Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Astrophysics
 Gravity & Relativity
 Requiem for Relativity

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert EmailInsert Image Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]

  Check here to include your profile signature.
Check here to subscribe to this topic.
    

T O P I C    R E V I E W
Samizdat Posted - 05 Dec 2005 : 16:29:49
Has any of you read, or have you preliminary thoughts on the new book by Michael Strauss, "Requiem for Relativity: the Collapse of Special Relativity?"

http://www.relativitycollapse.net/
20   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
Joe Keller Posted - 21 Jul 2014 : 18:28:27
Teotihuacan analysis reworked

For historical reasons, I'll leave my old analyses on the messageboard, but this one is much better:

At Teotihuacan, we have six important directions:

#1. The pyramid of the Moon - pyramid of the Sun line. On Millon's paper map at the Iowa State University library, I have measured this as 2.1064 +/- 0.0243 deg W of N. The error bar is my crude estimate of the error due to my ability to read fractions of a millimeter on a wooden ruler: it ignores error due to stretching and slight tearing of this 40 year old paper map. So, the true error bar is probably larger and likely considerably larger; an error of 3 sigma should not be dismissed, as it is likely overestimated.

#2. The line to geographic north. As Petrie noted, the most reliable orientations at Giza suggest true north at Giza has changed by a few arcminutes, and Petrie thought this could be due to climate change causing major change in ocean currents. Earth mantle changes also are possible. Many have remarked that likely, the Great Pyramid originally was exactly 30deg N. Petrie estimated that at the time of construction of the Great Pyramid, true north was 5'40" +/- 10" W of true N today. Also, the Great Pyramid today is 1'15.6" S of 30.0deg N. As viewed from Teotihuacan, this small pole shift, relative to Earth's crust, would have given a true north 262.3" E of true N today, and a latitude 177.1" greater than today.

#3. The Avenue of the Dead orientation (the "15.5deg angle"). Millon favors the value 15deg25' E of N; Sprajc favors the competing value 15deg28'. These values were found by competing investigators decades ago. As Sprajc's publication is the more recent (Latin American Antiquity 11:402-415, 2000) I'll favor him in my adopted round-number compromise value, 15deg27', E of present-day N.

#4. The "16.5deg angle". There is another cluster of orientations of structures near 16.5deg S of E. According to Sprajc's citations, it seems that the most carefully determined values are 16deg26' and 16deg29', so I'll adopt the compromise 16deg27.5' S of present-day E.

#5. The pyramid of the Moon - pyramid of the Feathered Serpent (a.k.a. Temple of Quetzalcoatl) line. By measuring the three interpyramid distances (always to the centers of the top levels of the pyramids) on Millon's map with a steel tape ruler, and solving the triangle, I find that this is 9.6637deg E of the Moon-Sun line (see #1 above) i.e. 9.6637-2.1064 = 7.5573deg E of N. A very rough error estimate would be 0.06deg, which corresponds to an 0.05 inch error in measuring the long side of the triangle and disregards the relatively small error in the Moon-Sun line.

#6. The pyramid of the Sun - pyramid of the Feathered Serpent line. As in #5, I find that this is 16.2017deg E of the Moon-Sun line, i.e. 16.2017-2.1064 = 14.0953deg E of N. The same very rough error estimate as in #5, would give 0.10deg.

It turns out that #1 through #3, correspond to sky angles characteristic of 2013AD, as does the declination of Algieba.

Let's consider the problem of signifying a time, using only the universal language of astronomy and mathematics. A time a few thousand years in the future, could be specified by the angles of spherical triangles which include the equinox as one of their corners and stars as the other corners. This scheme would be easiest to decipher, if the angle specified always is the angle at the equinox. Then, this collection of triangles amounts to a collection of great circles, each through one star and the equinox. The concept of great circle may be eliminated, by using instead, a circle (generally not a great circle) which is uniquely specified by two stars plus the equinox. The most obvious such circle is the circle containing Regulus, Spica, and the autumnal equinox. These stars are both bright, both blue (color coding) and both near the ecliptic and the equinox.

(1) At the equinox, this Regulus-autumnal equinox-Spica circle makes the angle 26.6863deg S of E, at 2000.0AD, and 26.6373deg S of E, at 2020.0AD, using the mean position of the equinox and of the stars (including proper motion) involved. Let's denote this angle by (1).

Now two additional obvious circles are:

(2) Through Regulus and the two equinoxes; this is a great circle which, as explained in (1), makes the angle 24.36411 at 2000.0 and 24.37061 at 2020.0.

(3) Through Regulus, the autumnal equinox, and the north pole; this makes the angle 8.91880 at 2000.0 and 9.08516 at 2020.0.

From now on, all these angles will be interpolated linearly in the domain 2000-2020AD. The Teotihuacan ground angle #1 minus #3, does not involve the geographic pole. If the real ground angle #2 minus #1, is 2*0.0243deg, i.e. 2 sigma, greater than my measured value, and #3 minus #2 is 15deg27' as adopted, then (1) minus (3) equals #1 minus #3, at 2015.09AD. If 3 sigma, then at 2012.83AD. Each of these dates implies a certain angle (1) minus (2), and thus a certain pole shift E of N, for the time of pyramid construction, so that (1) minus (2) shall equal #1 minus (the ancient) #2. The 2 sigma error implies a pole shift 1.720 times the Giza shift (if only pole shifts proportional to the Giza shift are considered) and the 3 sigma error implies a pole shift 1.473 times. (Recall that my value of sigma is an underestimate, so these "2 sigma" and "3 sigma" errors are really somewhat smaller sigma values.) The former implies that the mean declination of Algieba equals the geographic latitude of the Moon pyramid - Sun pyramid midpoint, at 2011.98AD, and the latter implies 2014.36AD. Interpolating, a 2.670 sigma error implies 1.5544 times the Giza shift, and that both the (1) minus (2), and the Algieba declination, criteria are met at 2013.58AD, in remarkable agreement with the Mayan calendar.







Joe Keller Posted - 28 Jun 2014 : 18:00:20
Teotihuacan - Mother Lode of Archaeoastronomy (update of June 22 post)

Teotihuacan is a "precessional alarm clock" (phrase due to John Major Jenkins). At the time for which the "alarm clock" is set,

1) the mean declination of Algieba equals the geographic latitude of the Pyramid of the Sun - Pyramid of the Moon midpoint;

2) the angles between four circles (not great circles) through the autumnal equinox on the celestial sphere, are the same as the angles between the four lines, through the centers of the tops of the Pyramids of Sun and Moon; geographic north-south; orientation of the Avenue of the Dead, etc. (often called the 15.5deg orientation); and the orientation of some other structures including the early lower south face of the Feathered Serpent Pyramid, a.k.a. Temple of Quetzalcoatl (this is often called the 16.5deg orientation).

The three circles all contain Regulus and the autumnal equinox. One circle contains Polaris, one contains Spica and one contains Dschubba.

The circle containing Polaris makes, at the equator, an angle 9.10669deg south of east at the equinox and epoch 2000.0 and 9.23943 at 2020.0.

The circle containing Spica makes 26.68628 at 2000.0 and 26.63725 at 2020.0.

The circle containing Dschubba makes 24.76731 at 2000.0 and 24.76606 at 2020.0.

My measurement on Millon's map (hardcopy at Iowa State Univ. library) finds that the Pyramid of Sun - Pyramid of Moon line is 2.1064deg W of N (I'll call this the "interpyramid angle"); Wikipedia gives coordinates that imply the mean expected and maximum-likelihood interpyramid angle is 1.5231 but because of large rounding error, possibly as large as 2.2840. So, tentatively I'll estimate the angle as the average (2.1064 + 1.5231)/2 = 1.81475 +/- 0.29165.

Unlike the interpyramid angle, the Avenue of the Dead angle has been studied extensively (see Sprajc, Latin American Antiquity 11:402-415, 2000). The two most prominent estimates are 15deg28' (favored by Sprajc) and 15deg25' (favored by Millon) E of N. So, I'll use 15deg26.5' = 15.44167.

Yet another angle found in some structures seems to have been most carefully estimated as 16deg26' or 16deg29' (the latter is S of E along the early lower south face of the Feathered Serpent Pyramid a.k.a. Temple of Quetzalcoatl). So, I'll use 16deg27.5' = 16.45833. This angle will be discussed in the section "Feathered Serpent and Barbarossa", below.

Behold, the Spica circle is 1.91897deg, for 2000.0, and 1.87119deg, for 2020.0, S of the Dschubba circle. By linear extrapolation this difference equals, at 2043.6 +/- 122.1 AD, the angle between the interpyramid line and the NS line, 1.81475 +/- 0.29165deg.

Much smaller error bars occur for the angle between the Avenue of the Dead and the NS line. The Dschubba circle is 15.57959, for 2000.0, and 15.52663, for 2020.0, S of the Polaris circle. By linear extrapolation this equals 15.44167 at 2052.1 +/- 9.4 AD.


Returning to the discussion of (1), the mean declination of Algieba, for the equinox of date and including proper motion, is 19.84167 for 2000.0 and 19.73980 for 2020.0. The geographic latitude of the midpoint of the Pyramids of Sun and Moon is (19.6925 + 19.6996)/2 = 19.69605. Extrapolation gives equality at 2028.6 AD.

From my measurement on Millon's map, the difference in geographic latitude, between the Pyramids of Sun and Moon, is 26.0725". Wikipedia gives 25.5600" +/- 0.1800" rounding error. So, I'll use the mean, 25.81625" +/- 0.25625". Algieba's aberration in declination at conjunction is +7.4073", and at opposition -7.5794". Its parallax in declination is 0.0077" more positive at opposition than at conjunction. Due to eccentricity, the time from conjunction forward to opposition is considerably less than 0.5 sidereal year; the mean declination change due to precession and proper motion is -9.0217". (These are first order calculations in eccentricity and the last digit or two might be inaccurate.) So we see that ignoring nutation, the declination change from conjunction forward to opposition is currently 24.0007", only 1.81555" +/- 0.25625" less than the interpyramid change in geographic latitude.

Now let us examine the 1980 IAU theory of nutation as published in the 1984 Astronomical Almanac. The largest, IAU #1, 18.6 yr terms give, for the declination of Algieba, -6.2003" in amplitude for the sine term and 3.8901" for the cosine term. The most negative rate of change occurs for theta = arctan(3.8901/6.2003) = 32.104deg phase, and this rate of change is -1.2354" per 0.5 Julian year. At this same phase, the rate of change due to the IAU #2, 9.3 yr terms is +0.0448" per 0.5 Julian yr. The second largest term is IAU #9, the 0.5 yr term, but this term hardly contributes because it is almost exactly one period from Algieba's conjunction to opposition. The amplitudes, for change in Algieba's declination, of the remaining 37-9 = 28 sine terms, with period one year or less, on the first page of the list (the sine terms are all bigger than the cosine terms) sum to 0.2331"; twice this is an estimate of their largest possible contribution. So, we have estimated the most negative possible contribution of nutation, to the change in Algieba's declination from conjunction to opposition, as -1.2354+0.0448-2*0.2331 = -1.6568", remarkably close to the -1.81555 +/- 0.25625 implied by the interpyramid spacing. In brief, the latitude difference of the Pyramids of Sun and Moon tells us the largest possible change in Algieba's apparent declination, from conjunction forward to opposition, at the present epoch.


"Feathered Serpent and Barbarossa"

In 2007 I discovered on online sky surveys, that our Sun has a satellite solar system, most likely chiefly a pair of very cold brown dwarfs, orbiting the Sun at about 300AU near the positive dipole of the so-called Cosmic Microwave Background. By 2009 I had calculated the center of mass orbit, amassed many lines of supporting evidence, and given a lecture on the subject to the regional amateur astronomy society. I invested much effort, including many personal interviews, in seeking to convince professional astronomers to investigate the matter, without success. There has been a small, ambiguously successful effort by amateur astronomers but with only marginally adequate equipment and minimal resources of observing time. It would not be too great a digression to mention here one of the simplest and most compelling bits of evidence: the exceptionally great, unexplained "interstellar" absorption of light from two stars in that direction: 61 Leonis and Theta Crateris; this is evidence of a nebula associated with this small satellite solar system.

Rechecking my old notes, I recalled that the main object, which I named "Barbarossa", was fitted by me with an orbit of eccentricity 0.61 and period 6340 yr. I found the heliocentric position for the winter solstice, 2012, and estimated that the orbit lay within a degree of its outbound latus rectum at that time. The object was crossing lines of declination at an angle arctan(0.50) S of E.

With the above information I now can calculate the circle through Regulus, the autumnal equinox, and Barbarossa. This circle corresponds to the "16.5 degree" line at Teotihuacan, because (interpolating between 2020.0AD & 2040.0AD positions) at 2025.1 AD it makes the same angle with the Regulus - autumnal equinox - Dschubba circle, that the "16.5 degree" S of E line makes with geographic north. This circle on the celestial sphere moves rapidly, its slope at the autumnal equinox moving more than 0.5 degrees per year, because Barbarossa's period is only about a fourth the precession period, and the circle is small because of Barbarossa's position. So if my orbit is accurate, the error bar on 2025.1 AD is small. Note that this agrees well with the estimate based on the declination of Algieba, 2028.6 AD. Just as the Hindu reference year 3102BC equals the Mayan reference year 3114BC plus 12 yr., likewise 2025AD equals the 2012AD winter solstice, i.e. approx. 2013AD, plus 12 yr.

Finally there is the line through the top centers of the Pyramids of Moon and Sun. Let these points be M and S, resp. The south face of the Feathered Serpent Pyramid (Barbarossa lies near the constellation Hydra = Feathered Serpent?) extends to a line segment which intersects the line MS, at F, a point east of the Feathered Serpent Pyramid. Let the southeast corner of the Feathered Serpent Pyramid, be C. According to my rough, hasty measurements on Millon's map, we have

CF / (CF + FS + SM) = 45.77/360 [45.72/360]

FS / (CF + FS + SM) = 192.64/360 [195.33/360]

The numbers in brackets are from my remeasurement July 9 on Millon's small map, Fig. 13A, in the hardback "Urbanization" vol. 1 accompanying the maps; this is because I didn't have time to reshelve the map myself so it is unfindable during a prolonged library "reshelving" process, a common problem at ISU.

The former number, using the average 45.745, exactly equals the fraction of the circular arc southward from the autumnal equinox to Barbarossa, in the equinox-Barbarossa-Regulus circle, at 2027.0AD. The latter number, using the average 193.985, exactly equals the fraction of the circular arc from the equinox to Polaris (not via Regulus) of the equinox-Polaris-Regulus circle, at 2052.3AD though with a large error bar.

Thus three dates with small error bars,

2028.6, 2025.1, 2027.0AD,

the first date corresponding to the declination of Algieba and the latter two corresponding to the direction and distance to my discovery, Barbarossa, from the equinox along the circle including Regulus, cluster with mean 2026.9 +/- SEM 1.0 AD.
Joe Keller Posted - 22 Jun 2014 : 23:00:25
The Mother Lode of Archaeoastronomy

The library is closing so I don't have time for details.

The angle of Teotihuacan is usually said to be 15deg25'. This is between North and the Avenue, east of North, but there is another obvious angle: the angle between North and the inter-Pyramid line (centers of Pyramids of Moon & Sun), west of North, which I measured on Millon's hardcopy map at the Iowa State Univ. library, as 2.11deg +/- 0.02deg.

These angles, and their sum, correspond to three astronomical angles at the present epoch. These angles are at their intersection at the autumnal equinox, between three circles on the celestial sphere (generally not great circles). All the circles contain Regulus and the autumnal equinox of date. Also:

Circle #1 contains Spica.

Circle #2 contains the vernal equinox.

Circle #3 contains the North Pole (Polaris gives an even better fit).

For the equinox, ecliptic and positions of 2000.0 AD, #3 & #1 intersect at 17.76748deg, and for 2020.0 AD, 17.55209deg.

For the intersection of #2 & #1 (#2 lies between #1 & #3) the angles are resp. 2.32217 & 2.26664.

The agreement is perfect, by linear extrapolation, at 2077.7 AD for the former and 2022.7 AD for the latter. A small pole-shift adjustment to true north, based on the alignment at Giza determined by Petrie, does not affect the latter but improves the former to 2050.1 AD.
Jim Posted - 16 Jun 2014 : 12:00:49
Dr Joe, It is one of several tiny effects swept aside in astronomy. The fact the moon orbits the sun is another tiny effect. My reason for bringing up stuff like this is they are far more important to events related to the climate and weather on Earth than anything done by humans such as the vapor trails of jet plains. Back in Newton's time it made sense to avoid tiny details since he had to work with ink and a quill pen. We have powerful computers currently being misused that could be used to determine what these real and tiny forces do.
Joe Keller Posted - 15 Jun 2014 : 18:34:10
quote:
Originally posted by Jim

...since our planet receives ~7% more sun light in the month of Dec. than it gets in June why is zero cooling noticed in June?



Good point: the usual explanation is, that the seasons are more extreme in the southern hemisphere because they're tipped away from the sun and farther from the sun at the same time. But all this is open to being questioned.
Jim Posted - 14 Jun 2014 : 09:42:07
Dr Joe, The blackbody law predicts the power level of radiators and since our lovely planet is radiating at some level above 275K how much energy is it radiating? Also, since our planet receives ~7% more sun light in the month of Dec. than it gets in June why is zero cooling noticed in June?
Joe Keller Posted - 13 Jun 2014 : 18:48:20
"Chemtrails"

Over the years there's been speculation that the increased width and persistence of the white trails left by some jets, to the extent that they often cover much of the sky, is due to a fuel additive (such as barium salts or metallic microfibers) that is part of a government program to cool the Earth. Most people who discuss the topic date the appearance of the new so-called "chemtrails" to 1996, and that's when I first noticed them.

I found some confirmation of this in the current issue, July 2014, of Sky & Telescope, "Illuminating Earthshine", p. 55:

"...Earth's albedo made a distinct jump (by roughly 0.5%) from late 1998 through mid-2000, and then afterward it largely leveled off. By comparison, the Sun's output varies only by about 0.1% over an 11-year-long solar cycle."

The Stefan-Boltzmann law (which says that radiated energy is proportional to the fourth power of absolute temperature) gives an estimate of how much this would affect Earth's temperature. I think the most appropriate definition of Earth's albedo would be the "Bond albedo", 29%. So if reflectance is 0.5% more, then absorption is affected proportionally less, by a factor 29/(100-29):

300K * 0.005/4 * 29/71 = 0.15 degrees centigrade colder
Joe Keller Posted - 07 Jun 2014 : 18:02:12
What time is indicated by the trilithons of the large horseshoe at Stonehenge?

My previous posts explain why it is reasonable to suppose that the orientation of the trilithons relative to the posthole AB line, indicates declinations of four particular bright stars. My first effort used the trilithons in isolation. Correcting for precession and proper motion, I now find that the times indicated this way are

Rigel 1953AD
Regulus 1444AD
Spica 1915AD
Procyon 1902AD

The outlier, Regulus, corresponds the trilithon that was re-erected. As I mentioned in my previous post, there is reason to think that re-erection was misguided by an overly simple idea of the stone arrangement.

As discussed previously, the position of the four trilithons on their circle, gives another set of implied declinations. Using a slight correction to the positions, to make the circle perfect, I find the indicated times are

Rigel 2172.5 AD
Regulus 2024.4 AD
Spica 2012.3 AD
Procyon 2012.3 AD

While the agreement between Spica and Procyon must be partly accidental, it is remarkable that Spica and Procyon do correspond to the only pristine trilithons. Rigel's trilithon has one pillar fallen, so I had to guess the center position. As mentioned above, Regulus' trilithon was re-erected.

So we have a remarkable agreement with the theory that Stonehenge was yet another 2012 predictor, in addition to Giza, Teotihuacan, and Cholula.
Joe Keller Posted - 07 Jun 2014 : 17:57:01
What time is indicated by the trilithons of the large horseshoe at Stonehenge?

My previous posts explain why it is reasonable to suppose that the orientation of the trilithons relative to the posthole AB line, indicates declinations of four particular bright stars. My first effort used the trilithons in isolation. Correcting for precession and proper motion, I now find that the times indicated this way are

Rigel 1953AD
Regulus 1444AD
Spica 1915AD
Procyon 1902AD

The outlier, Regulus, corresponds the trilithon that was re-erected. As I mentioned in my previous post, there is reason to think that re-erection was misguided by an overly simple idea of the stone arrangement.

As discussed previously, the position of the four trilithons on their circle, gives another set of implied declinations. Using a slight correction to the positions, to make the circle perfect, I find the indicated times are

Rigel 2172.5 AD
Regulus 2024.4 AD
Spica 2012.3 AD
Procyon 2012.3 AD

While the agreement between Spica and Procyon must be partly accidental, it is remarkable that Spica and Procyon do correspond to the only pristine trilithons. Rigel's trilithon has one pillar fallen, so I had to guess the center position. As mentioned above, Regulus' trilithon was re-erected.

So we have a remarkable agreement with the theory that Stonehenge was yet another 2012 predictor, in addition to Giza, Teotihuacan, and Cholula.
Jim Posted - 02 Jun 2014 : 19:52:56
Dr Joe, I wish you would apply your education and talents on figuring how much energy is needed to force the ice cycle. I figure it only requires a few degrees of temperature change at ~273K to go one way or the other. The energy flux can be moved by plate tectonics under the ocean. That would explain how North Africa and the American SW were green and wet 15,000 years ago. The ocean warm spots migrate north and south over time.
Joe Keller Posted - 02 Jun 2014 : 19:18:13
quote:
Originally posted by Jim

...energy flows within the mantle of our planet cause this ice cycle. ...



This idea of yours, seems likely to me now too. Some powerful physical phenomenon would have been required to reset the lunar ephemeris, at the time of the Younger Dryas.
Jim Posted - 02 Jun 2014 : 15:07:10
Hi Dr Joe, Your latest post is exciting to me in that the ice age cycle can be understood by applying blackbody law to solve the problem. The idea that some event in the cosmos can be eliminated by doing the math. Being a math major you must see forming and melting ice requires the movement of energy from one place to another. It is clear to me that energy flows within the mantle of our planet cause this ice cycle. This is just another fact not yet known to science and yet another indication how poor our standard science really is. It is not even yet known that enough heat does flow from the mantle to effect the climate in any way.
Joe Keller Posted - 01 Jun 2014 : 18:38:31
Proof that "The Younger Dryas" was a catastrophic local astrophysical event

Simon et al (Astronomy & Astrophysics, 1994; p. 669, sec. 3.4.(a.1.) ) give fourth degree polynomials for the lunar mean perigee and node referred to J2000 coordinates. These polynomials imply that a maximum rate of progression of the mean perigee, occurred at t = - 12,809 years before 2000.0 AD, and that a maximum rate of retrogression of the mean node, occurred at t = - 12,683 years before 2000.0 AD.

Fiedel (Quaternary International, 2011; pp. 262-266) says that the highest resolution ice cores (the "NGRIP" study) date the sudden (reaching minimum within a year) and persistent drop in North Atlantic ocean surface temperature near Greenland (based on deuterium isotope levels) as t = - 12,897 +/- 3 years before 2000.0 AD. NGRIP also found that the initial drop in temperature on Greenland itself (based on oxygen isotope levels) occurred at t = - 12,925 +/- 59, and that the minimum temperature in Greenland occurred about two centuries later at t = - 12,712 +/- 74.

The similarity of all these dates suggests that the Younger Dryas was caused by an astronomical catastrophe which reset the celestial clockwork.

At such large t, the truncation error of the series seems large. So, I fitted a sinusoid, to the polynomial for the rate of progression of the perigee, by matching all three of its derivatives at t=0: the resulting sinusoid has period 76,888.5 yr, and its most recent extremum is a maximum at t = - 14,232. Likewise for the rate of retrogression of the node, the resulting sinusoid has period 76,399.0 yr, and most recent extremum a minimum (i.e. large negative) at t = - 14,088. So the agreement is not merely an accident of truncation error.
Joe Keller Posted - 27 May 2014 : 15:42:14
Stonehenge - marker of present Declinations of Procyon, Spica, Regulus, Rigel


(Some of this content is review of my previous post to Dr. Van Flandern's messageboard.)

According to VizieR's online Bright Star Catalog, the epoch 2000.0, J2000.0 coordinate, Declinations of Procyon, Spica, Regulus, and Rigel, are

+5.225, -11.161, +11.967, and -8.202 degrees, resp.

According to my ruler, straightedge and right angle measurements (done twice and averaged, once by estimating the standing stone centers and again from their best faces) on the map on p. 109 of Balfour's popular book, "Stonehenge and its Mysteries" (1979) the angles north of the "Avenue", formed by horseshoe trilithon stones 51-52, stones 53-54, stones 57-58 (fell in 1797 & re-erected in 1958), and stone 60-?59A (59A has fallen; base position estimated) are

+6.89, -13.75, +18.63, -10.61

Here I use Richard Atkinson's azimuth for the "Avenue"; it is only 0.087 deg north of my measurement of the Heel stone - base of Slaughter stone line. The ratios of these angles to the Declinations above, are

1.319, 1.232, 1.557, 1.294; mean 1.350

The trilithon corresponding to Regulus was re-erected; the restorers perhaps were unduly influenced by the overall curve of the horseshoe, which makes a greater angle with the Avenue than do the separate trilithons (see below). Omitting Regulus leaves 1.319, 1.232, and 1.294, mean 1.282.

Perhaps a more accurate way to find an azimuth at one of the horseshoe trilithons, is to fit an ellipse to the horseshoe trilithons (as done by Alexander Thom; see Balfour p. 44) and find the angle on the ellipse. I chose to fit the ellipse to only the four points which I judged to be at the centers of the four trilithons discussed above. My fifth constraint for choosing the ellipse, was that its axes be orthogonal to my measurement of the Stonehole A-B line (this line is 2.01deg farther north than Atkinson's, but my fitted ellipse is so nearly circular, b/a = 0.990, that this hardly alters the resulting ellipse). At the midpoints of the trilithons, the tangents to this nearly circular ellipse are resp.

+18.778, -40.191, +33.249, -22.436 (these angles would be 2.01deg more positive if Atkinson's Avenue azimuth were used)

and the ratios to the 2000.0 Declinations are

3.594, 3.601, 2.778, 2.735

So on the southeast side of the horseshoe, the ratio is about 3.60 and on the northwest side, about 2.76. Note that 3.60/2.76 = 1.30, near the 1.35 (or 1.28 if Regulus is omitted) found above. According to the information given in Balfour, the ratio of the main Sarsen circle to the bluestone circle, is 29.6 meters / 76 feet = 1.28. According to my measurement on Balfour's map, the ratio of the Aubrey hole circle to the main sarsen circle, is 2.83. The product 1.28 * 2.83 = 3.62.

The relationship of Earth to Venus makes the integers 8 and 13 obvious choices; their sidereal period ratio is 365.256/224.701 = 13.0042 /8. The square root of 13 is 3.606 and the square root of 8 is 2.828. These small multiples, sqrt(13), sqrt(8), and sqrt(13/8), of the Declinations, improve the net accuracy possible for us, surveying the damaged stones millennia later. It was natural to have the Aubrey circle with 8 times the area of the main sarsen circle, and the Aubrey circle with 13 times the area of the bluestone circle.

Regarding the choice of stars, Regulus and Spica are obvious choices because they are bright and lie so near the ecliptic. Of all the stars brighter than Spica (and Regulus), Rigel is the southern star nearest the (2000.0 epoch) equator and Procyon the northern star nearest the (2000.0 epoch) equator, so they also are obvious choices.

The foregoing suggests that Stonehenge is another "precessional alarm clock" (phrase popularized by John Major Jenkins) indicating our present epoch.
Jim Posted - 16 May 2014 : 23:12:04
Another key fact ignored by science is the people who erected Stonehenge were just as intelligent as us modern people and they had less distractions like computers,cell phones,tv and cars. So, they had lots of time for other activities like moving rocks. They must have had thought patterns somewhat different than anything we can conceive of. Also it must have been possible to walk from England to Giza back then. North Africa was wet and green 5,000 years ago so trip would have been very easy.
Joe Keller Posted - 16 May 2014 : 18:31:38
quote:
Originally posted by Jim

...I think most of the evidence is under water because sea levels were much lower when it was erected. ...


I agree - this is a key fact.
Jim Posted - 15 May 2014 : 23:41:39
Hi Dr Joe, Its good to see are back at the books and I wonder what you make of Stonehenge. I think most of the evidence is under water because sea levels were much lower when it was erected. The linkage with Giza is logical when all thinga are considered. I never liked the idea Stonehenge was an observatory though. I figure it was an object of worship to our ancestors. There are many ice age mysteries that must be under water if sea levels were as much as 100 meters lower than they now are.
Joe Keller Posted - 15 May 2014 : 20:59:11
A New Interpretation of Stonehenge

by Joseph C. Keller, May 15-21, 2014

Executive summary. Stonehenge is a "precessional alarm clock" laid out during the last Ice Age and indicating the present epoch. Unlike the Mexican and Egyptian pyramids, Stonehenge refers not to bright stars whose present Declination equals its present latitude, but rather more universally to the brightest stars near the ecliptic or (at present) the equator, indicating, with its largest stones, i.e. the "horseshoe", their present azimuths of rise, assuming the 45 degree latitude which Stonehenge evidently had during the last Ice Age when the last Hapgood pole position was extant.

Introduction. If modern relativity theory is considerably incomplete or outright false, then unexplained astronomical and geological phenomena may well be observed if we look for them. Stonehenge might be a record of some such phenomenon. So, Stonehenge is indeed part of the "Requiem for Relativity". The layout of the stones corroborates Hapgood's location of the last Ice Age pole. Even more strangely, the stones seem to indicate a stellar alignment, or "precessional alarm clock" (to use John Major Jenkins' phrase) consistent with our own epoch. My reference for Stonehenge data, is Michael Balfour's popular "Stonehenge and its Mysteries", 1979.


Part 1. The Heel Stone, etc., and Hapgood's pole.

Usually, though with unacceptable inaccuracy according to some naysaying authorities (e.g. E. H. Stone, 1924; see Balfour p. 112) the Heel Stone has been interpreted as the azimuth, at some ancient epoch, of summer solstice sunrise, or perhaps some closely related quantity such as northernmost moonrise. I embrace the radically different (already proposed by others) hypothesis, that the Heel Stone, etc., indicate true East during the latest Ice Age, due to a Hapgood pole shift. Let us refer to Fig. 23 on p. 109 of Balfour's book. (Due to an editorial error, my copy lacks a caption for this figure, but the caption to Fig. 6 on p. 38, implies that Fig. 23 is the detailed version of the British Department of the Environment's then-current official plan of Stonehenge.) The stone numbers in current use, are still those adopted by Petrie for his 1880 book.

The center of the Heel Stone (#96) and the center of the base (west end) of the fallen Slaughter Stone (#95) give us a line; the nearby empty stone holes B & C give us a nearly parallel line. Furthermore (as noted by Lockyer; see Balfour p. 40) these lines are orthogonal to the nearly exact rectangle formed by Stations 91, 92, 93 & 94. I can borrow from Atkinson's 1978 survey (Balfour p. 40) which determined that the "Avenue" (a structure very nearly parallel to the Heel Stone - Slaughter Stone line) is directed, on average, 40deg05'48" = 40.097deg north of east.

The rectangle formed by the above Stations, has central angle about equal to the latitude of the arctic circle (my measurements on Fig. 23 give 67.3deg using one narrow end of the rectangle and 66.7 using the other; average 67.0 = 90 - 23.0). This rectangle is a hint that something in Stonehenge reveals its original latitude. The 24deg (Earth's obliquity) tilt of the Heel Stone, thought by some to be intentional (Balfour Plate 66, p. 87) is another such hint. This something might be Stone #127. Petrie gave it the 1xx number usually given to lintel stones, and although most maps show it as a fallen stone, and it is horizontal in photographs, the detailed map of Fig. 23 indicates that it is a standing stone. Perhaps, though horizontal, it was, by someone, not thought to be "fallen" from its original position. This stone, or alternatively the two perimeter stones near it in the circle, both indicate about a 45 degree angle with the line of the Heel & Slaughter stones (my two ways of measuring on Fig. 23, give 45.9deg +/- SEM 1.2). Perhaps the Stonehenge site was chosen for exact 45.0 latitude. If that was the latitude, then the indicated pole is 63N, 91W vs. Hapgood's most recent pole, 60N, 73W (using Atkinson's "Avenue" direction as true east). My own measurement of the true east direction, based on the Heel and the Slaughter stones, is 40.01deg, practically equal to Atkinson's, but based on the empty stone holes B & C, is 42.11deg: this alternative true east, implies a pole at 62N, 87W, even closer to Hapgood's.

Another hint that the latitude of Stonehenge was 45, is the angle from the base of the Slaughter stone to the midpoint of a short side of the "station" rectangle and thence to the center of that rectangle. The two very slightly different angles imply 46.0deg +/- 0.2. As in all cases, the standard deviation I give is only a lower bound; many sources of error, for example the error of the base position of the fallen Slaughter stone, I cannot estimate and must ignore.


Part 2. The precessional alarm clock.

Archaeological dating indicates that the main stonework at Stonehenge was done at about the same time as the conventional date of the Giza pyramids. However, the information contained in Stonehenge might be much older, just as Egyptian temples were reconstructed over and over on the same foundations using whatever building technology was then current. Gradually, those who rebuilt Stonehenge perhaps forgot the original significance, and over-emphasized the circular structures because it was evident to them that the layout must have something to do with circles and circular functions (also known as trigonometric functions).

Referring to Fig. 23, stones #51 & #52 point to the true (airless) azimuth of rise (for 45 deg latitude, sin(az) = sin(Decl) / cos(45) ) of Procyon, stones #53 & #54 to the azimuth of rise of Spica, stones #57 & #58 to the azimuth of rise of Regulus, and stone #60 (and perhaps the base of the fallen stone #59A) to the azimuth of rise of Rigel. These trilithon sarcen stones of the "horseshoe" are the tallest of Stonehenge. Measuring two ways (according to the centroids of the stones and again according to the best edges) to get a standard error, and accepting my measurement of the Heel - Slaughter line as true east (i.e. practically Atkinson's value for the "Avenue") I find from Fig. 23:

Rigel az -10.5 +/- SEM 0.9 (azimuths are given as North of East, for clarity)
implies Declination -7.4 +/- 0.6
vs. actual (epoch 2000.0) Decl -8.2

Regulus az +18.7 +/- 1.2
implies Decl +13.1 +/- 0.8
vs. actual (2000.0) Decl +12.0

Procyon az +7.0 +/- 0.9
implies Decl +4.9 +/- 0.6
vs. actual (2000.0) Decl +5.2

Spica az -13.7 +/- 0.8
implies Decl -9.6 +/- 0.6
vs. actual -11.2

The choice of these stars makes sense: Regulus and Spica are the bright stars nearest the ecliptic, and one of them happens to be north and one south of the ecliptic and of the equator. Rigel, Procyon and Betelgeuse are nearest the equator, now, of all the stars brighter than Spica. Procyon and Betelgeuse are north of the equator and Procyon is nearer the equator than Betelgeuse. Rigel is the only one of the three that is south of the equator.

Stones #57 & #58 were re-erected in 1958 after falling in 1797. So, the nearby bluestones might be substituted for them.

In Part 1, I noted that my Heel-Slaughter stone line is 40.01 N of E, Atkinson's Avenue line is 40.10 N of E, but the empty stone hole B & C line is 42.11 N of E, and leads to considerably better agreement with Hapgood's pole. If I correct the star azimuths to this empty stone hole line instead, all azimuths become 2.10deg more negative; using the average of my two lines, only 1.05deg more negative, as shown below:

Rigel az -11.6 +/- SEM 0.9
implies Declination -8.2 +/- 0.6
vs. actual (epoch 2000.0) Decl -8.2

Regulus az +17.7 +/- 1.2
implies Decl +12.4 +/- 0.8
vs. actual (2000.0) Decl +12.0

Procyon az +5.9 +/- 0.9
implies Decl +4.2 +/- 0.6
vs. actual (2000.0) Decl +5.2

Spica az -14.7 +/- 0.8
implies Decl -10.3 +/- 0.6
vs. actual -11.2

which is considerably better agreement. What is needed, is a way to determine the indicated azimuths to the arcminute rather than to the degree, so that the indicated epoch can be known to the year rather than to the century.
Larry Burford Posted - 10 Feb 2014 : 16:25:34
[Jim] "Its hard to isolate climate change from politics these days. What causes climate to change ..."

By this I presume you mean 'the ACTUAL causes (plural)' of climate change.

[Jim] "... is not even a concern."

as opposed to the various scapegoats and straw men at which politicians like to point.

***

It is truly unfortunate that the average voter is so poorly informed. (Otherwise, they would stop voting. 30% to 40% already understand this. But it is not enough.) Have I mentioned that we are doomed? I think I have.

LB
Jim Posted - 10 Feb 2014 : 14:39:08
Its hard to isolate climate change from politics these days. What causes climate to change is not even a concern. In any event,the topic here is really far removed from either/or; is too, is not, of climate change.

Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated © © 2002-? Meta Research Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.36 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.03