATE OF PRECESSION, IF ITS DISTANCE FROM THE SOLAR SYSTEM IS SOME 81 TRILLION KILOMETERS?

It 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.

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".


According to the current theory of lunisolar precession the pole, and therefore the equator of the Earth is supposed to “wobble” over a period of roughly 25800 years relative to the position of the fixed stars and the Sun. In other words, if we were to imagine the Earth ‘fixed’ in its revolution around the Sun at the time when Sirius is in conjunction with the Sun (e.g. during the Summer solstice), an observer would not only notice changes in the declination of Sirius and the other stars, but simultaneously equal changes in the declination of the Sun. In practice, however, Sirius does not show any significant variations in its position relative to the Summer solstice.


Do you understand English?

In practice, however, Sirius does not show any significant variations in its position relative to the Summer solstice.

HOW DOES SIRIUS KNOW HOW TO ACCOUNT FOR NEWCOMB'S CONSTANT?

HOW CAN SIRIUS CALCULATE IN ADVANCE THE EXPONENTIAL INCREASE IN THE ACCELERATION OF THE RATE OF PRECESSION, IF ITS DISTANCE FROM THE SOLAR SYSTEM IS SOME 81 TRILLION KILOMETERS?

The Perseid meter shower DEFIES your whimsical beliefs:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71409.msg1938768#msg1938768

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.

Your tricks don't work with me, or with the readers.

Your tricks don't work with me, or with the other readers.

Have you forgotten how to read? The topic happens to be "Solar eclipse".

While you are here though,

More proofs that the unusual motion of Sirius is MINIMAL relative to the summer solstice:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000JHA....31..149S

The heliacal rise of Sirius and ancient Egyptian chronology

Published in the Journal for the History of Astronomy, Vol. 31, Part 2, p. 149 - 155




This totally agrees with the bibiographical reference I provided earlier:



An Egypto-Julian calendar reveals that New Year Day (beginnings of Sothic Cycles) of the Egyptian calendar synchronized with the following tetraeterises:

Heliopolis, Egypt:
4225 BC July 15
2767 BC July 16
1311 BC July 17
145 AD July 18


This proves that Sirius is not precessing like other stars, since in this 4,370 years time period, the calendar dates have only changed by 3 calendar days!

Moreover, the heliacal rising of Sirius appears to keep up with the calendar.

This heliacal rise of Sirius also appears to be a fixed date according to the Julian calendar for over 4,000 years.


HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?


If any local force here in "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.

More proofs that the unusual motion of Sirius is MINIMAL relative to the summer solstice:
<snip>

I'm sorry.  I must be missing something.  What does this prove/disprove about solar eclipses?

Mike

You have been warned (reply #71) not to use the quote trees unnecessarily.

You have been warned (reply #71) not to use the quote trees unnecessarily.

I was just trying to understand how that post fits into the subject of a solar eclipse.  I was quoting a single post by you, not a tree.  I guess I could have reduced the size.

But, I will ask again.  How that post fits into the subject of a solar eclipse?

Mike

More bad news for the RE.

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.

Now, you have more trouble on your hands.

Not only you have to explain the acceleration of the rate of precession, but also you'd have to account for these facts:

1. Solar mass is decreasing

2. Lunar distance from Earth is actually receding

3. Jupiter's mass is decreasing

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

Now, let us go back to the precise calculations.

Simon Newcomb included a “constant” in his precession formula 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.


Now, not only do the RE have to offset these slight diminishments in gravitational forces, but also to come up with larger effects in the opposite direction.

More bad news for the RE.

Irrelevant!

The topic is Re: Solar eclipse... I guess you must have lost the ability to read.

If you want to present your radical rubbish rhubarb theory, run off and make your own thread in Complete Nonsense.

A Sun at 12 miles height... Is he even sirius? 

How many other people completely skip over sandokhans posts. I see his name and immediately scroll till I see another post. His posts are incoherent babble. For someone who thinks they've completely debunked modern physics, why hasn't he published it in a scientific journal? Is it because he knows that any physicist worth a damn would instantly know he's a damn moron? I think so!

Your tricks don't work with me, or with the readers.

The wikipedia page you are quoting was written by amateurs (such as yourself), who are not experts in the field.

** Ahem **

THE INCREASING RATE OF THE ANNUAL PRECESSION IS A BASIC FACT OF SCIENCE.
...
It is even listed in the wikipedia page on the axial precession subject.

So after it's been shown to disagree with your notions, it's not to be believed? Maybe you should have read the article before suggesting it as a reference.

Who were the authors? Do you know all of them and their credentials?

That is why they mention a hypothetical periodicity of some 41,000 years without having knowledge of the actual orbital equations.

Well, no. The 410-century period was determined from the data. The orbital equations are expressed in the numerical model of the Solar System.

Let us see what the actual experts in the field have to say on the subject.

Dr. W.M. Smart

Regius Professor of Astronomy at Glasgow University
President of the Royal Astronomical Society from 1949 to 1951

https://s1.postimg.org/p2bdexbpb/bass4.jpg
https://s3.postimg.org/w68z5enqb/bass5.jpg
https://s17.postimg.org/sgi0la43z/bass6.jpg
https://s17.postimg.org/jyk3erf67/bass7.jpg

The calculations for the stability of the Earth supposed heliocentrical orbit (including eccentricity, precession and much more) ARE NOT VALID AFTER A PERIOD OF 300 YEARS.

That might have been true in 1953. We have better data now.

Moreover, the 41,000 supposed periodicity mentioned in the vickypedia article cannot be true, since the Milankovitch cycle is not true either, and RELIES ON THE SAME FIGURE OF 41,000 YEARS.


Here are the precise facts detailing the proof that the Earth has very recently undergone a massive pole shift, contradicting the whimsical calculations for the periodicity of 41,000 years, based on armchair deductions, totally detached from reality:

<self references>

Not only are those tomes not peer reviewed, they can't even be commented on except by people deemed by management to be "true believers" that the earth is flat.

Your quotes amount to nothing at all, just as I have said from the very start.

Just because you say something doesn't make it true. Even if you repeat it many times.

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.

Because it is decreed by the great and powerful sandokhan? We need a more substantive reason than that.

Sorry, but the mass of the planets does affect (perturb is the technical term) other solar-system bodies.

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

The mass of Jupiter is DECREASING.

So? How fast?

You cannot bring in the influence of other planets, as their contribution is infinitesimal, in fact it would have constituted the first line of attack by astrophysicists in order to explain the acceleration of the precession; they, unlike you, know that they cannot bring such a silly argument to the table.

ONLY the gravitational effect from the Sun and from the Moon matters.

Are you now retreating from this position? First you insist that the mass of Jupiter is irrelevant. Now you seem to think that it is not only relevant, but the fact that's it's changing (by a little? A lot?) is important.

So, which is it?

Now, you have more trouble on your hands.

Not only you have to explain the acceleration of the rate of precession, but also you'd have to account for these facts:

1. Solar mass is decreasing

2. Lunar distance from Earth is actually receding

3. Jupiter's mass is decreasing

In reality, more elaborate calculations on the numerical model of the Solar System show that the precessional constants have a period of about 41,000 years, the same as the obliquity of the ecliptic.

Remember, you were the one who recommended that article.

Can you show that the facts you list aren't in the referenced numerical model of the Solar System?

Now, let us go back to the precise calculations.

Simon Newcomb included a “constant”... <same ol' same ol' repeated yet again>

HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?

If any local force here in "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.

The star Sirius knows precisely how to account for Newcomb's constant, and not only that, it knows that this constant has actually increased its value.

This could only be possible if the distance Sun-Sirius is measured in mere kilometers, as the common etheric field encompassing these stars would be able move both stars in a precise manner, to account for the exponential rate of the acceleration of precession.

Using the modern value, in 50 years, Sirius proper motion has caused it to move about 0.018°, while its celestial coordinates changed by more than 0.5°, mostly because of precession.

You still don't get it.

I've understood all along that you're wrong and explained how I know you're wrong. Repeating stuff over and over doesn't change that.

Dr. Karine Gadre is the world's foremost expert on the motion of Sirius. Dr. Gadre's PhD dissertation on this subject amounts to some 300+ pages.

Please read carefully:

...

“The low change in the celestial coordinates of Sirius comes from its high proper movement, which partly compensated the effects of precession under the Dynastic Period. […] In order to better understand how the proper movement of Sirius can partly compensate the effects of precession, do not only take into account the numerical values of the speed vector. Take also into account the position of Sirius on the celestial vault at a given instant and the direction of the speed vector.”

Do you understand basic English?

Yes. Do you have any actual data that backs up the narratives you copy and paste?

Speaking of the celestial coordinates of Sirius, were they the same in 1950 as in 2000? Were they the same in 1950 as now?

Yes or no?

According to a well-used mid-century star catalog, Sirius was at RA 06h 42.9m, Dec −16° 39' at the beginning of 1950, and J2000 star catalogs place Sirius at RA 06h 45m 08.91728s, Dec −16° 42′ 58.0171″ (06h 45.1m, −16° 43′ to the same precision as the 1950 value).  [See near the bottom of this post for source.] It has moved south and east by 0.5425° (according to this calculator).

There is a most unusual motion of Sirius, which is minimal relative to the Summer solstice and exceptionally high with respect to the stars of the Zodiac.

That is why at each and every solstice its distance is minimal throughout the centuries, while exceptionally high with respect to the stars of the Zodiac.

"Low change", blah, blah, "partly compensate", yada, yada yada, "minimal", "exceptionally high", bork, bork, bork, ...

Reliable hard data, please. Not snippets of text with no context.

An orbit in the shape of a huge waveform, which defies modern astronomy.

Thus its proper motion is synched up with the precession, and there are great anomalies in this proper motion, unaccounted for by modern astronomy.

Listen to the experts in the field.

<repeated pasted text from a few lines ago>

"For a long time astronomers had been noticing anomalies in Sirius' proper motion; this motion, well known since Halley's time is equal to 0.0375" in RA (Right Ascension) and to 1.207" in D, (Declination), which gives a yearly resultant motion of 1.32" in the direction of 204°, which is noticeably to the south. In 1834, Bessel showed that the anomalies consisted mainly of deviations between the star's theoretical position and its actual position; these distinctly periodic differences, especially in right ascension, may be as great as 0.321", which is a considerable amount with regard to meridian observations. Overall, instead of moving through space in a straight line, Sirius appears to display a wavy trajectory."

Dr. P. Blaize, Le Compagnon de Sirius, Bull. de la Société astronomique de France (1931)

Sirius is a binary star, explaining the "wavy" trajectory, as already discussed. In fact, that paper is about Sirius having a companion star. Why bring it up again?

It does contain some numbers, though, so let's see... 1.32" per year proper motion for 50 years is 66" of arc, which is 1.1' of arc, or 0.018°. By Jove, that's almost exactly the same answer I got earlier using a different source for the value of pm! That's only 3% of its motion relative to the celestial sphere, nowhere near enough proper motion to nullify precession; remember, the combination of both produced a total of 0.5425° in the 50 years between 1950 and 2000[nb]There is also nutation, but nutation causes  less than 10 arc seconds of shift, and is periodic, so it doesn't accumulate over the period, so it's neglected here.[/nb].
 

Your constant bullshitting cannot change the facts.

Love the irony, even if it is clumsy.

<repeated story about the ancient Egyptians>

HOW DOES SIRIUS KNOW HOW TO ACCOUNT FOR NEWCOMB'S CONSTANT?

That's easy... it doesn't. It doesn't know who Simon Newcomb is, or, for that matter, who Dr. Karine Gadre is, either.

HOW CAN SIRIUS CALCULATE IN ADVANCE THE EXPONENTIAL INCREASE IN THE ACCELERATION OF THE RATE OF PRECESSION, IF ITS DISTANCE FROM THE SOLAR SYSTEM IS SOME 81 TRILLION KILOMETERS?

Wanna take a wild guess? [Spoiler: it's the same as the previous answer!]

<copy-paste *again* of narrative about ancient Egypt>

According to the current theory of lunisolar precession the pole, and therefore the equator of the Earth is supposed to “wobble” over a period of roughly 25800 years relative to the position of the fixed stars and the Sun. In other words, if we were to imagine the Earth ‘fixed’ in its revolution around the Sun at the time when Sirius is in conjunction with the Sun (e.g. during the Summer solstice), an observer would not only notice changes in the declination of Sirius and the other stars, but simultaneously equal changes in the declination of the Sun. In practice, however, Sirius does not show any significant variations in its position relative to the Summer solstice.

Do you understand English?

Yep. Same as earlier in this same post. Do you have any actual DATA for us to look at yet?

I doubt you'll find any, but we'll see.

In practice, however, Sirius does not show any significant variations in its position relative to the Summer solstice.

Wow! Big, bold, red text! Did you know that even fancy formatting doesn't make BS true? It is amusing to watch your reaction to being challenged with verifiable facts, though.

Is variation of more than half a degree in 50 years significant? I think it is. If astronomers had misplaced Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky, by half a degree 50 years ago (or it was right then, but half a degree off now?), then they certainly would have noticed, and loudly squawked, don't you think? Did Dr. Karine Gadre, "the world's foremost expert on the motion of Sirius" complain about star catalog entries misplacing Sirius by a good fraction of a degree anywhere in his 300+ page dissertation? Did Dr. Gadre's remark about it being good thing Sirius was so bright .

HOW DOES SIRIUS KNOW HOW TO ACCOUNT FOR NEWCOMB'S CONSTANT?

HOW CAN SIRIUS CALCULATE IN ADVANCE THE EXPONENTIAL INCREASE IN THE ACCELERATION OF THE RATE OF PRECESSION, IF ITS DISTANCE FROM THE SOLAR SYSTEM IS SOME 81 TRILLION KILOMETERS?

Dude... just scroll up a little bit. The answers haven't changed.

The Perseid meter shower DEFIES your whimsical beliefs:

Nope, nope, nope! No change of subject until you either show some reliable data demonstrating unequivocally that Sirius is immune to precession, or give up your silly argument that it is. Long-winded treatises about ancient Egyptians aren't reliable for this. Actual published astronomical records that have been validated by extensive use are reliable.

Nice try at deflecting the conversation away from your hopelessly wrong hypothesis, though.

If you want to discuss the Persieds, how about starting a new thread for it? At least precession of the equinoxes is a little bit relevant to this thread, which is about the upcoming total solar eclipse and predictions thereof.

alphaomega, you should apply for disability, due to basic ignorance of scientific facts.

The periodic infinite series discovered by Newcomb is STILL IN USE TODAY, for your information.

In fact KAM theory (Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser) grew out of the research done on those infinite series.

The comment made by Professor W. Smart is still valid today, and will always be so.

This shows your basic ignorance of the history of the orbital equations of motion.

Dr. Robert Bass, one of the top astrophysicists of the 20th century, reminding your of your ignorance on the subject:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120916174745/http://www.innoventek.com:80/Bass1974PenseeAllegedProofsOfStabilityOfSolarSystemR.pdf

Go ahead, and write to your local university, informing them that Professor Smart's comment on the Newcomb infinite series is no longer valid, or in use, and they will laugh in your face.

Those equations are fully valid even today, for your information.

As such, Professor Smart's calculation is valid as well.


More bad news for the RE.

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.

Now, you have more trouble on your hands.

Not only you have to explain the acceleration of the rate of precession, but also you'd have to account for these facts:

1. Solar mass is decreasing

2. Lunar distance from Earth is actually receding

3. Jupiter's mass is decreasing

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

Now, let us go back to the precise calculations.

Simon Newcomb included a “constant” in his precession formula 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.


Now, not only do the RE have to offset these slight diminishments in gravitational forces, but also to come up with larger effects in the opposite direction.

The acceleration of the rate of precession cannot be explained by modern astronomy.

It is as simple as this.


More proofs that the unusual motion of Sirius is MINIMAL relative to the summer solstice:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000JHA....31..149S

The heliacal rise of Sirius and ancient Egyptian chronology

Published in the Journal for the History of Astronomy, Vol. 31, Part 2, p. 149 - 155



This totally agrees with the bibiographical reference I provided earlier:



This proves that Sirius is not precessing like other stars, since in this 4,370 years time period, the calendar dates have only changed by 3 calendar days!

Moreover, the heliacal rising of Sirius appears to keep up with the calendar.

This heliacal rise of Sirius also appears to be a fixed date according to the Julian calendar for over 4,000 years.


HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?


If any local force here in "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.

According to the current theory of lunisolar precession the pole, and therefore the equator of the Earth is supposed to “wobble” over a period of roughly 25800 years relative to the position of the fixed stars and the Sun. In other words, if we were to imagine the Earth ‘fixed’ in its revolution around the Sun at the time when Sirius is in conjunction with the Sun (e.g. during the Summer solstice), an observer would not only notice changes in the declination of Sirius and the other stars, but simultaneously equal changes in the declination of the Sun. In practice, however, Sirius does not show any significant variations in its position relative to the Summer solstice.


Do you understand English?

In practice, however, Sirius does not show any significant variations in its position relative to the Summer solstice.

HOW DOES SIRIUS KNOW HOW TO ACCOUNT FOR NEWCOMB'S CONSTANT?

HOW CAN SIRIUS CALCULATE IN ADVANCE THE EXPONENTIAL INCREASE IN THE ACCELERATION OF THE RATE OF PRECESSION, IF ITS DISTANCE FROM THE SOLAR SYSTEM IS SOME 81 TRILLION KILOMETERS?


READ:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000JHA....31..149S

The position of Sirius changes with time due to proper motion and precession.

And YET, in practice, however, Sirius does not show any significant variations in its position relative to the Summer solstice.

How does Sirius know how to account for Newcomb's constant?


Please read carefully:

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.”


Dr. Jad Buchwald (Caltech):

Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes—and so from the solstices— throughout these many centuries, despite precession.


HOW THEN CAN SIRIUS ACCOUNT AHEAD OF TIME FOR NEWCOMB'S CONSTANT? FOR THE ACCELERATION OF THE RATE OF AXIAL PRECESSION?


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."



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.

It 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.

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:

".... 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".

THEN, HOW COULD THE STAR SIRIUS HAVE KNOWN HOW TO CALCULATE NEWCOMB'S CONSTANT AND ON TOP OF THAT ADD IT CONTINOUSLY EACH AND EVERY YEAR, AND MOREOVER ACCOUNT FOR ITS EXPONENTIAL RATE OF INCREASE?