Sirius stuff!

  • 100 Replies
  • 14571 Views
Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #30 on: August 10, 2017, 03:01:00 PM »
<Expected gratuitous introductory remark. At least this one is a bit more entertaining than most of them have been.>

Both the Stellarium software and the SIMBAD database are nothing more than video games.

SIMBAD is an astrometric database designed for and used by professional astronomers and others. The information it provides is used to accurately point instruments, as well as to calibrate instruments or validate calibration. Stellarium provides a convenient visualization of data that is almost as accurate as the data provided by SIMBAD (differing in position by up to a few seconds of arc in the cases I've checked). Stellarium accurately locates other celestial objects, like planets, minor planets, and the moon (which SIMBAD isn't concerned with) as well. All these objects are located accurately enough to use the coordinates to reliably point equipment to within a small fraction of a degree of their true locations in the sky.

So, no, they are both more than just "video games", and their existence is apparently a thorn in your side.

Quote
The Sagnac stuff

Your amateurish approach to science is best evidenced by your words.

You mean the SAGNAC EFFECT.

Excuse me. I should have said "stuff about the Sagnac effect." Better? It's still irrelevant, of course, but I suppose you feel obligated to find something to complain about.

Quote
Go ahead and tell the folks who created the Stellarium software that the GPS satellites DO NOT REGISTER THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT OR THE SOLAR GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL EFFECT.

You must be slow on the uptake now. I have no reason to do that, nor any interest in doing so. If it's important to you, feel free to do so yourself. I thought I'd made that clear.

Quote
<More irrelevant stuff>

Absent any evidence that the astrometric catalog positions at epoch 1950 and 2000 were wrong, here's some more validation of Stellarium's results against SIMBAD locations, and precession. Again, both of these show 1° in RA and 1° in declination.

Aldebaran (ecliptic latitude -5.5°)


Canopus (ecliptic latitude -75.9°)


As noted earlier, the ecliptic poles do not precess, whereas precession is maximum along the ecliptic, analogous to circumferential speed of rotation at earth's poles and equator. These plots are consistent with that fact. Recall that Sirius is at ecliptic latitude -39.6°, and the distance it precessed over the same period was between these distances, as would be expected. The difference is even bigger than the plots suggest because the meridians of Right Ascension converge toward the celestial poles, so the vertical grid lines 1 minute of RA apart on the plot for Canopus should only be about 60% as far apart as the 1-minute lines for Aldebaran (or Sirius), but that's kind of a pain to do, and these plots convey the most important information (agreement between data sets and consistency in precessed locations) well enough.

So... to counter all the evidence that exists and shows clearly that Sirius does, in fact, precess as expected, you need to find some reliable information that the 1950 or 2000 (or both) astrometric locations for Sirius were grossly off. Otherwise, you're just outta' luck "proving" that Sirius doesn't precess!

Until you can do that, you have no argument.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #31 on: August 10, 2017, 09:34:29 PM »
Everything comes down to this issue: does the Earth orbit the Sun, or does the Sun orbit above the flat surface of the Earth?

In the geocentrical version of the universe, precession is explained by the fact that it is the stars/solar system themselves which are subjected to this kind of motion.

The Earth does not undergo axial precession.

If the Earth is stationary, and precession has a very different explanation, then yes both the Stellarium software and the SIMBAD database are simple video games, nothing more.


The ORBITAL solar gravitational potential effect is not being registered by the GPS satellites' clocks.

Please enlighten yourself:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846706#msg1846706

Due to the gravitational
time dilation of the solar gravitational potential, clocks in
the GPS satellites having their orbital plane nearly parallel
to the Earth-Sun axis should undergo a 12 hour period
harmonic variation in their rate so that the difference
between the delay accumulated along the half of the orbit
closest to the Sun amounts up to about 24 ns in the time
display, which would be recovered along the half of the
orbit farthest from the Sun. Such an oscillation exceeds
the resolution of the measurements by more than two
orders of magnitude and, if present, would be very easily
observed. Nevertheless, contradicting the predictions of
GR, no sign of such oscillation is observed.



That is why your presentation using the Stellarium/SIMBAD arguments are useless.

The Earth is not orbiting the Sun at all.

The orbital solar gravitational potential is missing.

In fact observations show that the rate of the
atomic clocks on Earth and in the 24 GPS satellites is
ruled by only and exclusively the Earth’s gravitational
field and that effects of the solar gravitational potential
are completely absent.


This is a basic fact of science, completely ignored by the creators of the Stellarium software or by the authors of the SIMBAD database.


As if this wasn't enough, the ORBITAL Sagnac effect is also missing: GPS satellites do not register/record this effect at all, which is much larger in magnitude than the rotational Sagnac.


Please convince yourself:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1917978#msg1917978



The Sagnac effect is a FIRST ORDER effect in v/c.

Even in the round-trip nature of the Sagnac effect, as it was applied in the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus becoming a second order effect within that context, we can see that the ORBITAL SAGNAC IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER than the rotational Sagnac effect.


Then, you have a huge problem on your hands.


Since BOTH the orbital solar gravitational potential effect and the orbital Sagnac effect are missing, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled.


This means that the existence of ether is proven 100%.



https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

Ruderfer, Martin (1960) “First-Order Ether Drift
Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1, pp
191-192

Ruderfer, Martin (1961) “Errata—First-Order Ether
Drift Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 7, No. 9, Nov. 1, p 361


in 1961, M. Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.

A GPS satellite orbiting the Earth, while at the same time the entire system is orbiting the Sun, IS A LARGE SCALE SPINNING MOSSBAUER EXPERIMENT.

Why is there no requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion? Like the transit time in the spinning Mossbauer experiments, any such effect would be completely canceled by the orbital-velocity effect on the satellite clocks.

However, indirectly, the counteracting effects of the transit time and clock slowing induced biases indicate that an ether drift is present. This is because there is independent evidence that clocks are slowed as a result of their speed. Thus, ether drift must exist or else the clock slowing effect would be observed.

In fact, there is other evidence that the wave-front bending and absence of the
Sagnac effect in the earth-centered frame is due to the clock-biasing effects of velocity
and that an ether drift velocity actually exists in the earth-centered frame. First, the
gradient of the solar gravitational effects upon clocks on the surface of the earth is such
that the clocks will speed up and slow down in precisely the correct way to retain the
appropriate up-wind and down-wind clock biases. Thus, the clocks must be biased or
else the solar gravitational effects would become apparent.


A total refutation of your false claims, and a total debunking of the false beliefs held by the authors of the Stellarium software.


I have proven to you that the Earth does not orbit the Sun, which means that the Stellarium software and the SIMBAD database are video games, based on the false heliocentrical hypothesis.


If you want anybody to even look in your direction, you are going to have to explain the missing orbital solar gravitational potential effect and the missing orbital Sagnac effect.



Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #32 on: August 10, 2017, 11:31:27 PM »
Everything comes down to this issue: does the Earth orbit the Sun, or does the Sun orbit above the flat surface of the Earth?

Here's the actual question (linking back to the thread this thread branched from):

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

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

The answer, as you have been shown is it doesn't!

Here's the assertion that question is based on:

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

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

THAT IS 81 TRILLION KILOMETERS.

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

This assertion, as you have been shown with real data, is clearly wrong.

Since 1950, precession has caused Sirius to shift about 3/4 degree with respect to the vernal equinox, and, thus, also with respect to the solstices. You have not shown any reliable data that says otherwise.

In order for you to be correct, the catalog data that has been relied upon by many knowledgeable people operating precision equipment, would have to be significantly wrong. Yet it has been used, successfully, for decades.

Quote

<quotes with no context>

Unless you can explain this paradox, you should shut the [expletive deleted] up, and accept that the distance from Earth is Sirius is much smaller than we have been led to believe.

There is no paradox. The phenomenon you base your claim on simply does not exist.

Quote
In the geocentrical version of the universe, precession is explained by the fact that it is the stars/solar system themselves which are subjected to this kind of motion.

The Earth does not undergo axial precession.

You say that, repeatedly, but have no convincing data to back that up. The stars (including Sirius) move with respect to the equator and equinoxes in a way that is entirely consistent with axial precession.

Deny it all you want, but until you can demonstrate that the carefully measured and cataloged positions of the stars for the last century have been grossly wrong all along, you have nothing but opinion to stand on. A vast amount of research and data collection that have relied on those cataloged positions succeeded, but would have failed if they were wrong.

Your opinion is not a substitute for data that has been repeatedly demonstrated to be correct.

Quote
If the Earth is stationary, and precession has a very different explanation, then yes both the Stellarium software and the SIMBAD database are simple video games, nothing more.

But, you may splutter...  but, but, but... those are just numbers you read from a screen (or a book).

You see... I told you!

Continuing...
That's true, but the fact remains that those numbers have been and still are currently used by astronomers and others using astrometry to point, align, calibrate, and validate equipment. If there were significant errors in Sirius' position, there would be loud consternation. Yet we hear none. None from mid century, when the 1950 atlas was widely used, and none now. The fact remains that Stellarium's coordinates for Sirius can be used to accurately align and accurately point a telescope. A quarter degree of error in its expected position would be immediately obvious. This is true whether you like it or not.

So, apparently, these resources are actually useful tools, not toys, as you would like to believe. This also suggests (but doesn't "prove", since proof is not possible) that the model they are based on is correct.

<repeats of some irrelevant stuff that was irrelevant the first time it was brought up here>

You really need to stop repeating all that irrelevant stuff. It's not working and only makes it obvious that you're trying to avoid the question being asked: where's your data that shows the published star catalogs are grossly wrong? I'm still waiting for that, and expect a long wait.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #33 on: August 11, 2017, 12:31:06 AM »
In order for you to be correct, the catalog data that has been relied upon by many knowledgeable people operating precision equipment, would have to be significantly wrong.

It is significantly wrong since it relies upon the wrong astronomical context: heliocentrism.

In geocentrism, the precession is due to other causes, the motion of the entire solar system/stars.

That is why I told you that everything comes to down to this very issue: does the Earth orbit the Sun or is it the other way around?

Your avoidance of the issues presented here speaks volumes: you have chosen to live in a fantasy world of your own.


You need to wake up.

The ORBITAL solar gravitational potential effect is not being registered by the GPS satellites' clocks.

Please enlighten yourself:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846706#msg1846706

Due to the gravitational
time dilation of the solar gravitational potential, clocks in
the GPS satellites having their orbital plane nearly parallel
to the Earth-Sun axis should undergo a 12 hour period
harmonic variation in their rate so that the difference
between the delay accumulated along the half of the orbit
closest to the Sun amounts up to about 24 ns in the time
display, which would be recovered along the half of the
orbit farthest from the Sun. Such an oscillation exceeds
the resolution of the measurements by more than two
orders of magnitude and, if present, would be very easily
observed. Nevertheless, contradicting the predictions of
GR, no sign of such oscillation is observed.


That is why your presentation using the Stellarium/SIMBAD arguments are useless.

The Earth is not orbiting the Sun at all.

The orbital solar gravitational potential is missing.

In fact observations show that the rate of the
atomic clocks on Earth and in the 24 GPS satellites is
ruled by only and exclusively the Earth’s gravitational
field and that effects of the solar gravitational potential
are completely absent.


This is a basic fact of science, completely ignored by the creators of the Stellarium software or by the authors of the SIMBAD database.


As if this wasn't enough, the ORBITAL Sagnac effect is also missing: GPS satellites do not register/record this effect at all, which is much larger in magnitude than the rotational Sagnac.


Please convince yourself:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1917978#msg1917978



The Sagnac effect is a FIRST ORDER effect in v/c.

Even in the round-trip nature of the Sagnac effect, as it was applied in the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus becoming a second order effect within that context, we can see that the ORBITAL SAGNAC IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER than the rotational Sagnac effect.


Then, you have a huge problem on your hands.


Since BOTH the orbital solar gravitational potential effect and the orbital Sagnac effect are missing, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled.


This means that the existence of ether is proven 100%.



https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

Ruderfer, Martin (1960) “First-Order Ether Drift
Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1, pp
191-192

Ruderfer, Martin (1961) “Errata—First-Order Ether
Drift Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 7, No. 9, Nov. 1, p 361


in 1961, M. Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.

A GPS satellite orbiting the Earth, while at the same time the entire system is orbiting the Sun, IS A LARGE SCALE SPINNING MOSSBAUER EXPERIMENT.

Why is there no requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion? Like the transit time in the spinning Mossbauer experiments, any such effect would be completely canceled by the orbital-velocity effect on the satellite clocks.

However, indirectly, the counteracting effects of the transit time and clock slowing induced biases indicate that an ether drift is present. This is because there is independent evidence that clocks are slowed as a result of their speed. Thus, ether drift must exist or else the clock slowing effect would be observed.

In fact, there is other evidence that the wave-front bending and absence of the
Sagnac effect in the earth-centered frame is due to the clock-biasing effects of velocity
and that an ether drift velocity actually exists in the earth-centered frame. First, the
gradient of the solar gravitational effects upon clocks on the surface of the earth is such
that the clocks will speed up and slow down in precisely the correct way to retain the
appropriate up-wind and down-wind clock biases. Thus, the clocks must be biased or
else the solar gravitational effects would become apparent.


This is the real world starring you in the face.

Go ahead and run to your fantasy world to hide from reality.


where's your data that shows the published star catalogs are grossly wrong?

Let us examine the entire interval of 20 years using your figure of 2.6 seconds.



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.shtml

http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/SiriusResearch.shtml


Heliocentrists have to explain the acceleration of the rate of precession, and also have to account for these facts:

1. Solar mass is decreasing

2. Lunar distance from Earth is actually receding

3. Jupiter's mass is decreasing

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

Now, let us go back to the precise calculations.

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

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

In 1900 the precession rate was 50.2564 (USNO).

In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).

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


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

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

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


I have direct and undeniable proofs at my disposal, while you are playing video games with Stellarium and SIMBAD.



« Last Edit: August 11, 2017, 01:15:25 AM by sandokhan »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #34 on: August 11, 2017, 04:42:46 AM »
In order for you to be correct, the catalog data that has been relied upon by many knowledgeable people operating precision equipment, would have to be significantly wrong.
It is significantly wrong since it relies upon the wrong astronomical context: heliocentrism.
Why do you keep posting the same old . . . . ? Do think that by repeating it often enough it will seem more credible.
Not likely that we would fall for anything from someone who could claim from these photos
Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun « on: February 10, 2008, 12:28:26 AM ».
and
that
Quote
There are no 149.000.000 million kilometers between the Sun and the Earth; as these photographs clearly show, right behind the ISS/Atlantis is the Sun, at just a few kilometers (or even less) in the background.

Between the ISS/Atlantis and the Sun are only a few kilometers and not the 148.999.600 kilometers we have been lied to with.
If you deduce these heights from those photos, you must be totally devoid of any 3-D perception, like most flat earthers.

But, of course, you are significantly wrong since you rely upon the wrong astronomical context:neo-Flat Earthism.
"Neo" because the ancient Babylonians and Chinese were flat-earthers, but they had a much more realistic model than you.

Don't waste you time with reams of copy-pasta, I guess you know about water and duck's backs and delete keys.

Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #35 on: August 11, 2017, 07:42:58 AM »
Everything comes down to this issue: does the Earth orbit the Sun, or does the Sun orbit above the flat surface of the Earth?

In the geocentrical version of the universe, precession is explained by the fact that it is the stars/solar system themselves which are subjected to this kind of motion.

The Earth does not undergo axial precession.

If the Earth is stationary, and precession has a very different explanation, then yes both the Stellarium software and the SIMBAD database are simple video games, nothing more.


The ORBITAL solar gravitational potential effect is not being registered by the GPS satellites' clocks.

Please enlighten yourself:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846706#msg1846706

Due to the gravitational
time dilation of the solar gravitational potential, clocks in
the GPS satellites having their orbital plane nearly parallel
to the Earth-Sun axis should undergo a 12 hour period
harmonic variation in their rate so that the difference
between the delay accumulated along the half of the orbit
closest to the Sun amounts up to about 24 ns in the time
display, which would be recovered along the half of the
orbit farthest from the Sun. Such an oscillation exceeds
the resolution of the measurements by more than two
orders of magnitude and, if present, would be very easily
observed. Nevertheless, contradicting the predictions of
GR, no sign of such oscillation is observed.



That is why your presentation using the Stellarium/SIMBAD arguments are useless.

The Earth is not orbiting the Sun at all.

The orbital solar gravitational potential is missing.

In fact observations show that the rate of the
atomic clocks on Earth and in the 24 GPS satellites is
ruled by only and exclusively the Earth’s gravitational
field and that effects of the solar gravitational potential
are completely absent.


This is a basic fact of science, completely ignored by the creators of the Stellarium software or by the authors of the SIMBAD database.


As if this wasn't enough, the ORBITAL Sagnac effect is also missing: GPS satellites do not register/record this effect at all, which is much larger in magnitude than the rotational Sagnac.


Please convince yourself:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1917978#msg1917978



The Sagnac effect is a FIRST ORDER effect in v/c.

Even in the round-trip nature of the Sagnac effect, as it was applied in the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus becoming a second order effect within that context, we can see that the ORBITAL SAGNAC IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER than the rotational Sagnac effect.


Then, you have a huge problem on your hands.


Since BOTH the orbital solar gravitational potential effect and the orbital Sagnac effect are missing, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled.


This means that the existence of ether is proven 100%.



https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

Ruderfer, Martin (1960) “First-Order Ether Drift
Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1, pp
191-192

Ruderfer, Martin (1961) “Errata—First-Order Ether
Drift Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 7, No. 9, Nov. 1, p 361


in 1961, M. Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.

A GPS satellite orbiting the Earth, while at the same time the entire system is orbiting the Sun, IS A LARGE SCALE SPINNING MOSSBAUER EXPERIMENT.

Why is there no requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion? Like the transit time in the spinning Mossbauer experiments, any such effect would be completely canceled by the orbital-velocity effect on the satellite clocks.

However, indirectly, the counteracting effects of the transit time and clock slowing induced biases indicate that an ether drift is present. This is because there is independent evidence that clocks are slowed as a result of their speed. Thus, ether drift must exist or else the clock slowing effect would be observed.

In fact, there is other evidence that the wave-front bending and absence of the
Sagnac effect in the earth-centered frame is due to the clock-biasing effects of velocity
and that an ether drift velocity actually exists in the earth-centered frame. First, the
gradient of the solar gravitational effects upon clocks on the surface of the earth is such
that the clocks will speed up and slow down in precisely the correct way to retain the
appropriate up-wind and down-wind clock biases. Thus, the clocks must be biased or
else the solar gravitational effects would become apparent.


A total refutation of your false claims, and a total debunking of the false beliefs held by the authors of the Stellarium software.


I have proven to you that the Earth does not orbit the Sun, which means that the Stellarium software and the SIMBAD database are video games, based on the false heliocentrical hypothesis.


If you want anybody to even look in your direction, you are going to have to explain the missing orbital solar gravitational potential effect and the missing orbital Sagnac effect.
Again, can you quote any of the scientists who you claim prove the earth is stationary, actually saying that?

Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #36 on: August 11, 2017, 08:35:54 AM »
It seems that your trying to make sense of curved space, has only warped your mind.

Both the Stellarium software and the SIMBAD database are nothing more than video games.

The Sagnac stuff

Your amateurish approach to science is best evidenced by your words.

You mean the SAGNAC EFFECT.


BOTH the orbital solar gravitational potential and the orbital Sagnac effect are MISSING.

Go ahead and tell the folks who created the Stellarium software that the GPS satellites DO NOT REGISTER THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT OR THE SOLAR GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL EFFECT.

This means that the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

Ruderfer, Martin (1960) “First-Order Ether Drift
Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1, pp
191-192

Ruderfer, Martin (1961) “Errata—First-Order Ether
Drift Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 7, No. 9, Nov. 1, p 361


in 1961, M. Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.

A GPS satellite orbiting the Earth, while at the same time the entire system is orbiting the Sun, IS A LARGE SCALE SPINNING MOSSBAUER EXPERIMENT.


Given the very fact that these GPS satellites DO NOT record the orbital Sagnac effect, means that THE HYPOTHESES OF THE RUDERFER EXPERIMENT ARE FULFILLED.

Why is there no requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion? Like the transit time in the spinning Mossbauer experiments, any such effect would be completely canceled by the orbital-velocity effect on the satellite clocks.

However, indirectly, the counteracting effects of the transit time and clock slowing induced biases indicate that an ether drift is present. This is because there is independent evidence that clocks are slowed as a result of their speed. Thus, ether drift must exist or else the clock slowing effect would be observed.

In fact, there is other evidence that the wave-front bending and absence of the
Sagnac effect in the earth-centered frame is due to the clock-biasing effects of velocity
and that an ether drift velocity actually exists in the earth-centered frame. First, the
gradient of the solar gravitational effects upon clocks on the surface of the earth is such
that the clocks will speed up and slow down in precisely the correct way to retain the
appropriate up-wind and down-wind clock biases. Thus, the clocks must be biased or
else the solar gravitational effects would become apparent.


A total refutation of your false claims, and a total debunking of the false beliefs held by the authors of the Stellarium software.


Unless you can explain both the missing orbital Sagnac effect and the missing solar gravitational effect, you are done here, nobody is going to believe anything you say regarding any subject on astronomy.


You can no longer ignore the FACT that the GPS satellites' clocks fail to register/record the orbital Sagnac effect and the orbital solar gravitational potential.

You had no knowledge of the Ruderfer experiment before reading my messages: for your information, its hypotheses are totally fulfilled by the missing Sagnac/solar grav. potential effects, this means the existence of ether is proven 100%.

The missing orbital Sagnac effect, which is much larger than the rotational Sagnac, means that the Earth is NOT orbiting the Sun, contrary to what your bibliographical sources tell us.

Relax Sandyman.... news had just come in that had confirmed the earth is a sphere, perpetual
Motion does not exist and history as we know it has been ratified. So all is good.
Don't you find it strange that you quote scientists and historical sources in one breath..... then in the next one dismiss both science and history.... don't you find that strange. It appears that any reference no matter how dubious they are but support your 'views' are according to you are ok.....but those that are opposed to what you believe are work of the devil. Do you not see a pattern developing here that points to you operating on a 'belief first' mode...... have a belief then find stuff that if distorted a bit might be used to support it. Stuff you don't like or find difficult to explain; Newton, Maxwell, Einstien, Pauli......most everyone... is rejected out of hand.

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #37 on: August 11, 2017, 09:01:32 AM »
Relax Sandyman.... news had just come in that had confirmed the earth is a sphere, perpetual
Motion does not exist and history as we know it has been ratified. So all is good.
Don't you find it strange that you quote scientists and historical sources in one breath..... then in the next one dismiss both science and history.... don't you find that strange. It appears that any reference no matter how dubious they are but support your 'views' are according to you are ok.....but those that are opposed to what you believe are work of the devil. Do you not see a pattern developing here that points to you operating on a 'belief first' mode...... have a belief then find stuff that if distorted a bit might be used to support it. Stuff you don't like or find difficult to explain; Newton, Maxwell, Einstien, Pauli......most everyone... is rejected out of hand.

The earth is spherically shaped. I addressed this question to all flat earthers in the world :

Dear flat earthers, tell me the name of one (JUST ONE) prominent western scientist (who was born in the last 2500 years) who believed that the earth is flat? Can you imagine conspiracy of that scale? Is the conspiracy of such magnitude even possible, what do you think? You see, if you are ignorant you don't have to be stupid, also...wake up...the earth is round and motionless...

Aviation and gyros still bother me, but the evidence in favor of the round earth is overwhelming...

However, the earth is at rest, no doubts about that!
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #38 on: August 11, 2017, 09:05:09 AM »
All of you have been warned against using the quote trees unnecessarily, right?

Maxwell

The original set of ether equations published by J.C. Maxwell in 1861 are invariant under Galilean transformations, which makes STR/GTR null and void:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1918701#msg1918701 (five consecutive messages)


As Boney M once said
"The world is just a great big non Euclidean onion"


Two of my favorite BM songs...




Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #39 on: August 11, 2017, 09:28:06 AM »
In order for you to be correct, the catalog data that has been relied upon by many knowledgeable people operating precision equipment, would have to be significantly wrong.

It is significantly wrong

Yet it works anyway. That would show that you are incorrect. Thanks for sharing your opinion, though.

Quote
since it relies upon the wrong astronomical context: heliocentrism.

In geocentrism, the precession is due to other causes, the motion of the entire solar system/stars.

That is why I told you that everything comes to down to this very issue: does the Earth orbit the Sun or is it the other way around?

That's easy: the former. This is well established even though you'd prefer it to be the latter. Actually, both sun and earth orbit the barycenter of the solar system, but that's so close to the center of the sun that "the earth orbits the sun" is an adequate description for most descriptions.

Quote
Your avoidance of the issues presented here speaks volumes: you have chosen to live in a fantasy world of your own.

Now that's funny!

Remember, I'm the one presenting tested and verified data. You're doing all you can to obfuscate and avoid doing exactly that; the reason is obvious: you have no tested and verified data that shows what you claim.

Quote
You need to wake up.

The ORBITAL solar gravitational potential effect is not being registered by the GPS satellites' clocks.

<same ol' irrelevant stuff>

where's your data that shows the published star catalogs are grossly wrong?

Let us examine the entire interval of 20 years using your figure of 2.6 seconds.

<gratuitous repetition of the gratuitous collection of graphs and tabulation of leap seconds presented here>

In fact, let's add the yearly values for the data of the experiment and compare them with the 52 seconds theoretical value (2.6 s x 20 years).

Total = 20.2 seconds

A discrepancy/difference of 31.8 seconds.

For the period 1999-2004 (no leap seconds), the data never exceeded 0.5 seconds.

That is, if we compare the theoretical value (2.6 x 6 = 15.6 seconds) with what actually recorded in real time (3.5 seconds) we can see that there is difference of 12.1 seconds, totally unaccounted for.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100305042618/http://www.siriusresearchgroup.com/diagrams/SiriusTransitObservations.shtml

http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/SiriusResearch.shtml

At least this addresses the topic of discussion.

Here's the deal:

We have Mr. Homann's assertion that Sirius' location in celestial coordinates did not precess at all over the period 1988 - 2008 (or did much more slowly than expected).

We have star catalogs from 1950 and 2000 that show about 0.5° of precession over 50 years. The locations for Sirius in those catalogs has been continuously tested by use and found reliable.

How can we reconcile these conflicting results?

Here's my list in order of decreasing probability:

1) The catalogs are correct. The model of precession is correct. Mr. Homann's data and analysis are simply in error (or falsified, but there's no compelling reason to assume that; see Hanlon's Razor).

2) At least one of the catalogs is incorrect and Sirius is not where it was (or is) expected to be.

3) Both catalogs are correct, but Sirius' precession is highly irregular, much faster during the period from 1950 to the beginning of Mr. Homann's observations, then slowing down or stopping altogether during his period of investigation.

Both 2) and 3) are unlikely to the point of impossibility because there are no reports of oddities like this from the astronomical community at large; the discrepancies would be obvious to professionals and reasonably-well equipped amateurs, as well as anyone else calibrating equipment using astrometric techniques.

The idea that Mr. Homann's data and analysis, which contains known and suspected errors and flaws, and was not peer reviewed (which would likely confirm the suspected flaws, or turn up other errors and shortcomings), as already discussed, is more reliable than decades of work by the entire professional and amateur astronomical community, other scientists, and engineers, is simply untenable.

Unless you can offer another possibility, 1) is the only explanation that has any realistic chance of being correct.

So... do you have any evidence (not opinion) to support any other possibility? Yes or no? If yes, let's see it.

Quote
Heliocentrists have to explain the acceleration of the rate of precession, and also have to account for these facts:

<repeated list of "facts">

No they don't. It's already been explained. Here's a summary.

Besides, if the precession rate is accelerating, that immediately takes item 3) from the list above out of consideration.

Quote
Now, let us go back to the precise calculations.

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

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

In 1900 the precession rate was 50.2564 (USNO).

In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).

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

Already discussed. Nothing new. [Apologies for the lack of a direct link to the previous discussion. The search and history functions are still disabled.]

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

Opinion.

Quote
I have direct and undeniable proofs at my disposal, while you are playing video games with Stellarium and SIMBAD.

"Direct and undeniable proofs?" Where? You express a single experiment with known errors and questionable validity, plenty of opinions, and misinterpretations or deliberate misrepresentations. That's all. Well... there's also been a frantic attempt to change the subject to anything else.

I have presented data from published catalogs, well-tested by a large community over the better part of a century, consistently showing that Sirius precesses no differently than other stars, exactly as expected; you have not made any credible case that demonstrates that this is wrong, just diversion, opinion, and a single unreliable study. You simply have no case at all.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #40 on: August 11, 2017, 09:34:30 AM »
alphaomega, relax.

You've presented your case, I have done the same.

I fully trust the readers to discover which version is true.

*

RocketSauce

  • 1441
  • I kill penguins for fun
Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #41 on: August 11, 2017, 09:58:49 AM »


sandokhan, I believe in Politics they would call this the Filibuster... I'm sure you know what that means... In case you don't, let me copy and paste the entire law section on it...  I'll Double Space and Increase the font size for your convenience... IF YOU DO NOT READ ALL OF THIS... THEN MY POINT IS PROVEN... and if you do read it... Find out what that means Somewhere in the text presented below....

This shall be my first post of many on Filibustering...


fil·i·bus·ter
ˈfiləˌbəstər/Submit
noun
1. an action such as a prolonged speech that obstructs progress in a legislative assembly while not technically contravening the required procedures.
"it was defeated by a Senate filibuster in June"
synonyms:   stonewalling, delaying tactics, procrastination, obstruction, temporizing
"many hours in committee are characterized by filibuster"

2. historical
a person engaging in unauthorized warfare against a foreign country.
verb

1. act in an obstructive manner in a legislature, especially by speaking at inordinate length.
"several measures were killed by Republican filibustering"


Filibuster and Cloture Cartoon of Senate Filibuster, ca. 1870s
Using the filibuster to delay or block legislative action has a long history. The term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s, when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill.

In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster. As the House of Representatives grew in numbers, however, revisions to the House rules limited debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.

In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, he threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate.

Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as "cloture." The new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a 60 day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or 60 of the current one hundred senators.

Many Americans are familiar with the filibuster conducted by Jimmy Stewart, playing Senator Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra's film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but there have been some famous filibusters in the real-life Senate as well. During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for "pot-likkers." Long once held the Senate floor for 15 hours. The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

1. Origins of the filibuster [1]



We have many received wisdoms about the filibuster. However, most of them are not true. The most persistent myth is that the filibuster was part of the founding fathers’ constitutional vision for the Senate: It is said that the upper chamber was designed to be a slow-moving, deliberative body that cherished minority rights. In this version of history, the filibuster was a critical part of the framers’ Senate.



However, when we dig into the history of Congress, it seems that the filibuster was created by mistake. Let me explain.



The House and Senate rulebooks in 1789 were nearly identical. Both rulebooks included what is known as the “previous question” motion. The House kept their motion, and today it empowers a simple majority to cut off debate. The Senate no longer has that rule on its books.



What happened to the Senate’s rule? In 1805, Vice President Aaron Burr was presiding over the Senate (freshly indicted for the murder of Alexander Hamilton), and he offered this advice. He said something like this. You are a great deliberative body. But a truly great Senate would have a cleaner rule book. Yours is a mess. You have lots of rules that do the same thing. And he singles out the previous question motion. Now, today, we know that a simple majority in the House can use the rule to cut off debate. But in 1805, neither chamber used the rule that way. Majorities were still experimenting with it. And so when Aaron Burr said, get rid of the previous question motion, the Senate didn’t think twice. When they met in 1806, they dropped the motion from the Senate rule book.



Why? Not because senators in 1806 sought to protect minority rights and extended debate. They got rid of the rule by mistake: Because Aaron Burr told them to.



Once the rule was gone, senators still did not filibuster. Deletion of the rule made possible the filibuster because the Senate no longer had a rule that could have empowered a simple majority to cut off debate. It took several decades until the minority exploited the lax limits on debate, leading to the first real-live filibuster in 1837.



2. The Not-So-Golden Age of the Senate



Conventional treatments of the Senate glorify the 19th century as the “golden age” of the Senate: We say that filibusters were reserved for the great issues of the day and that all senators cherished extended debate. That view misreads history in two ways.

First, there were very few filibusters before the Civil War. Why so few filibusters? First, the Senate operated by majority rule; senators expected matters would be brought to a vote. Second, the Senate did not have a lot of work to do in those years, so there was plenty of time to wait out the opposition. Third, voting coalitions in the early Senate were not nearly as polarized as they would later become.



All that changed by mid-century. The Senate grew larger and more polarized along party lines, it had more work to do, and people started paying attention to it. By the 1880s, almost every Congress began to experience at least one bout of obstructionism: for instance, over civil rights, election law, nominations, even appointment of Senate officers—only some of these “the great issues of the day.”



There is a second reason that this was not a golden age: When filibusters did occur, leaders tried to ban them. Senate leaders tried and failed repeatedly over the course of the 19th and early 20th centuries to reinstate the previous question motion. More often than not, senators gave up their quest for reform when they saw that opponents would kill it by filibuster—putting the majority’s other priorities at risk. Unable to reform Senate rules, leaders developed other innovations such as unanimous consent agreements. These seem to have been a fallback option for managing a chamber prone to filibusters.



3. The adoption of cloture



Why was reform possible in 1917 when it had eluded leaders for decades? And why did the Senate choose supermajority cloture rather than simple majority cloture? [2]



First, the conditions for reform. After several unsuccessful efforts to create a cloture rule in the early 1900s, we saw a perfect storm in March of 1917: a pivotal issue, a president at his bully pulpit, an attentive press, and a public engaged in the fight for reform. At the outset of World War I, Republican senators successfully filibustered President Wilson’s proposal to arm merchant ships—leading Wilson in March of 1917 to famously brand the obstructionists as a “little group of willful men.” He demanded the Senate create a cloture rule, the press dubbed the rule a “war measure,” and the public burned senators in effigy around the country.



Adoption of Rule 22 occurred because Wilson and the Democrats framed the rule as a matter of national security. They fused procedure with policy, and used the bully pulpit to shame senators into reform.



Second, why did senators select a supermajority rule? A bipartisan committee was formed to negotiate the form of the rule. Five of the six Democrats supported a simple majority rule; one Republican supported a supermajority rule, and one Republican preferred no rule. Negotiators cut a deal: Cloture would require two-thirds of senators voting. Opponents promised not to block or weaken the proposal; supporters promised to drop their own proposal for simple majority cloture—a proposal supported by at least 40 senators. The cloture rule was then adopted, 76-3.



4. Conclusions



We can draw at least three lessons from this history:



First, the history of extended debate in the Senate belies the received wisdom that the filibuster was an original, constitutional feature of the Senate. The filibuster is more accurately viewed as the unanticipated consequence of an early change to Senate rules.



Second, reform of Senate rules is possible. There are conditions that can lead a bipartisan supermajority to agree to change Senate rules. The minority has often held the upper hand in these contests, however, given the high barrier to reform imposed by inherited Senate rules.


EARTH IS ROUND


Third, and finally, the Senate adopted a supermajority rule not because senators were uniformly committed to the filibuster. Senators chose a two-thirds rule because a minority blocked more radical reform. Short-term, pragmatic considerations almost always shape contests over reform of Senate rules.



A filibuster in the United States Senate is a dilatory or obstructive tactic used in the United States Senate to prevent a measure from being brought to a vote. The most common form of filibuster occurs when one or more senators attempts to delay or block a vote on a bill by extending debate on the measure. The Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish, and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn"[1] (usually 60 out of 100) bring the debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII.

The ability to block a measure through extended debate was an inadvertent side effect of an 1806 rule change, and was infrequently used during much of the 19th and 20th centuries. In 1970, the Senate adopted a "two-track" procedure to prevent filibusters from stopping all other Senate business. The minority then felt politically safer in threatening filibusters more regularly, which became normalized over time to the point that 60 votes are now required to end debate on nearly every controversial legislative item. As a result, the modern "filibuster" rarely manifests as an extended floor debate. Instead, "the contemporary Senate has morphed into a 60-vote institution — the new normal for approving measures or matters — a fundamental transformation from earlier eras."[2] This effective supermajority requirement has had very significant policy and political impacts on Congress and the other branches of government.

Beginning in 1917 with the cloture rule and especially since the 1970s, there have been efforts to limit the practice. These include laws that explicitly limit Senate debate, notably the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 that created the budget reconciliation process. More recently, changes in 2013 and 2017 now require only a simple majority to invoke cloture on nominations, although legislation still requires 60 votes.

One or more senators may still occasionally hold the floor for an extended period, sometimes without the advance knowledge of the Senate leadership. However, these "filibusters" usually result only in brief delays and are not outcome-determinative, since the Senate's ability to act ultimately depends upon whether there are sufficient votes to invoke cloture and proceed to a final vote on passage. However, such brief delays can be politically relevant when exercised shortly before a major deadline (such as avoiding a government shutdown) or before a Senate recess.

Contents  [hide]
1   History
1.1   Constitutional design: simple majority voting
1.2   Accidental creation and early use of the filibuster
1.3   The emergence of cloture (1917-1969)
1.4   The two-track system, 60-vote rule, and rise of the routine filibuster (1970 onward)
1.5   Recent efforts to limit filibusters
1.5.1   Minor 2013 changes
1.5.2   Abolition for nominations, 2013 & 2017
2   Exceptions
3   Policy and political effects
3.1   Institutional effects
3.2   Major presidential policy initiatives
3.2.1   Bill Clinton
3.2.2   George W. Bush
3.2.3   Barack Obama
3.2.4   Donald Trump
4   Process for limiting or eliminating the filibuster
5   Other forms of filibuster
6   Longest filibusters
7   See also
8   References
History[edit]
Constitutional design: simple majority voting[edit]
Although not explicitly mandated, the Constitution and its framers clearly envisioned that simple majority voting would be used to conduct business. The Constitution provides, for example, that a majority of each House constitutes a quorum to do business.[3] Meanwhile, a small number of super-majority requirements were explicitly included in the original document, including conviction on impeachment charges (2/3 of Senate)[4], expelling a member of Congress (2/3 of the chamber in question)[5], overriding presidential vetoes (2/3 of both Houses)[6], ratifying treaties (2/3 of Senate)[7], and proposing constitutional amendments (2/3 of both Houses).[8] Through negative textual implication, the Constitution also gives a simple majority the power to set procedural rules: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."[9]

Commentaries in The Federalist Papers confirm this understanding. In Federalist No. 58, the Constitution's primary drafter James Madison defended the document against routine super-majority requirements, either for a quorum or a "decision":

"It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution, cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale.
"In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences."[10]
In Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton described super-majority requirements as being one of the main problems with the previous Articles of Confederation, and identified several evils which would result from such a requirement:

"To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. ... The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.[11]
Accidental creation and early use of the filibuster[edit]
In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing senators to move the previous question (by simple majority vote), which meant ending debate and proceeding to a vote. But in 1806, the Senate's presiding officer, Vice President Aaron Burr argued that the previous-question motion was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated.[12] The Senate agreed and modified its rules.[12] Because it created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, filibusters became theoretically possible.

Nevertheless, in the early 19th century the principle of simple-majority voting in the Senate was well established, and particularly valued by Southern slave-holding states. New states were admitted to the Union in pairs to preserve the sectional balance in the Senate, most notably in the Missouri Compromise of 1820.

Until the late 1830s, however, the filibuster remained a solely theoretical option, never actually exercised. The first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837.[13] In 1841, a defining moment came during debate on a bill to charter the Second Bank of the United States. Senator Henry Clay tried to end the debate via majority vote, and Senator William R. King threatened a filibuster, saying that Clay "may make his arrangements at his boarding house for the winter." Other senators sided with King, and Clay backed down.[12]


Quote from: Every FE'r

Please don't mention Himawari 8
Quote from: sceptimatic
Impossible to have the same volume and different density.

*fact*
Extra Virgin Penguin Blood is a natural aphrodisiac

*

RocketSauce

  • 1441
  • I kill penguins for fun
Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #42 on: August 11, 2017, 10:01:06 AM »

The two-track system, 60-vote rule, and rise of the routine filibuster (1970 onward)[edit]
After a series of filibusters in the 1960s over civil rights legislation, the Senate put a "two-track system" into place in 1970 under the leadership of Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and Majority Whip Robert Byrd. Before this system was introduced, a filibuster would stop the Senate from moving on to any other legislative activity. Tracking allows the majority leader—with unanimous consent or the agreement of the minority leader—to have more than one bill pending on the floor as unfinished business. Under the two-track system, the Senate can have two or more pieces of legislation pending on the floor simultaneously by designating specific periods during the day when each one will be considered.[27][28]

Number of cloture motions filed, voted on, and invoked by the U.S. Senate since 1917.
Cloture voting in the United States Senate since 1917.[29]
The notable side effect of this change was that by no longer bringing Senate business to a complete halt, filibusters on particular legislation became politically easier for the minority to sustain.[30][31][32][33] As a result, the number of filibusters began increasing rapidly, eventually leading to the modern era in which an effective supermajority requirement exists to pass legislation, with no practical requirement that the minority party actually hold the floor or extend debate.

In 1975, the Senate revised its cloture rule so that three-fifths of sworn senators (60 votes out of 100) could limit debate, except for changing Senate rules which still requires a two-thirds majority of those present and voting to invoke cloture.[34][35] However, by returning to an absolute number of all Senators (60) rather than a proportion of those present and voting, the change also made any filibusters easier to sustain on the floor by a small number of senators from the minority party without requiring the presence of their minority colleagues. This further reduced the majority's leverage to force an issue through extended debate.

The Senate also experimented with a rule that removed the need to speak on the floor in order to filibuster (a "talking filibuster"), thus allowing for "virtual filibusters".[36] Another tactic, the post-cloture filibuster—which used points of order to delay legislation because they were not counted as part of the limited time allowed for debate—was rendered ineffective by a rule change in 1979.[37][38][39]

As the filibuster has evolved from a rare practice that required holding the floor for extended periods into a routine 60-vote supermajority requirement, Senate leaders have increasingly used cloture motions as a regular tool to manage the flow of business, often even in the absence of a threatened filibuster. Thus, the presence or absence of cloture attempts is not necessarily a reliable indicator of the presence or absence of a threatened filibuster. Because filibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is present is always a matter of judgment.[40]

Recent efforts to limit filibusters[edit]
In 2005, a group of Republican senators led by Majority Leader Bill Frist proposed having the presiding officer, Vice President Dick Cheney, rule that a filibuster on judicial nominees was unconstitutional, as it was inconsistent with the President's power to name judges with the advice and consent of a simple majority of senators.[41][42] This was a response to the Democrats' threat to filibuster some judicial nominees of President George W. Bush. Senator Trent Lott, the junior senator from Mississippi, used the word "nuclear" to describe the plan, and so it became known as the "nuclear option".[43]

With Republicans effectively controlling the Senate 55-45, a group of 14 senators—seven Democrats and seven Republicans, collectively dubbed the "Gang of 14"—reached an agreement to defuse the conflict. The seven Democrats promised not to filibuster Bush's nominees except under "extraordinary circumstances", while the seven Republicans promised to oppose the "nuclear option" unless they thought a nominee was being filibustered under non-extraordinary circumstances. Thus, there would be 62 votes to invoke cloture in most cases, and 52 votes to oppose the nuclear option.[44][45][46] This agreement was successful in the short term, but it expired in January 2007, at the end of the second session of the 109th United States Congress.[47]

From April to June 2010, under Democratic control, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration held a series of monthly public hearings on the history and use of the filibuster in the Senate.[48] In response to the use of the filibuster in the 111th Congress, all Democratic senators returning to the 112th Congress signed a petition to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) requesting that the filibuster be reformed, including abolishing secret holds and reducing the amount of time allotted for post-cloture debate.

Minor 2013 changes[edit]
During the 113th Congress, two packages of amendments were adopted on January 25, 2013.[49] Changes to standing orders affecting just the 2013–14 Congress (Senate Resolution 15) were passed by a vote of 78 to 16, allowing Reid, the majority leader, to prohibit a filibuster on a motion to begin consideration of a bill.[49] Changes to the permanent Senate rules (Senate Resolution 16) were passed by a vote of 86 to 9.[49][50]

The changes removed the 60-vote requirement to begin debate on legislation, and allowed the minority two amendments to measures that reached the Senate floor. This change was implemented as a standing order that expired at the end of the term in which it was passed.[51][52] The new rules also reduced the amount of time allowed for debate after a motion to proceed from 30 hours to four hours. Additionally, they stated that a filibuster on a motion to proceed could be blocked with a petition signed by eight members of the minority, including the minority leader.[52] For district court nominations, the new rules reduced the maximum time between cloture and a confirmation vote from 30 hours to two hours.[52] Finally, if senators wished to block a bill or nominee after the motion to proceed, they had to be present in the Senate and debate.[53][51]

Despite these changes, 60 votes were still required to overcome a filibuster, and the "silent filibuster"—in which a senator can delay a bill even if they leave the floor—remained in place.[53][51]

Abolition for nominations, 2013 & 2017[edit]
On November 21, 2013, the Senate used the so-called "nuclear option," voting 52–48 — with all Republicans and three Democrats opposed — to eliminate the use of the filibuster on executive branch nominees and judicial nominees, except to the Supreme Court. At the time of the vote, there were 59 executive branch nominees and 17 judicial nominees awaiting confirmation.[54]

The Democrats' stated motivation was what they saw as an expansion of filibustering by Republicans during the Obama administration, especially with respect to nominations for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[55][56] Republicans had asserted that the D.C. Circuit was underworked[54] and cited a need to cut costs by reducing the number of judges.[57] Democrats responded that Republicans had not raised these concerns earlier, when President Bush had made nominations to the court, and argued that the size of the court needed to be maintained because of the complexity of the cases it hears.[58][59] Senate Democrats who supported the "nuclear option" also did so out of frustration with filibusters of executive branch nominees for agencies such as the Federal Housing Finance Agency.[55]

In 2015, Republicans took control of the Senate and kept the 2013 rules in place.[60] Finally, on April 6, 2017, the Senate eliminated the sole remaining exception to the 2013 change by invoking the "nuclear option" for Supreme Court nominees. This was done in order to allow a simple majority to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The vote to change the rules was 52 to 48 along party lines.[61]

Exceptions[edit]
The only bills that are not currently subject to effective 60-vote requirements are those considered under provisions of law that limit time for debating them.[62] These limits on debate allow the Senate to hold a simple-majority vote on final passage without obtaining the 60 votes normally needed to close debate. As a result, many major legislative actions in recent decades have been adopted through one of these methods.

Reconciliation is a procedure created in 1974 as part of the congressional budget process. In brief, the annual budget process begins with adoption of a budget resolution (passed by simple majority in each house, not signed by President, does not carry force of law) that sets overall funding levels for the government. The Senate may then consider a budget reconciliation bill, not subject to filibuster, that reconciles funding amounts in any annual appropriations bills with the amounts specified in the budget resolution. However, under the Byrd rule no non-budgetary "extraneous matter" may be considered in a reconciliation bill. The presiding officer, relying always (as of 2017) on the opinion of the Senate parliamentarian, determines whether an item is extraneous, and a 60-vote majority is required to include such material in a reconciliation bill.

The Congressional Review Act, adopted in 1995, allows Congress to review and repeal administrative regulations adopted by the Executive Branch within 60 legislative days. This procedure will most typically be used successfully shortly after a party change in the presidency. It was used once in 2001 to repeal an ergonomics rule promulgated under Bill Clinton), was not used in 2009, and was used 14 times in 2017 to repeal various regulations adopted in the final year of the Barack Obama presidency.

Policy and political effects[edit]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
The modern-era filibuster — and the effective 60-vote supermajority requirement it has led to — have had very major policy and political effects, both institutionally and on specific major policy initiatives from Presidents of both parties.

Institutional effects[edit]
Congress. The supermajority rule has made it very difficult, often impossible, for Congress to pass any but the most non-controversial legislation in recent decades. During times of unified party control, majorities have attempted (with varying levels of success) to enact their major policy priorities through the budget reconciliation process, resulting in legislation constrained by budget rules. Meanwhile, public approval for Congress as an institution has fallen to its lowest levels ever, with large segments of the public seeing the institution as ineffective.[citation needed] Shifting majorities of both parties — and their supporters — have often been frustrated as major policy priorities articulated in political campaigns are unable to obtain passage following an election.

The Presidency. Presidents of both parties have increasingly filled the policymaking vacuum with expanded use of executive power, including executive orders in areas that had traditionally been handled through legislation. For example, Barack Obama effected major changes in immigration policy by issuing work permits to some undocumented workers,[citation needed] while Donald Trump has issued several significant executive orders since taking office in 2017 along with undoing many of Obama's initiatives.[citation needed] As a result, policy in these areas is increasingly determined by executive preference, and is more easily changed after elections, rather than through more permanent legislative policy.

Judiciary. The Supreme Court's caseload has declined significantly, with various commenters suggesting that the decline in major legislation has been a major cause.[63] Meanwhile, more policy issues are resolved judicially without action by Congress — despite the existence of potential simple majority support in the Senate — on topics such as the legalization of same-sex marriage.[citation needed]

Major presidential policy initiatives[edit]
The implied threat of a filibuster — and the resulting 60-vote requirement in the modern era — have had major impacts on the ability of recent Presidents to enact their top legislative priorities into law. The effects of the 60-vote requirement are most apparent in periods where the President and both Houses of Congress are controlled by the same political party, typically early in a presidential term.

Bill Clinton[edit]
In 1993-94, President Bill Clinton enjoyed Democratic majorities in both chambers of the 103rd Congress, including a 57-43 advantage in the Senate. Yet the Clinton health care plan of 1993, formulated by a task force led by First Lady Hillary Clinton, was unable to pass in part due to the filibuster. As early as April 1993, a memo to the task force noted that "While the substance is obviously controversial, there is apparently great disquiet in the Capitol over whether we understand the interactivity between reconciliation and health, procedurally, and in terms of timing and counting votes for both measures...."[64]

George W. Bush[edit]
In 2001, President George W. Bush was unable to obtain any Democratic support for his tax cut proposals. As a result, the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were each passed using reconciliation, which required that the tax cuts expire within the 10-year budget window to avoid violating the Byrd rule in the Senate. The status of the tax cuts would remain unresolved until the late 2012 " fiscal cliff," with a significant portion of the cuts being made permanent by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Barack Obama.

Barack Obama[edit]
In 2009-10, President Barack Obama briefly enjoyed an effective 60-vote Democratic majority (including independents) in the Senate during the 111th Congress. During that time period, the Senate passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as the ACA or "Obamacare," on Dec. 24, 2009 by a vote of 60-39 (after invoking cloture by the same 60-39 margin). However, Obama's proposal to create a public health insurance option was removed from the health care legislation because it could not command 60-vote support.

House Democrats did not approve of all aspects of the Senate bill, but after 60-vote Senate control was permanently lost in February 2010 due to the election of Scott Brown to fill the seat of the late Ted Kennedy, House Democrats decided to pass the Senate bill intact and it became law. Several House-desired modifications to the Senate bill — those sufficient to pass scrutiny under the Byrd rule — were then made under reconciliation via the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, which was enacted days later following a 56-43 vote in the Senate.

The near-60-vote Senate majority that Democrats held throughout the 111th Congress was also critical to passage of other major Obama initiatives, including the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (passed 60-38, two Republicans voting yes)[citation needed] and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (passed 60-39, three Republicans voting yes).[citation needed] However, the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act, which would have created a cap-and-trade system and established a national renewable electricity standard to combat climate change, never received a Senate floor vote with Majority Leader Harry Reid saying "it's easy to count to 60."[65]

Donald Trump[edit]
In 2017, President Donald Trump and the 115th Congress have envisioned a strategy to use an FY17 reconciliation bill to repeal Obamacare, followed by an FY18 reconciliation bill to pass tax reform. A reconciliation strategy is being pursued since nearly all Democrats are expected to oppose these policies, making a filibuster threat insurmountable due to the 60-vote requirement. The House passed the American Health Care Act of 2017 by a vote of 217-213 on May 4, 2017, and the Senate Parliamentarian must rule on whether any provisions must be stricken (as "extraneous" non-budgetary matter) under the Byrd rule before proceeding under reconciliation.

Process for limiting or eliminating the filibuster[edit]
According to the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), Senate rules can be changed by a simple majority vote. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change could itself be filibustered, requiring two-thirds of senators who are present and voting to end debate. (This differs from the usual requirement for three-fifths of sworn senators.)[1]
Quote from: Every FE'r

Please don't mention Himawari 8
Quote from: sceptimatic
Impossible to have the same volume and different density.

*fact*
Extra Virgin Penguin Blood is a natural aphrodisiac

*

RocketSauce

  • 1441
  • I kill penguins for fun
Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #43 on: August 11, 2017, 10:02:16 AM »

However, despite this two-thirds requirement being written into the Senate rules, any Senator may attempt to nullify a Senate rule by making a point of order that the rule is unconstitutional, or just that the meaning of the rule should not be followed. The presiding officer is generally expected to rule in favor of the rules of the Senate, but any ruling from the chair may be appealed and overturned by a simple majority of Senators. This happened in 2013, when Harry Reid of the Democratic Party made a point of order that "the vote on cloture under rule XXII for all nominations other than for the Supreme Court of the United States is by majority vote." Although there is no simple majority vote provision in the text of rule XXII,[66] Reid's point of order was sustained by a 52-48 vote, and that ruling established a Senate precedent that cloture on nominations other than those for the Supreme Court requires only a simple majority.[1] On April 6, 2017, that precedent was further changed by Mitch McConnell and the Republican majority to include Supreme Court nominations.[67][68]

Other forms of filibuster[edit]
While talking out a measure is the most common form of filibuster in the Senate, other means of delaying and killing legislation are available. Because the Senate routinely conducts business by unanimous consent, one member can create at least some delay by objecting to the request. In some cases, such as considering a bill or resolution on the day it is introduced or brought from the House, the delay can be as long as a day.[69] However, because this is a legislative day, not a calendar day, the majority can mitigate it by briefly adjourning.[70]

In many cases, an objection to a request for unanimous consent will compel a vote. While forcing a single vote may not be an effective delaying tool, the cumulative effect of several votes, which take at least 15 minutes apiece, can be substantial. In addition to objecting to routine requests, senators can force votes through motions to adjourn and through quorum calls. Quorum calls are meant to establish the presence or absence of a constitutional quorum, but senators routinely use them to waste time while waiting for the next speaker to come to the floor or for leaders to negotiate off the floor. In those cases, a senator asks for unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. If another senator objects, the clerk must continue to call the roll of senators, just as they would with a vote. If a call shows no quorum, the minority can force another vote by moving to request or compel the attendance of absent senators. Finally, senators can force votes by moving to adjourn, or by raising specious points of order and appealing the ruling of the chair.

The most effective methods of delay are those that force the majority to invoke cloture multiple times on the same measure. The most common example is to filibuster the motion to proceed to a bill, then filibuster the bill itself. This forces the majority to go through the entire cloture process twice in a row. If, as is common, the majority seeks to pass a substitute amendment to the bill, a further cloture procedure is needed for the amendment.

The Senate is particularly vulnerable to serial cloture votes when it and the House have passed different versions of the same bill and want to go to conference (i.e., appoint a special committee of both chambers to merge the bills). Normally, the majority asks for unanimous consent to:

Insist on its amendment(s), or disagree with the House's amendments
Request, or agree to, a conference
Authorize the presiding officer to appoint members of the special committee
If the minority objects, those motions are debatable (and therefore subject to a filibuster) and divisible (meaning the minority can force them to be debated, and filibustered, separately).[69] Additionally, after the first two motions pass, but before the third does, senators can offer an unlimited number of motions to give the special committee members non-binding instructions, which are themselves debatable, amendable, and divisible.[71] As a result, a determined minority can cause a great deal of delay before a conference.

Longest filibusters[edit]
Below is a table of the ten longest filibusters to take place in the United States Senate since 1900.

Longest filibusters in the U.S. Senate since 1900[72][73]
Senator   Date (began)   Measure   Hours & minutes
1   Strom Thurmond (D-SC)   August 28, 1957   Civil Rights Act of 1957   24:18
2   Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY)   October 17, 1986   Defense Authorization Act (1987), amendment   23:30
3   Wayne Morse (I-OR)   April 24, 1953   Submerged Lands Act (1953)   22:26
4   Ted Cruz (R-TX)   September 24, 2013   Continuing Appropriations Act (2014)   21:18
5   Robert M. La Follette, Sr. (R-WI)   May 29, 1908   Aldrich–Vreeland Act (1908)   18:23
6   William Proxmire (D-WI)   September 28, 1981   Debt ceiling increase (1981)   16:12
7   Huey Long (D-LA)   June 12, 1935   National Industrial Recovery Act (1933), amendment   15:30
8   Jeff Merkley (D-OR)   April 4, 2017   Opposition to Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court confirmation   15:28
9   Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY)   October 5, 1992   Revenue Act (1992), amendment   15:14
10   Chris Murphy (D-CT)   June 15, 2016   Nominally H.R. 2578; supporting gun control measures   14:50
Quote from: Every FE'r

Please don't mention Himawari 8
Quote from: sceptimatic
Impossible to have the same volume and different density.

*fact*
Extra Virgin Penguin Blood is a natural aphrodisiac

Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #44 on: August 11, 2017, 10:18:13 AM »
Brilliant.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #45 on: August 11, 2017, 10:18:50 AM »
Enjoy (courtesy of Boots):



*

RocketSauce

  • 1441
  • I kill penguins for fun
Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #46 on: August 11, 2017, 10:19:01 AM »
and FURTHERMORE!

Earth–Moon–Earth communication
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from EME (communications))
Earth–Moon–Earth communication (EME), also known as moon bounce, is a radio communications technique that relies on the propagation of radio waves from an Earth-based transmitter directed via reflection from the surface of the Moon back to an Earth-based receiver.

History[edit]
The use of the Moon as a passive communications satellite was proposed by W.J. Bray of the British General Post Office in 1940. It was calculated that with the available microwave transmission powers and low noise receivers, it would be possible to beam microwave signals up from Earth and reflect off the Moon. It was thought that at least one voice channel would be possible.[1]

The "moon bounce" technique was developed in parallel by the United States military and the Hungarian group lead by Zoltán Bay in the years after World War II. The first successful reception of echoes off the Moon being carried out at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey on January 10, 1946 by John H. DeWitt as part of Project Diana.[2] It was followed by Zoltan Bay's group on February 6, 1946.[3] The Communication Moon Relay project that followed led to more practical uses, including a teletype link between the naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and United States Navy headquarters in Washington, DC. In the days before communications satellites, a link free of the vagaries of ionospheric propagation was revolutionary.

Later, the technique was used by non-military commercial users, and the first amateur detection of signals from the Moon took place in 1953.

Current EME communications[edit]

EME SSB Transmission
MENU0:00
A single sideband contact between IZ1BPN in Italy and PI9CAM at the Dwingeloo Radio Observatory. IZ1BPN's transmission is shifted up in pitch slightly to compensate for PI9CAM's transmission being Doppler Shifted down. At the end of IZ1BPN's transmission you can hear the echo of his signal returning from the Moon, again pitched down by Doppler Shift.
Problems playing this file? See media help.
Amateur radio (ham) operators utilize EME for two-way communications. EME presents significant challenges to amateur operators interested in working weak signal communications. Currently, EME provides the longest communications path any two stations on Earth can utilize for bi-directional communications.

Amateur operations use VHF, UHF and microwave frequencies. All amateur frequency bands from 50 MHz to 47 GHz have been used successfully, but most EME communications are on the 2 meter, 70-centimeter, or 23-centimeter bands. Common modulation modes utilized by amateurs are continuous wave with Morse Code, digital (JT65) and when the link budgets allow, voice.

Recent advances in digital signal processing have allowed EME contacts, admittedly with low data rate, to take place with powers in the order of 100 Watts and a single Yagi antenna.

World Moon Bounce Day, June 29, 2009, was created by Echoes of Apollo and celebrated worldwide as an event preceding the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon landing. A highlight of the celebrations was an interview via the Moon with Apollo 8 astronaut Bill Anders. He was also part of the backup crew for Apollo 11. The University of Tasmania in Australia with their 26m dish was able to bounce a data signal off the surface of the Moon which was received by a large dish in the Netherlands - Dwingeloo Radio Observatory. The data signal was successfully resolved back to data setting a world record for the lowest power data signal returned from the Moon with a transmit power of 3 milliwatts - about 1,000th of the power of a strong flashlight filament globe. The second World Moon Bounce Day was April 17, 2010 coinciding with the 40th anniversary of the conclusion of the Apollo 13 mission.

In October 2009 media artist Daniela de Paulis proposed to the CAMRAS radio amateur association based at the Dwingeloo Radio Observatory (NL) to use Moonbounce for a live image transmission performance. As a result of her proposal, in December 2009 CAMRAS radio operator Jan van Muijlwijk and radio operator Daniel Gautchi made the first image transmission via the Moon using the open source software MMSSTV. De Paulis called the innovative technology Visual Moonbounce and used it in several of her art projects. in particular a live performance called OPTICKS during which digital images are sent to the Moon and back in real time and projected live.[citation needed]

Echo delay and time spread[edit]
Radio waves propagate in vacuum at the speed of light c, exactly 299,792,458 m/s.

Propagation time to the Moon and back is therefore 2d/c

d is distance (average distance at any given time)
or about 2.4 s at perigee
or about 2.7 s at apogee
or about 2.56 s on average, but for message coding 2.25 s is used
The Moon is nearly spherical, and its radius corresponds to milliseconds of wave travel time. The trailing parts of an echo, reflected from irregular surface features near the edge of the lunar disk, are delayed from the leading edge by as much as twice this value.

Most of the Moon's surface appears relatively smooth at the typical microwave wavelengths used for amateur EME. Most amateurs do EME contacts below 6 GHz, and differences in the moon's reflectivity are somewhat hard to discern above 1 GHz.

Lunar reflections are by nature quasi-specular (like those from a shiny ball bearing). The power useful for communication is mostly reflected from a small region near the center of the disk.

The Moon is nearly spherical, with the reflection differential being the Moon's radius divided by the speed of light, ~5.8 ms (electromagnetic wave travel time).

The effective time spread of an echo amounts to no more than 0.1 ms.

There is one note with respect to antenna polarization: Reflections from a smooth surface preserve linear polarization but reverses the sense of circular polarizations.

At shorter wavelengths the lunar surface appears increasingly rough, so reflections at 10 GHz and above contain a significant Diffuse Component as well as a quasi-specular component.

The Diffuse Component is depolarized, and can be viewed as a source of low level system noise.

Significant portions of the Diffused Component arise from regions farther out toward the lunar rim. The median time spread can then be as much as several milliseconds.

In all practical cases, however, time spreading is small enough that it does not cause significant smearing of CW keying or intersymbol interference in the slowly keyed modulations commonly used for digital EME.

Faster message keying may encounter the Diffused Component as significant system noise.

EME Time Spreading does have one very significant effect. Signal components reflected from different parts of the lunar surface travel different distances and arrive at Earth with random phase relationships.

As the relative geometry of the

transmitting station
receiving station
reflecting lunar surface
changes, signal components may sometimes add and sometimes cancel.

The dynamic addition and cancellation will create large amplitude fluctuations. These amplitude variations are referred to as Libration Fading. These Libration Fading amplitude variations will be well correlated over the Coherence Bandwidth (typically a few kHz). The Libration Fading components are related to the inverse[disambiguation needed] of the time spread.

Modulation types and frequencies for EME[edit]
VHF

CW
JT65A
JT65B
UHF

CW
JT65C
SSB
Microwave

CW
SSB
JT4F or G
Other factors influencing EME communications[edit]
Doppler Effect at 144 MHz band is 300 Hz at Moonrise or Moonset. The Doppler Offset goes to around Zero when the Moon is overhead. At other frequencies other Doppler Offsets will exist. The 300 Hz offset is the average Doppler Offset for the 144 MHz band.

At moonrise, returned signals will be shifted approximately 300 Hz higher in frequency due to the Doppler effect between Earth and the Moon.
In the Northern Hemisphere, as the Moon traverses the sky to a point due south the Doppler effect approaches nothing. As the Moon sets, signals are shifted lower in frequency until at Moonset they are shifted 300 Hz lower.
Doppler effects cause many problems when tuning into and locking onto signals from the Moon.
Polarization effects can reduce the strength of received signals. One component is the geometrical alignment of the transmitting and receiving antennas; many antenna produce a preferred plane of polarization. Transmitting and receiving station antennas may not be aligned from the perspective of an observer on the moon. This component is fixed by the alignment of the antennas and stations may include a facility to rotate antennas to adjust polarization. Another component is Faraday rotation on the Earth-Moon-Earth path; the plane of polarization of radio waves rotates as they pass through ionized layers of the Earth's atmosphere. This effect is more pronounced at lower VHF frequencies and becomes less significant at 1296 MHZ and above. Some of the polarization mismatch loss can be alleviated by using a larger antenna array (more Yagi elements or a larger dish). [4]

Gallery[edit]


The Communication Moon Relay project (also known as simply Moon Relay, or, alternatively, Operation Moon Bounce) was a telecommunication project carried out by the United States Navy. Its objective was to develop a secure and reliable method of wireless communication by using the Moon as a natural communications satellite - a technique known as EME (Earth-Moon-Earth) communications. Most of the project's work took place during the 1950s at the United States Naval Research Laboratory. Operation Moon Relay was spun off from a classified military espionage program known as Passive Moon Relay (PAMOR) which sought to eavesdrop on Soviet military radar signals reflected from the Moon.

Contents  [hide]
1   Background
2   Development
3   Expansion
4   Results
5   References
Background[edit]
Communication Moon Relay grew out of many ideas and concepts in radio espionage. Some impetus for the project was provided by post-World War II efforts to develop methods of tracking radio signals, particularly those originating in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Other sources included earlier proposals to use the Moon as a radio wave reflector, which date back to 1928. The first proof of this concept was the Project Diana program of the U.S. Army Signal Corps in 1946, which detected radar waves bounced off the Moon. This attracted the attention of Donald Menzel. Menzell was a staff member of the Harvard College Observatory and a former United States Navy Reserve commander, who proposed that the Navy undertake a program to use the Moon as a secure communications satellite.

Prior to the Moon Relay project, long distance wireless communication around the curve of the Earth was conducted by skywave ("skip") transmission, in which radio waves are refracted by the Earth's ionosphere, which was sometimes disrupted by solar flares and geomagnetic storms. Before artificial satellites, the Moon provided the only reliable celestial object from which to reflect radio waves to communicate between points on opposite sides of the Earth.


An entry in Trexler's notebook regarding moon bounce communications.
The developments in Moon circuit communications eventually came to the attention of James Trexler, a radio engineer at the Naval Research Laboratory. His interest was piqued by a paper published by researchers at an ITT laboratory. Trexler developed plans for a system designed to intercept Soviet radar signals by detecting the transmissions that bounced off the Moon. This program, codenamed "Joe," began making regular observations in August 1949. Within a year, "Joe" was made an official Navy intelligence program, the Passive Moon Relay (PAMOR).

In September 1950, a new parabolic antenna for the PAMOR project was completed at Stump Neck, Maryland. The first tests of this antenna were impressive; the returning signal was of much higher fidelity than expected. This presented the possibility of using a Moon circuit as a communications circuit. Unfortunately for PAMOR, collecting Soviet radar signals would require a larger antenna. Efforts began to have such an antenna constructed at Sugar Grove, West Virginia.

Development[edit]
With the PAMOR project requiring a larger antenna, the Stump Neck antenna was pushed into service for testing whether communication via the Moon was possible. This marked the emergence of the Moon Relay as a separate project. Test transmissions between Stump Neck and Washington, DC were carried out; the first satellite transmission of voice occurred on July 24, 1954. These were followed by the first transcontinental test of the system on November 20, 1955; the receiving site was the U.S. Navy Electronics Laboratory in San Diego, California. After corrections to reduce signal loss, the transmissions were extended to Wahiawa, Hawaii.

The Navy received the new system favorably. A Navy contract for the project soon followed the successful tests, and, among other things, it was recommended that American submarines use Moon-reflection paths for communications to shore.

Expansion[edit]
The Moon Relay project was soon transferred to the Communications Section of the Radar Division of the Naval Research Laboratory. Under this department, the system was upgraded to use the ultra high frequency (UHF) band. The experimental system was transformed into a fully operational lunar relay system linking Hawaii with Washington, DC, which became functional in 1959. The new system was officially inaugurated in January 1960, when Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Arleigh Burke sent a message to Commander, Pacific Fleet Felix Stump using the system.

The finished system used two sets of transmitters at Annapolis, Maryland and the Opana Radar Site in Hawaii and two sets of receivers at Cheltenham, Maryland and Wahiawa, Hawaii. It was later expanded to accommodate ship-to-shore transmissions to and from the USS Oxford (AGTR-1).

Results[edit]
The Moon Relay system became obsolete in the later 1960s as the Navy implemented its artificial satellite communication system. However, the information gleaned from the project in fact made the later artificial system possible. Additionally, the equipment used in the Communications Moon Relay project was of much use to U.S. Navy astronomers, as they used it to examine the Moon when the Moon was not in a position conducive to radio transmission. Although relatively short-lived, the Moon Relay served as a bridge to modern American military satellite systems.
Quote from: Every FE'r

Please don't mention Himawari 8
Quote from: sceptimatic
Impossible to have the same volume and different density.

*fact*
Extra Virgin Penguin Blood is a natural aphrodisiac

*

RocketSauce

  • 1441
  • I kill penguins for fun
Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #47 on: August 11, 2017, 10:21:43 AM »
instead of verbally water boarding all of us... how about the cliff note version?

CAN A BROTHER GET AN AHMEN??

PRAISE JESUS!!!!
« Last Edit: August 11, 2017, 10:27:59 AM by RocketSauce »
Quote from: Every FE'r

Please don't mention Himawari 8
Quote from: sceptimatic
Impossible to have the same volume and different density.

*fact*
Extra Virgin Penguin Blood is a natural aphrodisiac

Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #48 on: August 11, 2017, 11:24:26 AM »
alphaomega, relax.

You've presented your case, I have done the same.

I fully trust the readers to discover which version is true.

I'm good with that.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #49 on: August 11, 2017, 03:15:07 PM »
Wait, there may be logical thinking people out there that read all of this and have not determined that if Alpha and Sandy both live in the USA, that Alpha is breaking the law by owning Sandy like that.  Slavery was abolished here many years ago, you can't own someone like that. 
So Alpha has presented actual data regarding the claim made, Sandy danced and squirmed and threw turds all over my screen.  No I would say it isn't even a question, Sandy lost again.   

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #50 on: August 11, 2017, 03:53:30 PM »

The ORBITAL solar gravitational potential effect is not being registered by the GPS satellites' clocks.

I wonder why?

Just possibly because there can be no change in the "gravitational potential effect" for any object following a geodesic in spacetime, in orbit if you want to call it that.

Ever thought of that? You might try reading: Schwarzschild geodesics
That's much too deep for me, but I'm sure a person of your expertise will find it a breeze!

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #51 on: August 11, 2017, 05:39:23 PM »
However, the earth is at rest, no doubts about that!
Nope. It's moving. No doubts about that.
Things like the Sagnac effect prove that. But that is for another thread.

All of you have been warned against using the quote trees unnecessarily, right?
Yes, trees, where you quote a quote which contains a quote which contains a quote and so on.

It is fundamentally different to just quoting a post, even if you break that post up.

The original set of ether equations published by J.C. Maxwell in 1861 are invariant under Galilean transformations, which makes STR/GTR null and void:
Nope. And once again, off topic.

I fully trust the readers to discover which version is true.
Good, you will finally shut up.

The readers will realise your's is a pile of crap, just copied and pasted crap which has been refuted or just off topic spam. Your actions show you have no faith in your arguments.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #52 on: August 11, 2017, 08:14:34 PM »
and FURTHERMORE!

Results[edit]
The Moon Relay system became obsolete in the later 1960s as the Navy implemented its artificial satellite communication system. However, the information gleaned from the project in fact made the later artificial system possible. Additionally, the equipment used in the Communications Moon Relay project was of much use to U.S. Navy astronomers, as they used it to examine the Moon when the Moon was not in a position conducive to radio transmission. Although relatively short-lived, the Moon Relay served as a bridge to modern American military satellite systems.
Stop it this instant! You are making more sense than SandyCan and we can't have that!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #53 on: August 11, 2017, 11:02:40 PM »
Just possibly because there can be no change in the "gravitational potential effect" for any object following a geodesic in spacetime, in orbit if you want to call it that.

You do not understand the nature of the problem.

The ROTATIONAL gravitational potential is being observed and accounted for in the programming of the GPS satellites' clocks.

However, the much larger ORBITAL solar gravitational potential is totally missing, even though it is certainly predicted by GTR.

"The most lethal experimental observation to GR is the absence of the gravitational slowing of the GPS clocks, that is predicted by GR, but not observed.

Hence, the effect of the solar gravitational potential on the GPS clocks, having orbital
plane closely parallel to the earth-sun axis, during the 6 hours closer from the sun, should cause a total delay of more than 24ns, which would be recovered during the 6 hours farther from the sun. The corresponding 12 hours periodic sinusoidal
variation in the time display of the GPS clocks would be more than two orders of magnitude larger than the stability and precision of these clocks within this period. However, observations show no sign of such variation."

Learn the subject from the greatest expert in the world on GPS technology:

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5789.pdf

More information here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846706#msg1846706

That is, the GPS satellites are orbiting the Sun AS IF the velocity of the Earth is a constant along this orbit (which, in the heliocentrical theory, cannot be).


Things like the Sagnac effect prove that.

Really?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71409.msg1940490#msg1940490


Then, you, the heliocentrist, have a huge problem.

Since BOTH the orbital solar gravitational effect and the orbital Sagnac effect are missing, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled.

That means, automatically, the existence of ether.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721


Believe or not, each and every devoted disciple of STR/GTR, upon discovering these facts is forced to give up on the STR/GTR.

GPS technology instantly disproves both STR and GTR.

The latest viewpoint is MLET (Modified Lorentz Ether Theory). Those who still believe in the theory of relativity simply have not been exposed to these basic facts of science, which totally make GTR null and void.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #54 on: August 12, 2017, 12:24:35 AM »
Just possibly because there can be no change in the "gravitational potential effect" for any object following a geodesic in spacetime, in orbit if you want to call it that.
If your ramblings resulted in slightly sensible hypotheses people might put a little weight in what you say.
But when you end up with your idiotic "radical chronology", totally ridiculous heights for the sun, moon, planets and stars etc, etc,
no-one is going to bother reading your pages of text.

Get used to it!

What makes the whole idea of a flat earth a total laughing stock is that there are
          so many "maps",
          so many guesses at the heights and movements of the celestial bodies,
          so many explanations for "gravity" etc, etc.
Yet, you and everyone else swear that their model is the one true flat earth! What a joke.

By the way, please use the "[quote][/quote]" facility, so that we can identify you current victim.

PS  We have an earth "model" that works and you don't!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #55 on: August 12, 2017, 12:54:53 AM »
Only an idiot can accept with his eyes closed what the history books tell him, without first verifying if the events described in those pages are true.

Here are two examples, with 100% proofs.

The biography of Dionysius Exiguus, the central pillar of modern chronology, has been falsified: convince yourself.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1638504#msg1638504


Pompeii and Herculaneum were destroyed at least after 1750 AD, again convince yourself:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1683424#msg1683424 (five consecutive messages)


And finally the architects of the Gizeh pyramid knew how to apply the arctangent formula, including error analysis:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1834389#msg1834389 (four consecutive messages)


You see, that is why people by the hundreds of thousands read my messages, they know full well that my messages always include the best possible information, which cannot be found elsewhere.



« Last Edit: August 12, 2017, 12:56:28 AM by sandokhan »

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #56 on: August 12, 2017, 01:32:51 AM »
You see, that is why people by the hundreds of thousands read my messages, they know full well that my messages always include the best possible information, which cannot be found elsewhere.
No, they are far more likely to skip over the walls of nonsense.

Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #57 on: August 12, 2017, 08:41:17 AM »
Come on sandy, give us one quote from one of the modern, amazing physicists you use as a source saying their work proves the earth is stationary

*

RocketSauce

  • 1441
  • I kill penguins for fun
Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #58 on: August 21, 2017, 09:18:26 AM »
Just possibly because there can be no change in the "gravitational potential effect" for any object following a geodesic in spacetime, in orbit if you want to call it that.
If your ramblings resulted in slightly sensible hypotheses people might put a little weight in what you say.
But when you end up with your idiotic "radical chronology", totally ridiculous heights for the sun, moon, planets and stars etc, etc,
no-one is going to bother reading your pages of text.

Get used to it!

What makes the whole idea of a flat earth a total laughing stock is that there are
          so many "maps",
          so many guesses at the heights and movements of the celestial bodies,
          so many explanations for "gravity" etc, etc.
Yet, you and everyone else swear that their model is the one true flat earth! What a joke.

By the way, please use the "[quote][/quote]" facility, so that we can identify you current victim.

PS  We have an earth "model" that works and you don't!

There is much funnier FE Ideas than "Gravity" "Celestial Movements" and "Maps"

Did you forget about Moonshrimp, Ice Wall Guards and (my personal favorite) *FACT* Sunlight Warms and Moonlight Cools.

Fortunately, These claims have to be taken JUST as serious... So, lets talk about the Ice Wall Guard industry before we talk get into the mathematic mumbo jumbo talk...
Quote from: Every FE'r

Please don't mention Himawari 8
Quote from: sceptimatic
Impossible to have the same volume and different density.

*fact*
Extra Virgin Penguin Blood is a natural aphrodisiac

Re: Sirius stuff!
« Reply #59 on: August 21, 2017, 03:08:50 PM »
Only an idiot can accept with his eyes closed what the history books tell him, without first verifying if the events described in those pages are true.

Here are two examples, with 100% proofs.

The biography of Dionysius Exiguus, the central pillar of modern chronology, has been falsified: convince yourself.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1638504#msg1638504


Pompeii and Herculaneum were destroyed at least after 1750 AD, again convince yourself:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1683424#msg1683424 (five consecutive messages)


And finally the architects of the Gizeh pyramid knew how to apply the arctangent formula, including error analysis:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1834389#msg1834389 (four consecutive messages)


You see, that is why people by the hundreds of thousands read my messages, they know full well that my messages always include the best possible information, which cannot be found elsewhere.
I don't think that many people do read it.  You ramble on for pages and pages.  You seem to be unable to make a succinct argument.  For instance I have tried several times to figure out why you think Pompeii was destroyed so recently.  You make the claim but then you like to pages of stuff generally with more links inside it and it's mostly just you talking.
Can you not give a summery in a paragraph or two, giving your reader the option to go more in depth if they choose?
Because honestly I can't figure out how you get there at all as it is buried in piles of other stuff.