In order for you to be correct, the catalog data that has been relied upon by many knowledgeable people operating precision equipment, would have to be significantly wrong. It is significantly wrong since it relies upon the wrong astronomical context: heliocentrism.
In geocentrism, the precession is due to other causes, the motion of the entire solar system/stars.
That is why I told you that everything comes to down to this very issue: does the Earth orbit the Sun or is it the other way around?
Your avoidance of the issues presented here speaks volumes: you have chosen to live in a fantasy world of your own.
You need to wake up.
The ORBITAL solar gravitational potential effect is not being registered by the GPS satellites' clocks.
Please enlighten yourself:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846706#msg1846706Due to the gravitational
time dilation of the solar gravitational potential, clocks in
the GPS satellites having their orbital plane nearly parallel
to the Earth-Sun axis should undergo a 12 hour period
harmonic variation in their rate so that the difference
between the delay accumulated along the half of the orbit
closest to the Sun amounts up to about 24 ns in the time
display, which would be recovered along the half of the
orbit farthest from the Sun. Such an oscillation exceeds
the resolution of the measurements by more than two
orders of magnitude and, if present, would be very easily
observed. Nevertheless, contradicting the predictions of
GR, no sign of such oscillation is observed.
That is why your presentation using the Stellarium/SIMBAD arguments are useless.
The Earth is not orbiting the Sun at all.
The orbital solar gravitational potential is missing.
In fact observations show that the rate of the
atomic clocks on Earth and in the 24 GPS satellites is
ruled by only and exclusively the Earth’s gravitational
field and that effects of the solar gravitational potential
are completely absent.
This is a basic fact of science, completely ignored by the creators of the Stellarium software or by the authors of the SIMBAD database.
As if this wasn't enough, the ORBITAL Sagnac effect is also missing: GPS satellites do not register/record this effect at all, which is much larger in magnitude than the rotational Sagnac.
Please convince yourself:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1917978#msg1917978The Sagnac effect is a FIRST ORDER effect in v/c.
Even in the round-trip nature of the Sagnac effect, as it was applied in the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus becoming a second order effect within that context, we can see that the ORBITAL SAGNAC IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER than the rotational Sagnac effect.
Then, you have a huge problem on your hands.
Since BOTH the orbital solar gravitational potential effect and the orbital Sagnac effect are missing, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled.
This means that the existence of ether is proven 100%.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721Ruderfer, Martin (1960) “First-Order Ether Drift
Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1, pp
191-192
Ruderfer, Martin (1961) “Errata—First-Order Ether
Drift Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 7, No. 9, Nov. 1, p 361
in 1961, M. Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.
A GPS satellite orbiting the Earth, while at the same time the entire system is orbiting the Sun, IS A LARGE SCALE SPINNING MOSSBAUER EXPERIMENT.
Why is there no requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion? Like the transit time in the spinning Mossbauer experiments, any such effect would be completely canceled by the orbital-velocity effect on the satellite clocks.
However, indirectly, the counteracting effects of the transit time and clock slowing induced biases indicate that an ether drift is present. This is because there is independent evidence that clocks are slowed as a result of their speed. Thus, ether drift must exist or else the clock slowing effect would be observed.
In fact, there is other evidence that the wave-front bending and absence of the
Sagnac effect in the earth-centered frame is due to the clock-biasing effects of velocity
and that an ether drift velocity actually exists in the earth-centered frame. First, the
gradient of the solar gravitational effects upon clocks on the surface of the earth is such
that the clocks will speed up and slow down in precisely the correct way to retain the
appropriate up-wind and down-wind clock biases. Thus, the clocks must be biased or
else the solar gravitational effects would become apparent.
This is the real world starring you in the face.
Go ahead and run to your fantasy world to hide from reality.
where's your data that shows the published star catalogs are grossly wrong? Let us examine the entire interval of 20 years using your figure of 2.6 seconds.
No leap seconds for 1988
For 1989 we add a single leap second: 0.5 (maximum value) + 1 = 1.5
One leap second for 1990: 0.6 (maximum value ) + 1 = 1.6
No leap seconds for 1991
One leap second for 1992: 0.5 (maximum value) + 1 = 1.5
One leap second for 1993: 0.8 (maximum value) + 1 = 1.8
One leap second for 1994: 1 (maximum value) + 1 = 2
Leap seconds for the years 1995, 1997, 1998
0.5 (maximum value) + 1 = 1.5
Leap seconds for the year 2005
0.5 (maximum value) + 1 = 1.5
Therefore the claims made by Uwe Homann are true: no precession for Sirius over a period of 20 years.
In fact, let's add the yearly values for the data of the experiment and compare them with the 52 seconds theoretical value (2.6 s x 20 years).
Total = 20.2 seconds
A discrepancy/difference of 31.8 seconds.
For the period 1999-2004 (no leap seconds), the data never exceeded 0.5 seconds.That is, if we compare the theoretical value (2.6 x 6 = 15.6 seconds) with what actually recorded in real time (3.5 seconds) we can see that there is difference of 12.1 seconds, totally unaccounted for.https://web.archive.org/web/20100305042618/http://www.siriusresearchgroup.com/diagrams/SiriusTransitObservations.shtmlhttp://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/SiriusResearch.shtmlHeliocentrists have to explain the acceleration of the rate of precession, and also have to account for these facts:
1. Solar mass is decreasing
2. Lunar distance from Earth is actually receding
3. Jupiter's mass is decreasing
4. Saturn's moons are receding at an increasing rate
Now, let us go back to the precise calculations.
Simon Newcomb included a “constant” in his precession formula to get it to match the increasing rate of precession that was observed leading up to his era.
The “constant” amount was .000222 arc seconds per year.
In 1900 the precession rate was 50.2564 (USNO).
In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).
This shows us the precession rate has increased over the past 100 years by .0346 for an average of .000346” per/year. Comparing this to Newcomb’s 0.000222” figure, we can see the actual rate of change has not simply increased at a “constant” rate – it has increased at an “exponential” rate.
The mass of the Sun/Moon/planets has not increased (we all know that the mass of the Sun is actually constantly decreasing).
The orbital distances are the same (and the Moon is constantly receding from the Earth).
Precession has nothing to do with the law of attractive gravitation.
I have direct and undeniable proofs at my disposal, while you are playing video games with Stellarium and SIMBAD.