This is all fascinating stuff I'm sure. However it doesn't explain how a star which is larger than the Sun can exist just 50km away. Does that make sense to anyone? Even in the centre of globular clusters the stars aren't that close!
According to Sandy, the sun is much much smaller than people claim, as is Sirius.
Remember, FEers reject large portions of science/reality.
Here are the undeniable facts of science.
Posting a list of numbers is not an undeniable fact of science.
You haven't provided a single citation for these numbers and instead just pulled them out of thin air.
Also, you are just copying from another source.
A source which in no way claims Sirius is less than 50 km from Earth.
Instead it claims that the sun and Sirius are part of a binary star system and that the apparent precision is actually due to the motion of the solar system due to it actually being a binary star system.
If you wish to claim it is an undeniable fact of science, provide valid citations to scientific journals which state (or better yet prove) that it is happening.
Don't just assert it is.
Don't just dump in a bunch of numbers.
Don't just link to some other random website.
And certainly don't link to yourself.
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.
No, we can't. Even if we accept those values as true and accurate and precise, all that shows is that the rate increased. It doesn't show how the rate increased. It doesn't show if it was exponential or some other function.
But it could just as easily be that Newcomb was wrong.
A TOTAL AND COMPLETE DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN ORBITAL MECHANICS.
Pure nonsense. This is nothing more than yet another baseless assertion from you.
You have not substantiated it in any way.
The ether provides the distortion/refractive indices necessary to view all of the stars on a FE.
Here are some star trails portraying that type of distortion:
You mean showing the distortion due to the lenses used, but otherwise being 100% consistent with a RE?
Data for 1900 (Simon Newcomb):
That isn't his data.
That is him being mentioned 4 times.
Regarding precession all it states is that Newcomb needed more research and eventually the value settled on was 50.2564"/yr
There is no indication of his 0.000222" figure.
In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).
Following your link I get a page not available error.
Looking
http://asa.usno.navy.mil/static/files/2018/Astronomical_Constants_2018.pdfI get the value 50.280"
Quite different from your claim.
It seems the value you are using is from the past, which has been projected forwards to 2000.
But that gives a change of 0.000236.
Exponential: increasing at an increasing rate.
No, exponential means increasing at a rate that is proportional to the value.
i.e. something of the form y=a^x, where a is a constant.
There are many different was to increase at an increasing rate.
For example, y=x^1.00000000001.
That is not an exponential function. It grows much more slowly than an exponential function.
You can even just have part of a function, for example, y=sin(x), where then between -pi/2 and -pi/2, x is increasing, with the rate increasing between -pi/2 and 0, and then decreasing between 0 and pi/2.
And again, none of that is relevant to the topic at hand as you are yet to show how it relates to your 50 km value.
How do you arrive at your 50 km value?
Is it just a number you think is reasonable?
Also, if you want to try and use all the above data to try and show it, just remember that that data relies upon a round Earth.