Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated - Requiem for Relativity
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
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author  Topic Next Topic
Page: of 250

Joe Keller

USA
1065 Posts

Posted - 02 May 2009 :  20:46:43  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The Ektachrome slides of my May 1, 2009, NCRAL speech: text and description of images

Slide 1. My advertising flier with excerpt from convention schedule, my email address josephkeller100@hotmail.com, the statement "The speaker is not paid & does not profit from registration fees", words "SKY SURVEY ORBIT - PLANETARY PROPERTIES", Shaltout 2007 Fig. 6 graph with my note "temples orient to Lowell's Planet X", statue of Pharaoh Menkaure & Queen Khamerernebty.


Slide 2. Pg. 1 of convention schedule.


Slide 3. Title page "Discovery of planet X 'Barbarossa' by Joseph C. Keller, M. D., B. A., Harvard, cumlaude, Mathematics".

[Comment at talk: as for my qualifications to do this, that's about it; but majoring in Math at Harvard was Percival Lowell's qualification too.]


Slide 4. Picture of Urbain LeVerrier, David Todd, Percival Lowell, Wallace J. Eckert, Robert Sutton Harrington. [Comment at talk: LeVerrier (co-discoverer, with Adams, of Neptune - Galle was first to observe it) said another large planet must exist beyond Neptune; Todd found the direction; Lowell found about the same direction and also about the right mass/distance^3; Eckert was an IBM executive and one of the first to use mainframe computers for orbits, finding a big discrepancy in Neptune's; Harrington, who passed away in his early 50s from esophageal cancer, was head of this department at the USNO, and found about the same direction and mass/distance^3 as Lowell.]


Slide 5. Picture captioned THOMAS VAN FLANDERN, Ph.D., ASTRONOMY, YALE, www.metaresearch.org. [Comment at talk: Dr. Van Flandern, who recently passed away from cancer also, was a supporter of Harrington. You don't need to write down what I say, because all of it and more, everything I know about this, is on Dr. Van Flandern's messageboard.]


Slide 6. (with yellow disks as Type G binary) p. 1

Paul Wesson (1981):

diagram illustrating angular momentum vector as J=r*vperp*m

p = angular momentum / mass^2

is about the same for spinning planets, binary stars, and galaxies.

Hence, the angular momentum of the KNOWN Solar System is subnormal.

Average Type G binary (Aitken, The Binary Stars):
T=84yr, epsilon=0.518

If Planet X has epsilon=0.518, what mass and semimajor axis, give the same "p", as two Suns in such an orbit? m*sqrt(a) = const.#1


Slide 7. p. 2

This author (2008):

diagram of two nonintersecting confocal coplanar ellipses randomly oriented

Following Gauss, consider the mutual torque of concentric, almost-coplanar circles.

If confocal ellipses, weight a*(1-epsilon), a, and a*(1+epsilon) by dwell time = r^2, and average 3x3, by 1 4 1, 4 16 4, 1 4 1 Simpson's Rule.

Omit all of Pluto's perihelion interaction with Neptune (3:2 resonance with avoidance).

Use median epsilon = 0.1 for classical Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt, a = 44 AU.

If Planet X has epsilon = 0.518, what mass and semimajor axis, give the ratios 1::1, 1::2, and 1::3 for outer::inner torque per degree inclination, for the classical Kuiper Belt, Pluto, and Neptune, resp.? (This replaces Bode's Law beyond Uranus.)

m*a^(-3) = const.#2


Slide 8. p. 3

Wesson (1981) + this author (2008) -->

m = 0.054 solar mass

a = 335 AU

but this needn't be one body.

This author's discovery has epsilon = 0.611, a = 344, r(1997) = 214, ecliptic (lat,long)(1997) = (-12deg, 175deg)

It's a binary with mass ratio Barbarossa::Frey = 50::1.

[Comment at talk: the name is from the preface of a Berry Fleming - also a Harvard graduate - novel, a political satire.]


Slide 9. p. 4

The "disappearing dots" on all four Red and Optical Infrared sky surveys (1954-1997), if corrected for Earth parallax, move along a constant speed Great Circle. Choose r(1997), rdot(1997) and mass ratio so the four c.o.m.'s lie on curve rvector(t) with rvectordotdotdot = 0 identically, then rvector and rvectordot determine orbit. [I said in my May 1 talk, that I "went one better" and parametrized x,y,z, not quadratically in time, but by individually fitted constant term + sinusoid, with all the sinusoids of period, corresponding to the average angular speed during the interval of observation.]


Slide 10. p. 5

Anomalous Pioneer 10/11/Galileo Acceleration

Guess: accel. = H*c*exp(-r^2/r0^2) =(approx.) 7.0*10^(-8)*exp(-r^2/r0^2)

(H = 72 km/sec/Mpc)

Use Galileo value 8*10^(-8) cm/s^2 (Anderson)

and Pioneer 11/10 8.41, 8.02, 8.78, 7.84 (Olsen)

What mass and ecliptic long., at r=212, ecl. lat.=-12deg, minimize the unexplained relative standard deviation of

(ln(accel(i)/accel(j))/(r(j)^2-r(i)^2))^(-1/2) ?

Answer: m =approx. 0.028 solar mass, long. =approx. 173deg, giving r0 =approx. 46 AU.

diagram of Sun in center with Barbarossa @ 1:00 position, P10 @ 4:00 position, anti-Barb.? @ 7:00, P11 @ 10:00

Solution duality allows Barbarossa plus anti-Barbarossa (like the "anti-Pluto").


Slide 11. p. 6

Why I looked at the (+) CMB dipole:

(1) The sun's gravitational field is the only thing we KNOW of, big enough, strong enough, symmetrical enough, to cause the "Cosmic" Microwave Background

(2) The Maxwellian moments (i.e. spherical harmonic poles) of anisotropy correlate with the ecliptic.

(3) (3/2)*k*T(2.726) = 3*G*M(sun,including planets) *m(electron)/R --> R = 43 AU (Kuiper Belt)

(3/2)*k*T(2.726) = (3 + 2/3, i.e. includes electron spin d.o.f.)*G*M(sun,including planets)*m(electron)/R --> R = 52.56 AU (the "other" Pioneer anomaly of Anderson)(Kuiper Belt ends)

drawing of bell curve superposed on circle, to connote spherically symmetric Gaussian

localized proton sqrt(timeave(kx^2)) = m(proton)*c/2/hbar = (1/2)/sigma

sigma^(-2)*0.2682(i.e. max, at r/sigma=1.369)/sqrt(pi/2) * G*m(proton) = G*M(sun,including planets)/R^2 --> R = 52.43 AU


Slide 12. p. 7

(4) "Interstellar" spectral line absorption of 69 Leonis and Theta Crateris;

discordance of catalog magnitudes: USNO-B R1 vs. R2, B1 vs. B2, Harvard vs. Johnson.

(5) This model gives the CMB dipole, though the model's multipoles decrease as ~5^(-n), so the 2nd & 3rd are too big.

diagram of circle with Sun @ ctr, r0=52.6/52.6=1, r=212/52.6=4.07, note "Temperature proportional to Grav. potential", angle theta between r & r0, Barbarossa outside circle @ r=4.07

caption "52.6 AU = locus of Grav(macro) = Grav(proton)"

"CMB" dipole = (4*pi/3)^(-1) * (integral from 0 to pi)(dtheta*2*pi*sin(theta)*cos(theta)*M(Barbarossa)/M(Sun) *((r^2+1-2*r*cos(theta))^(-1/2) - (1/2)*((cos(theta),sin(theta))(vector dot product)(cos(theta) - r, sin(theta)))*(r^2+1-2*r*cos(theta))^(-3/2)) = 3358microK / 2.726K --> M(Barbarossa) = 0.0137 solar mass


Slide 13. p. 8

The CMB dipole is non-Doppler.

Galaxies > ~ 100Mpc distant, seem redshifted (after correction for the Hubble relation) about as if the CMB dipole were Doppler ("convergence depth"). Yet the Michelson-Morley and Miller interferometry (consistent through many variations in equipment, technique and laboratory site) roughly indicates a

"pseudodrift" = k * Vvectordot (vector cross product) Vvector

where

Vvector = Earth orbital motion, Uvector
+ Earth rotation motion at lab, Wvector (Miller @ Mt. Wilson, 34.2N)
+ Solar apex motion, Pvector (use small value 7km/s toward RA 270, Decl +20)

The main terms are k * Uvectordot cross Uvector = -10.4 zhat km/s (ecliptic coords.) --> k = 0.588 /(cm/s^2)

k * Uvectordot cross 7*sin(20+23.5)*zhat km/s = 0.0564 Uvector (vs. obs. 0.0514);

Miller's unexplained azimuth now can be explained:

norm(k * Wvectordot) * 7*sin(20) km/s /(10.4*cos(34.2) km/s) = tan(24.5E) (vs. obs., Miller [1933] p. 235, averaging tangents, 0.5*(Aug/Sep weighted by # of obs. + Feb/Apr weighted by # of obs.) = tan(23.0E).


Slide 14. p. 9

Gravitational Collapse - Sooner and Stranger than I thought

For MJup, RJup, the surface minus center p
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
1065 Posts

Posted - 04 May 2009 :  16:19:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Positions of Barbarossa/Frey center of mass for May, 2009

(geocentric J2000.0 celestial coords)

The present Barbarossa-Frey apparent separation vector is unknown but is ~10 arcmin; Frey probably is SW of Barbarossa. The mass ratio Barbarossa::Frey is ~50::1, so Barbarossa's position is practically the same as the c.o.m. position.

These positions are extrapolated from the estimated heliocentric positions based on sky surveys 1954-1997, and then converted to geocentric coords.

0h UT May 5, 2009: RA 11:25:34.41, Decl -09:08:11.5

0h UT May 9, 2009: RA 11:25:32.35, Decl -09:07:47.6

0h UT May 13, 2009: RA 11:25:30.53, Decl -09:07:24.5

Linear or quadratic extrapolation will be adequate for the rest of May. Lengthening days, longer twilight, and apparent eastward motion of the Sun, will make observing difficult soon, in the Northern Hemisphere.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
1065 Posts

Posted - 04 May 2009 :  20:17:00  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
When did Egyptian chronology begin?


Summary. The position of New Year's Day, "1 Thoth", was maintained accurately in the 365-day old Egyptian calendar, at least from 1537BC to 26BC (and beyond, due to resistance to the Alexandrian calendar). At any given latitude, Sirius and the Sun, rise simultaneously once a year, but this "heliacal rising of Sirius" occurs on 1 Thoth, only approx. on, and about, every 1442yr. Allegedly, according to records of Amenhotep I, at 6376yr before 2012, the heliacal rising of Sirius, at the equator, occurred on 1 Thoth; that is, Sirius and the Sun lay on the same meridian, on 1 Thoth. This compares to the orbital period of Barbarossa, 6340yr, and to half Brauer's time from Younger Dryas onset to 2012, 12683/2=6341.5yr. The average of 10 methods of calculating this interval from Egyptian calendars and archaeoastronomical references, is 6242 yr before 2012, range 6436 to 6052.


The Work of Eduard Meyer. I found Eduard Meyer's "Geschichte des Altertums" free online in German, at www.zeno.org. Band (Vol.) 1, Abteilung (Part) 2, Buch (Book) 1, has in its introduction, a section called "Chronologie" which says:

"Als Anfangstag des wahren Sonnenjahrs (Anfang des Jahres, geschieden von dem Neujahrstag des buergerlichen Jahres) gilt ihnen der Fruehaufgang der Sothis, des Siriussterns, der unter dem Parallel von Memphis am 19. Juli julianisch (d.i. im Jahre 4241 v. Chr. am 15. Juni gregorianisch, zur Zeit der Sommersonnenwende) eintrat."

I gather that Meyer thought Egyptian chronology began 4241 BC, i.e. 4241+2012-1 = 6252 yrs before 2012. Can Meyer be corroborated?


Julian calendar date of Amenhotep I's heliacal rising. It is convenient to use the Julian calendar, and to correct its dates of equinoxes/solstices, and to convert from it to the old 365-day Egyptian calendar. According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, the Council of Nicaea, 325AD, considered March 21 to be the spring equinox.

According to www.absoluteastronomy.com, the 9th year of Amenhotep I (18th Dynasty, New Kingdom) had a heliacal rising of Sirius which occurred on the "9th day of the 3rd month of summer". The difference between the sothic (the time between heliacal risings of Sirius) and tropical years, is only a day per century, so though these figures hardly could be accurate to better than +/- 50yr, it's been calculated by others, that this relation, of the heliacal rising of Sirius, to the summer solstice, at Thebes, dates the event to 1517BC; but if at Memphis or Heliopolis, to 1537BC. Assuming Earth's precession period has been 25771.5yr (the present value), the tropical year would have been 365.24219d, and the Julian calendar extended backward would have had the spring equinox, in 1517BC, on March 21 + (1517+325-1)*(365.25 - 365.24219) = April 4, and summer solstice June 22 + 14d = July 6. Hence I suppose Amenhotep I's heliacal rising was July 6 + 29.5*2 + (9-1) = Sept 12 (Julian calendar).


Heliacal risings on 1 Thoth. Censorinus (see Appendix B) suggested that a heliacal rising of Sirius in Egypt, had occurred on the old, pre-Alexandrian Egyptian 365-day, leapyear-less New Year, "1 Thoth", at Julian calendar date July 20, 139AD (Wikipedia, "Egyptian calendar"). The Alexandrian calendar of Augustus (basically a Julian calendar for Egyptians) in 26BC had approximately fixed the Egyptian New Year, "1 Thoth", at the Julian calendar's August 29; but without the leap year's "epagomenal day", 1 Thoth in 139AD would have been 0.25*(139+26-1) = 41d earlier, i.e. July 19 (close enough, to July 20). Again, the old leapyear-less Egyptian "1 Thoth" in 1517BC would have been 0.25*(1517-26) = 373 = (365+8)d later than Aug 29, i.e., on a Sept 6; so, Amenhotep I's heliacal rising was on 7 Thoth, not 1 Thoth, if the observation refers to 1517BC, the supposed value for Thebes observation. If the observation refers to Memphis or Heliopolis, then it supposedly was a 1537BC heliacal rising, which indeed was on 7 - 20/4 = 2 Thoth! Demanding that the heliacal rising occur on 1 Thoth, gives 1541BC for its date, and 1549BC for the start of Amenhotep I's reign.

The sothic year is ~365.25306d (see Appendix A). It is so close to the Julian year, 365.25d, that the (average) Julian calendar date of heliacal rising, advances only a day in 327yr. The Julian calendar date of heliacal rising should have been (1537-26)/327 = 4.6d later, than Sept 12, in 26BC, and (1537+139-1)/327 = 5.1d later, in 139AD. Though Aug 29, 26BC, and July 20, 139AD, both are 1 Thoth, neither could be a heliacal rising, because other astronomers' calculations found that ~Sept 12 (Julian calendar) was Sirius' heliacal rising in Egypt, c. 1500BC. The actual heliacal rising on the old Egyptian 1 Thoth, would have been 1541-1442 = 99BC (see Appendix A).


Rising vs. meridian. The only authentic date, for heliacal rising of Sirius on the old Egyptian 1 Thoth, is Amenhotep I's 1541BC, and the authentic period is 1442yr. So, the Egyptian calendar might have started with 1 Thoth on the heliacal rising 1541+2*1442 = 4425BC = 6436yr before 2012.

The date is later, if, instead of heliacal rising seen from an observatory at 30N lat., one considers heliacal rising seen from the hypothetical observatory on the equator, i.e., equality of the meridians (Right Ascensions) of Sirius and the Sun. In the time of Amenhotep I, the heliacal rising at 30N, occurred 68d after the summer solstice. Because the rising Sun, and rising Sirius, make there about a 60deg angle with the horizon, and are about (17 + 23.5*cos(68*90/91)) = 26deg apart in declination, equality of the meridians would have occurred 26/sqrt(3)*365/360 = 15d earlier. This date would have fallen on 1 Thoth, in 1541 - 15*4 = 1481BC. The Egyptian calendar, if its very first day were 1 Thoth when the Sun was on the meridian of Sirius, would have started 6436 - 60 = 6376 before 2012.


Independent calculation of heliacal rising. Now we need only make two historical assumptions: suppose August 29, 25BC was 1 Thoth, and that the Alexandrian calendar of Augustus (essentially the Julian calendar) made essentially no miscount between then, and Pope Gregory's reform. For 25BC through 2012AD our Alexandrian/Gregorian calendar includes approx. (first leap year was 22BC) integer[(2012+25)/4] = 509 leap days, minus the 10 skipped days of Gregorian reform, minus 3 Gregorian skipped century leap days; so 1 Thoth is Aug 29, 2012 - (496-365 = 131)d = Apr 20, 2012, on which the Sun's RA is approx. 30. Sirius' RA is 101.

Sothic cycles, from the hypothetical equatorial observatory, start prior to Apr 20, 2012, by intervals ((101-30)/360 + n)*1442. For n=4 this is 6052yr before 2012.


Amenhotep I vs. Censorinus vs. Theon vs. Meyer vs. this author. My 6052 yr based on the Julian calendar & an observatory on the equator, differs from the 6376 based on Amenhotep I & an observatory on the equator. From Censorinus derives yet another figure, (2012AD - 139AD) + 3*1442 = 6199yr (6139 if at equator) before 2012. From Theon derives yet another, (2012AD - 26BC) + 3*1442 = 6363yr (6303 if at equator) before 2012. Meyer's is 6252 (6192 if on the equator). So, 5x2 = 10 methods give 10 estimates (mean = 6242yr before 2012) of the origin of the Egyptian calendar, ranging from 6436 to 6052yr before 2012.


Appendix A.

The ecliptic latitude of Sirius is unaffected by Earth's axis precession, and only slightly affected by the slower, smaller-amplitude ecliptic precession. Jean-Marc Baillard (2004, online example in "HP [Hewlett Packard] museum") gives Sirius' ecliptic latitude as -39deg39'18" in 1600AD & -39deg35'19" in 2134AD. So, in 772BC (chosen as the midpoint between two dates below, 26BC & 1526-8=1518BC) it would be -39.95deg.

If Sirius were on the ecliptic, the time between heliacal risings would be simply a sidereal year, 365.25636d. If Sirius were at the ecliptic pole, the time wou
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
1065 Posts

Posted - 14 May 2009 :  14:14:20  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Barbarossa leads meteor swarms around ecliptic.


There is a map, in celestial coordinates, of a large sample of meteor radiants:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090511.html

The Leo and Hydra meteor swarms are the most prograde on the ecliptic, leading the others, which mostly trail backward along the ecliptic, as much as 180deg retrograde. (Thanks to my friend for discovering and sending this map.)
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
1065 Posts

Posted - 19 May 2009 :  22:07:34  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Note: the word processor is deleting quotes, apostrophes and some periods. I hope to find time to repair it later!


Arcturus in 4328 BC Egypt: Hermetic knowledge


Sec. 1. Calendars.

The calendar of every civilization changes. Our calendar changed (Julian to Gregorian) in 1582AD, skipping ten days and introducing a more complicated leap year formula. Julius Caesar changed our calendar much more. Because calendars change, king lists with reign lengths always have supplemented the calendar.

Our year basically starts at the winter solstice, though off by eleven days. The ancient Greek year explicitly started anew at every summer solstice, with Year 1, of the first four-year Olympiad, occurring in 776BC.

The Egyptian calendar had features enabling it to preserve dates for millenia. One of these features was that the day count, instead of being corrected by a complicated leap-day formula to fit the tropical year, either started anew in each tropical year (what I call the tropical calendar; basically it was like our ordinary calendar), or remained simply 365, ignoring discrepancy with the tropical year (what I call the 365-day calendar; basically it did the job of todays astronomical Julian Date). This gave two different calendars which could correct each other. The phase between the two different years is a kind of year count.

Another Egyptian feature was that the dates of heliacal rising of bright stars (dates of risings nearest sunrise) including at least Arcturus, Canopus, Sirius and Procyon, were recorded, alongside the 365-day calendar date or tropical date, and reign years. For a star on the ecliptic (with zero proper motion), this would be the same as recording the phase between the 365-day year and sidereal year; the phase of the 365-day year would shift with period 1425yr. For a star at the ecliptic pole, the tropical date of heliacal rising would be constant; heliacal rising, like tropical date, would shift relative to the 365-day year, with period 1508yr.

The heliacal rising of Canopus is used in calendars even today:

claims Allen, [Canopus] was known as Karbana in the writings of an Egyptian priestly poet in the time of [Thutmose III]

Allen claimed that the heliacal rising of Canopus even now [1899] used in computing their [the Arabs] year,

- Fred Schaaf, The Brightest Stars, pp. 107, 109 (Google book online)

In the Gulf region the Canopus calendar,10-day units from the late summer heliacal rising of Canopus, has long been a traditional calendrical system for Bedouins and sailors.

- Gary D. Thompson, 2007-2009 (online, members.optusnet.com.au)


Stars far from the ecliptic (e.g., Arcturus and Canopus) rise far from the point of sunrise, thus are easier to see at sunrise. Arcturus about equals Vega in brightness, i.e. Visual magnitude (some sources, e.g. the 1997 Pulkovo Spectrophotometric catalog, say Vega is brightest, some, e.g. the 5th ed. Bright Star Catalog, Arcturus; the slight difference depends on photometric details) but Arcturus orange color penetrates better than Vegas blue-white, when observed at low altitude angle. Stars near the equator also might rise far from the sun if near the tropic opposite the sun (e.g., Sirius).

The ancient Egyptians had two calendars. One calendar had three seasons of four lunar months each, alternating 30 and 29 days, so the average would equal the synodic lunar month. Apparently the first day of the third season (summer) was set at the summer solstice. There would have been five, or sometimes six extra days at the end. I call this the tropical calendar because its based on the solstice (Tropics of Cancer & Capricorn).

The other calendar, apparently, was structured the same as the first, but always with a total of 365 days, whatever the current summer solstice date. I call this the 365-day calendar. The first day of this calendar was 1 Thoth (see OA Toffteen, "Ancient Chronology", p. 180; online Google book), which shifted around the tropical year with period 1508 yrs, assuming todays tropical year of 365.24219 days. The length of the tropical year is nearly constant, because under perturbation, an orbits major axis distance is stable to third order (conjecture of Lagrange & Poisson, proved by Tisserand) and also because Earths precession rate has only higher-order dependency, on Earths or Lunas small eccentricity or on Earths nearly constant axial tilt.


Sec. 2. Finding the solstice.

The Alexandrian calendar (26/25BC; its first leap year was 22BC) of Augustus, was a Julian calendar for Egyptians. With its leap year, it fixed the old 1 Thoth New Year of the ancient Egyptian 365-day calendar, at August 29 of the Julian calendar.

The Council of Nicaea, 325 AD, which deliberated the date of Easter, considered March 21 to be the spring equinox, hence December 21 the winter solstice. Perhaps surprisingly, this was not shifted the expected two days (one day per 128 yr) earlier than Ptolemys winter solstice date, current in the 2nd century AD. Ptolemy (the astronomer) said, the Egyptian calendar day, 26 Choiak, is the winter solstice (James Evans, "The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy", p. 180; online Google book). Because 1 Thoth had been standardized to August 29, 26 Choiak was December 21 (recalling that the 1st & 3rd months of any four-month Egyptian season had 30d, and the 2nd & 4th, 29).

The Julian calendar (45BC) suffered some irregular extra days at first. Wikipedias article, Julian Calendar, says:

the [Roman] pontificesadded a leap day every three years, instead of every four years. According to Macrobius, the error was the result of counting inclusively, so that the four-year cycle was considered as including both the first and fourth years. This resulted in too many leap days. Augustus remedied this discrepancy after 36 years by restoring the correct frequency. He also skipped several leap days in order to realign the year. The historic sequence of leap years in this period is not given explicitly by any ancient source, although the existence of the triennial leap year cycle is confirmed by an inscription that dates from 9 or 8 BC. The chronologist Joseph Scaliger established in 1583 that the Augustan reform was instituted in 8 BC, and inferred that the sequence of leap years was 42, 39, 36, 33, 30, 27, 24, 21, 18, 15, 12, 9 BC, AD 8, 12 etc. This proposal is still the most widely accepted solution.

Between 22.0 BC and 11.0 AD (after which, leap years were correct) there were 6 Julian calendar leap days instead of the necessary (22+11-1)/4 = 8. The Alexandrian calendar would have had to keep pace with the Julian calendar.

Ptolemy wrote a little later than 128yr (the time for the Julian calendar's equinox to lag a day) after the adoption of the Alexandrian calendar, so the equinox in 22BC would have been dated a net 8-6-1=1 days earlier than Ptolemys, i.e., March 20, so the solstice was June 21 (considering the +/- 2d effect of Earths orbital eccentricity). Since the first leap year in the Alexandrian calendar was 22BC, it would be most accurate to consider (22+4/2)=24BC, as 69d past the solstice.


Sec. 3. Finding 1 Thoth.

Most authors list only the three main Sothic dates (those of Sesostris III, Amenhotep I, and Thutmose III), though Brein (2000) lists six. One of the three main Sothic dates (so-called because Prof. Eduard Meyer, of the Univ. of Berlin, hypothesized in 1904 that they pertained to Sirius; which indeed one does) is:

(Ebers papyrus) Year 9 of the reign of 18th Dynasty (New Kingdom) Pharaoh Amenhotep I. It is the 9th day of the 3rd month of summer (i.e. 3rd season), i.e. 11th month of the Egyptian year.

If this refers to what I call the tropical calendar, and if the first day of the summer season had been adjusted to be on the solstice, then Amenhoteps date is 30+29+(9-1) = 67d past the solstice. In Sec. 2, I found that 1 Thoth in 24BC, was 69d past the summer solstice, wh

Edited by - Joe Keller on 28 May 2009 22:41:41
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
1065 Posts

Posted - 31 May 2009 :  19:46:20  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Note: same word processor problems as above.


Arcturus in 4328 BC Egypt: Hermetic knowledge

by Joseph C. Keller, M. D.
May 19, 2009; last revision May 31, 2009


Sec. 1. Calendars.

The calendar of every civilization changes. Our calendar changed (Julian to Gregorian) in 1582AD, skipping ten days and introducing a more complicated leap year formula. Julius Caesar changed our calendar much more. Because calendars change, king lists with reign lengths always have supplemented the calendar.

Our year basically starts at the winter solstice, though off by eleven days. The ancient Greek year explicitly started anew at every summer solstice, with Year 1, of the first four-year Olympiad, occurring in 776BC.

The Egyptian calendar had features enabling it to preserve dates for millenia. One of these features was that the day count, instead of being corrected by a complicated leap-day formula to fit the tropical year, either started anew in each tropical year (what I call the tropical calendar; basically it was like our ordinary calendar), or remained simply 365, ignoring discrepancy with the tropical year (what I call the 365-day calendar; basically it did the job of todays astronomical Julian Date). This gave two different calendars which could correct each other. The phase between the two different years is a kind of year count.

Another Egyptian feature was that the dates of heliacal rising of bright stars (dates of risings nearest sunrise) including at least Arcturus, Canopus, Sirius and Procyon, were recorded, alongside the 365-day calendar date or tropical date, and reign years. For a star on the ecliptic (with zero proper motion), this would be the same as recording the phase between the 365-day year and sidereal year; the phase of the 365-day year would shift with period 1425yr. For a star at the ecliptic pole, the tropical date of heliacal rising would be constant; heliacal rising, like tropical date, would shift relative to the 365-day year, with period 1508yr.

The heliacal rising of Canopus is used in calendars even today:

claims Allen, [Canopus] was known as Karbana in the writings of an Egyptian priestly poet in the time of [Thutmose III]

Allen claimed that the heliacal rising of Canopus even now [1899] used in computing their [the Arabs] year,

- Fred Schaaf, The Brightest Stars, pp. 107, 109 (Google book online)

In the Gulf region the Canopus calendar,10-day units from the late summer heliacal rising of Canopus, has long been a traditional calendrical system for Bedouins and sailors.

- Gary D. Thompson, 2007-2009 (online, members.optusnet.com.au)


Stars far from the ecliptic (e.g., Arcturus and Canopus) rise far from the point of sunrise, thus are easier to see at sunrise. Arcturus about equals Vega in brightness, i.e. Visual magnitude (some sources, e.g. the 1997 Pulkovo Spectrophotometric catalog, say Vega is brightest, some, e.g. the 5th ed. Bright Star Catalog, Arcturus; the slight difference depends on photometric details) but Arcturus orange color penetrates better than Vegas blue-white, when observed at low altitude angle. Stars near the equator also might rise far from the sun if near the tropic opposite the sun (e.g., Sirius).

The ancient Egyptians had two calendars. One calendar had three seasons of four lunar months each, alternating 30 and 29 days, so the average would equal the synodic lunar month. Apparently the first day of the third season (summer) was set at the summer solstice. There would have been eleven, or sometimes twelve extra days at the end. I call this the tropical calendar because its based on the solstice (Tropics of Cancer & Capricorn).

The other calendar, apparently, was structured the same as the first, but always with a total of 365 days, whatever the current summer solstice date. I call this the 365-day calendar. The first day of this calendar was 1 Thoth (see OA Toffteen, "Ancient Chronology", p. 180; online Google book), which shifted around the tropical year with period 1508 yrs, assuming todays tropical year of 365.24219 days. The length of the tropical year is nearly constant, because under perturbation, an orbits major axis distance is stable to third order (conjecture of Lagrange & Poisson, proved by Tisserand) and also because Earths precession rate has only higher-order dependency, on Earths or Lunas small eccentricity or on Earths nearly constant axial tilt.


Sec. 2. Finding the solstice.

The Alexandrian calendar (26/25BC; its first leap year was 22BC) of Augustus, was a Julian calendar for Egyptians. With its leap year, it fixed the old 1 Thoth New Year of the ancient Egyptian 365-day calendar, at August 29 of the Julian calendar.

The Council of Nicaea, 325 AD, which deliberated the date of Easter, considered March 21 to be the spring equinox, hence December 21 the winter solstice. Perhaps surprisingly, this was not shifted the expected two days (one day per 128 yr) earlier than Ptolemys winter solstice date, current in the 2nd century AD. Ptolemy (the astronomer) said, the Egyptian calendar day, 26 Choiak, is the winter solstice (James Evans, "The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy", p. 180; online Google book). Because 1 Thoth had been standardized to August 29, 26 Choiak was December 21 (recalling that the 1st & 3rd months of any four-month Egyptian season had 30d, and the 2nd & 4th, 29).

The Julian calendar (45BC) suffered some irregular extra days at first. Wikipedias article, Julian Calendar, says:

the [Roman] pontificesadded a leap day every three years, instead of every four years. According to Macrobius, the error was the result of counting inclusively, so that the four-year cycle was considered as including both the first and fourth years. This resulted in too many leap days. Augustus remedied this discrepancy after 36 years by restoring the correct frequency. He also skipped several leap days in order to realign the year. The historic sequence of leap years in this period is not given explicitly by any ancient source, although the existence of the triennial leap year cycle is confirmed by an inscription that dates from 9 or 8 BC. The chronologist Joseph Scaliger established in 1583 that the Augustan reform was instituted in 8 BC, and inferred that the sequence of leap years was 42, 39, 36, 33, 30, 27, 24, 21, 18, 15, 12, 9 BC, AD 8, 12 etc. This proposal is still the most widely accepted solution.

Between 22.0 BC and 11.0 AD (after which, leap years were correct) there were 6 Julian calendar leap days instead of the necessary (22+11-1)/4 = 8. The Alexandrian calendar would have had to keep pace with the Julian calendar.

Ptolemy wrote a little later than 128yr (the time for the Julian calendar's equinox to lag a day) after the adoption of the Alexandrian calendar, so the equinox in 22BC would have been dated a net 8-6-1?=1 days earlier than Ptolemys, i.e., March 20, so the solstice was, most likely, June 21 (considering the effect of Earths orbital eccentricity). Since the first leap year in the Alexandrian calendar was 22BC, it would be most accurate to consider August 29 of (22+4/2)=24BC, as 69d past the solstice.


Sec. 3. Finding 1 Thoth.

Most authors list only the three main Sothic dates (those of Sesostris III, Amenhotep I, and Thutmose III), though Brein (2000) lists six. One of the three main Sothic dates (so-called because Prof. Eduard Meyer, of the Univ. of Berlin, hypothesized in 1904 that they pertained to Sirius; which indeed one does) is:

(Ebers papyrus) Year 9 of the reign of 18th Dynasty (New Kingdom) Pharaoh Amenhotep I. It is the 9th day of the 3rd month of summer (i.e. 3rd season), i.e. 11th month of the Egyptian year.

If this refers to what I call the tropical calendar, and if the first day of the summer season had been adjusted to be on the solstice, then Amenhoteps date is 30+29+(9-1) = 67d past the solstice. In Sec. 2, I found that 1 Thoth in 24BC, was 69d
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
1065 Posts

Posted - 01 Jun 2009 :  18:44:51  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dear Dr. *******,

I have sent you the updated version of my paper, through my other email account.

Thank you for your reply! In the "Barnes & Noble" bookstore in Des Moines, Iowa, I sat down Friday, three days ago, and read part of your book, *******! That is why I emailed you. I read that you have a Ph.D. in *******. ...

I saw it in your book, that you think the date October 28, 2011 is the main one. I am not very familiar with the Mayan calendar. However, there is a relationship in the Egyptian calendar, which I have not yet mentioned in my paper, which suggests the October 28 date.

The heliacal rising of Arcturus now, and for a few decades before and after the present time, is, at 22.5N (the latitude of the ancient Egyptian observatory at Nabta) 24d after the autumnal equinox; i.e., September 23 + 24 = October 17. Also, originally there seem to have been two or three (pre-unification) Egyptian calendars differing by as much as 14d; in particular, the Cynopolis calendar might have been 11d ahead of the Nabta calendar. Someone might have mistaken Oct. 17 in Nabta, for Oct. 17 in Cynopolis, then converted that to Oct. 28 in Nabta. If the Maya knew of Egyptian records about an astronomical event predicted to recur on Oct. 28, it might have influenced their calendar design.

Sincerely,
Joseph C. Keller, M. D.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
1065 Posts

Posted - 14 Jun 2009 :  23:22:04  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Recently it's been discovered that North American fossil human crania older than about 6000yr, show more morphologic diversity, than exists in the entire world today (Jantz & Owsley, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 114:146-155, 2001). Jantz & Owsley's group of 11 crania all were dated older than 4500BP, mostly older than 7000BP. These dates often were geologic or archaeologic and therefore probably rather inexact.

Other researchers have found that, despite the diversity in cranial morphology, North American human mitochondrial DNA was the same type then as now, and never very diverse. To me, this suggests that only one prehistoric group brought women to North America (English style colonization, maybe via the Bering land bridge), but many groups brought men to North America (Spanish style colonization, maybe via the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans).

Whatever the explanation for the lack of diversity in mitochondrial DNA, the drastic reduction in North American cranial diversity between c. 6000BP and pre-Columbian historical times, suggests a drastic die-off of the human population. Jantz & Owsley note that fossil human crania of comparable age in Europe, also show great diversity, greater than in the entire world today. This suggests a similar die-off in Europe.

It's tricky to estimate population densities by counting remains in sediments, because there are so many variables of deposition, preservation, and redeposition. The existence of a greater number of species or varieties, is relatively foolproof evidence of greater population.

At Knob Creek in the Ohio River valley (CR Stafford, Journal of Archaeological Science 31:1053-1067, 2004) normally-sedimented C14-dated human habitations show a gap between 4720BC & 3840BC calibrated date (using Stafford's Table 2 to calibrate his Fig. 3; warning: the penultimate row of Table 2 contains a misprint; 4835 should be 2835). The abnormally-sedimented habitations (found near the surface, in incongruously old sediments) cluster at 3800BC (calibrated); the oldest of these is 4240BC.

"The demise of this [Roberts Creek in northeast Iowa] forest between 5.5 and 5.4 ka...sudden change from mesic to xeric...difficult to explain solely on the basis of a change to warmer climate. ...charcoal was not abnormally abundant...

"...south-central Wisconsin...similar...sudden decline in mesic [maple, basswood, elm] forest at about 5.5 ka."

- Chumbley et al, Science 249:272-274, 1990; citing, for Wisconsin findings, Ecology 69:1032+, 1988, and Quaternary Research 25:235+, 1986.

Chumbley's dates are uncalibrated C14 dates; borrowing Stafford's calibration, Chumbley's 5.5ka before 1990, becomes 4430BC.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
1065 Posts

Posted - 15 Jun 2009 :  18:51:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Arcturus in 4328 BC Egypt: Hermetic knowledge

by Joseph C. Keller, M. D.
May 19, 2009; last revision June 15, 2009


Sec. 1. Calendars.

The calendar of every civilization changes. Our calendar changed (Julian to Gregorian) in 1582AD, skipping ten days and introducing a more complicated leap year formula. Julius Caesar changed our calendar much more. Because calendars change, king lists with reign lengths always have supplemented the calendar.

Our year basically starts at the winter solstice, though off by eleven days. The ancient Greek year explicitly started anew at every summer solstice, with Year 1, of the first four-year Olympiad, occurring in 776BC.

The Egyptian calendar had features enabling it to preserve dates for millenia. One of these features was that the day count, instead of being corrected by a complicated leap-day formula to fit the tropical year, either started anew in each tropical year (what I call the tropical calendar; basically it was like our ordinary calendar), or remained simply 365, ignoring discrepancy with the tropical year (what I call the 365-day calendar; basically it did the job of todays astronomical Julian Date). This gave two different calendars which could correct each other. The phase between the two different years is a kind of year count.

Another Egyptian feature was that the dates of heliacal rising of bright stars (dates of risings nearest sunrise) including at least Arcturus, Canopus, Sirius and Procyon, were recorded, alongside the 365-day calendar date or tropical date, and reign years. For a star on the ecliptic (with zero proper motion), this would be the same as recording the phase between the 365-day year and sidereal year; the phase of the 365-day year would shift with period 1425yr. For a star at the ecliptic pole, the tropical date of heliacal rising would be constant; heliacal rising, like tropical date, would shift relative to the 365-day year, with period 1508yr.

The heliacal rising of Canopus is used in calendars even today:

claims Allen, [Canopus] was known as Karbana in the writings of an Egyptian priestly poet in the time of [Thutmose III]

Allen claimed that the heliacal rising of Canopus even now [1899] used in computing their [the Arabs] year,

- Fred Schaaf, The Brightest Stars, pp. 107, 109 (Google book online)

In the Gulf region the Canopus calendar,10-day units from the late summer heliacal rising of Canopus, has long been a traditional calendrical system for Bedouins and sailors.

- Gary D. Thompson, 2007-2009 (online, members.optusnet.com.au)


Stars far from the ecliptic (e.g., Arcturus and Canopus) rise far from the point of sunrise, thus are easier to see at sunrise. Arcturus about equals Vega in brightness, i.e. Visual magnitude (some sources, e.g. the 1997 Pulkovo Spectrophotometric catalog, say Vega is brightest, some, e.g. the 5th ed. Bright Star Catalog, Arcturus; the slight difference depends on photometric details) but Arcturus orange color penetrates better than Vegas blue-white, when observed at low altitude angle. Stars near the equator also might rise far from the sun if near the tropic opposite the sun (e.g., Sirius).

The ancient Egyptians had two calendars. One calendar had three seasons of four lunar months each, alternating 30 and 29 days, so the average would equal the synodic lunar month. Apparently the first day of the third season (summer) was set at the summer solstice. There would have been eleven, or sometimes twelve extra days at the end. I call this the tropical calendar because its based on the solstice (Tropics of Cancer & Capricorn).

The other calendar, apparently, was structured the same as the first, but always with a total of 365 days, whatever the current summer solstice date. I call this the 365-day calendar. The first day of this calendar was 1 Thoth (see OA Toffteen, "Ancient Chronology", p. 180; online Google book; the footnote misprints Pachon as Pachons), which shifted around the tropical year with period 1508 yrs, assuming todays tropical year of 365.24219 days. The length of the tropical year is nearly constant, because under perturbation, an orbits major axis distance is stable to third order (conjecture of Lagrange & Poisson, proved by Tisserand) and also because Earths precession rate has only higher-order dependency, on Earths or Lunas small eccentricity or on Earths nearly constant axial tilt.


Sec. 2. Finding the solstice.

The Alexandrian calendar (26/25BC; its first leap year was 22BC) of Augustus, was a Julian calendar for Egyptians. With its leap year, it fixed the old 1 Thoth New Year of the ancient Egyptian 365-day calendar, at August 29 of the Julian calendar.

The Council of Nicaea, 325 AD, which deliberated the date of Easter, considered March 21 to be the spring equinox, hence December 21 the winter solstice. Perhaps surprisingly, this was not shifted the expected two days (one day per 128 yr) earlier than Ptolemys winter solstice date, current in the 2nd century AD. Ptolemy (the astronomer) said, the Egyptian calendar day, 26 Choiak, is the winter solstice (James Evans, "The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy", p. 180; online Google book). Because 1 Thoth had been standardized to August 29, 26 Choiak was December 21 (recalling that the 1st & 3rd months of any four-month Egyptian season had 30d, and the 2nd & 4th, 29).

The Julian calendar (45BC) suffered some irregular extra days at first. Wikipedias article, Julian Calendar, says:

the [Roman] pontificesadded a leap day every three years, instead of every four years. According to Macrobius, the error was the result of counting inclusively, so that the four-year cycle was considered as including both the first and fourth years. This resulted in too many leap days. Augustus remedied this discrepancy after 36 years by restoring the correct frequency. He also skipped several leap days in order to realign the year. The historic sequence of leap years in this period is not given explicitly by any ancient source, although the existence of the triennial leap year cycle is confirmed by an inscription that dates from 9 or 8 BC. The chronologist Joseph Scaliger established in 1583 that the Augustan reform was instituted in 8 BC, and inferred that the sequence of leap years was 42, 39, 36, 33, 30, 27, 24, 21, 18, 15, 12, 9 BC, AD 8, 12 etc. This proposal is still the most widely accepted solution.

Between 22.0 BC and 11.0 AD (after which, leap years were correct) there were 6 Julian calendar leap days instead of the necessary (22+11-1)/4 = 8. The Alexandrian calendar would have had to keep pace with the Julian calendar.

Ptolemy wrote a little later than 128yr (the time for the Julian calendar's equinox to lag a day) after the adoption of the Alexandrian calendar, so the equinox in 22BC would have been dated a net 8-6-1?=1 days earlier than Ptolemys, i.e., March 20, so the solstice was, most likely, June 21 (considering the effect of Earths orbital eccentricity). Since the first leap year in the Alexandrian calendar was 22BC, it would be most accurate to consider August 29 of (22+4/2)=24BC, as 69d past the solstice.


Sec. 3. Finding 1 Thoth.

Most authors list only the three main Sothic dates (those of Sesostris III, Amenhotep I, and Thutmose III), though Brein (2000) lists six. One of the three main Sothic dates (so-called because Prof. Eduard Meyer, of the Univ. of Berlin, hypothesized in 1904 that they pertained to Sirius; which indeed one does) is:

(Ebers papyrus) Year 9 of the reign of 18th Dynasty (New Kingdom) Pharaoh Amenhotep I. It is the 9th day of the 3rd month of summer (i.e. 3rd season), i.e. 11th month of the Egyptian year.

If this refers to what I call the tropical calendar, and if the first day of the summer season had been adjusted to be on the solstice, then Amenhoteps date is 30+29+(9-1) = 67d past the solstice. In Sec. 2, I found that 1 Thoth in 24BC, was 69d past the s
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
1065 Posts

Posted - 03 Jul 2009 :  14:01:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dear Dr. Calleman,

Thanks for the information. If the Mayan calendar cycle really doesn't end on the solstice (which fact alone, would have proved that their astronomical knowledge was at least as good as that of Clavius in 16th century Europe), it weakens my case for the importance of their calendar. Yet, their calendar might be important despite this.

Whether the cycle ends in 2011 or 2012 matters little to me, because Brauer et al determined the sudden onset of the Younger Dryas (at least in Europe) (from lake varves) as 12683 yr (exactly) before 2012, and I've determined the first year of the Egyptian calendar (from heliacal risings of Arcturus and Sirius) as 6340yr (exactly) before 2012. So this would be 12682 = 6341x2 yr before 2011 and 6339yr before 2011, resp., which is close enough.

The orbital period of the planet "Barbarossa" I've found on sky surveys, is approx. 6340yr. I suppose that this planet regulates a new kind of catastrophic physical interaction that does not depend on proximity.

Since we last communicated, I've learned that mainstream archaeologists in recent years have discovered that the diversity in human cranial morphology in both North America and Europe, prior to about 6000yr ago, was much greater than in the entire world today. (Pre-Columbian North American mitochondrial DNA is homogeneous, but this could be because most prehistoric immigrants to N. America were men who came by sea, whereas only one group brought women, across the Bering land bridge.) This loss of diversity (in nuclear DNA, hence cranial morphology) indicates a near-extermination of the human species in both N. America and Europe, approx. 6000yr ago.

The Pyramid Texts say that the "eye of Re" or "snake of Re", borne by Hathor (whose horns now are called the constellation Crater?) "exterminated the people of the mountains", etc. (I have found in the mainstream literature, a cluster of clues to catastrophic events, including a uniquely bicoastal megatsunami in Australia, at about 6300 yr ago +/- 100yr.) Likewise we have the extermination of all large animals (except the bison) in N. America (and maybe also of the Clovis culture people) c. 12900 yr ago according to most researchers (or perhaps 12680 yr ago by Brauer's date).

Sincerely,
Joseph C. Keller, M. D.


On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 3:22 AM, Carl Johan Calleman [Ph.D., biology]<carljohan.calleman@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Friends,
For almost twenty years there are people in several countries that have been
confused to believe that there have existed "two" equally legitimate Mayan calendar counts.
It has however now been definitely established that Arguelles Dreamspell count
is psychedelic in origin...

Edited by - Joe Keller on 03 Jul 2009 14:08:49
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
1065 Posts

Posted - 15 Jul 2009 :  20:44:12  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The July 15, 2008, Avebury Manor Crop Circle Implies Christmas Day, not Dec. 21 or 23, 2012

This is the one-year anniversary of the July 15, 2008, Avebury Manor crop circle showing the positions of the planets for Dec., 2012 AD. I printed Nick Nicholson's aerial photo from the internet, measured the positions with a ruler, corrected for the obliquity of the photo, and extrapolated from information in the Astronomical Almanac.

I checked the date eight ways:

1. Venus vs. Mercury. I measured the small lag of Venus behind Mercury, corrected it for obliquity, and found such dates six, nine, and twelve cycles earlier (the 2.55:1 orbital resonance of Mercury and Venus causes the same position to recur approx. every third time Mercury laps Venus). Then I extrapolated via the second-order Newton backward formula. The position is consistent with Dec. 24.8, 2012.

2. Venus vs. Saturn. Straight lines remain straight despite the oblique projection, so I could measure Venus' small lead vs. Saturn. I corrected for obliquity, relied on Venus' small eccentricity (almost all of which cancels) but used Saturn's local angular speed, and extrapolated from the Venus-Saturn equality of 2010, to find December 25.0, 2012.

3. Mars vs. Earth. In the Nicholson photo, Earth is located conveniently at 12 o'clock, on the minor axis of the projection ellipse. I measured the cosine of Mars' position angle, corrected for obliquity, and found the date Mars would be there, assuming that 12 o'clock was RA 6h in J2000 coordinates. Then I made the correction for the angle between Earth and RA 6h at that date (using Mars' and Earth's local angular speeds, and remembering that Earth's position on Dec. 21.466, 2012, is RA 6h in coordinates of the equinox of date, not the equinox of 2000.0). I found January 8.0, 2013. This value was so different from the others, that I excluded it from my average.

4. Venus vs. Earth. Using the same technique as in #3, I found December 25.0, 2012.

5. Mars vs. Pluto. Pluto is so far out of position, that I didn't even compute this implied date exactly.

6. Mars vs. Neptune. Earth, Mercury, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn all were consistent with each other, given the date ~ Dec. 25. Mars and Neptune also are consistent with each other, given ~ Dec. 25, but not with the other planets. The implied date from the lag of Mars behind Neptune (as in #2, I used Neptune's local speed; but this time I extrapolated not from the conjunction, but rather from the 2009 occurrence of the same lag, and I also corrected for Mars' eccentricity on the leftover segment), is Dec. 23.2, 2012.

7. Earth vs. Jupiter. Here I extrapolated three steps forward, from the four 2006-2009 occurrences of the same lag, though I could have used 2010 and extrapolated only two steps. Gaussian trigonometric interpolation was convenient because the third difference of the dates was zero; that is, the first difference was given by a constant plus a sine term that advanced 360/11 deg each time. I found Dec. 26.3, 2012.

8. Mercury vs. Earth. With the same technique as #4 (except that for variety, I found the angle tangent rather than cosine) I found Dec. 25.7, 2012.

The arithmetic mean of the six calculations used, was Dec. 25.0, 2012, and the Standard Error of the Mean, 0.4 day.

Thus the diagram seems to imply two different dates: approx. December 25.0, 2012; and (Mars vs. Earth) approx. January 8.0, 2013.

Edited by - Joe Keller on 20 Jul 2009 11:39:24
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
1065 Posts

Posted - 16 Jul 2009 :  20:28:53  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Pluto and the Avebury Manor 2012 planet position crop circle.

The plutino shown on the crop circle, has (assuming semimajor axis 39.44 AU) eccentricity 0.317, judging by the size of its orbital sector inside Neptune's. This is tolerably consistent with the calculation (Yu & Tremaine, AJ 118:1873+, 1999) that stable plutinos should have eccentricity either within 10% of Pluto's, or else at least 30% different from it.

I find that the crop circle plutino's perihelion, is 91deg behind Neptune's position in the crop circle. Pluto's present descending node, is 290.3deg. As I measure, the crop circle plutino crosses Neptune's orbit outbound at 289.0deg (J2000 coords.).

Maybe the crop circle plutino is Pluto, modified as follows:

1. The eccentricity has been increased from 0.250 to 0.317.

2. The semimajor axis is the same.

3. The perihelion has been advanced 9deg, from 224.8 to 233.7, so that it is 91deg from Neptune.

4. The node is the same; now the descending node intersects Neptune's orbit.

5. Pluto has been advanced in its orbit so that despite the above changes, the distance from the sun is roughly the same as it would have been if there had been no perturbation.

Edited by - Joe Keller on 19 Jul 2009 21:38:29
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
1065 Posts

Posted - 26 Jul 2009 :  16:46:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
More accurate analysis of July 15, 2008 Avebury crop circle:
December 21.2 +/- 0.7, 2012

I printed out another image of Nick Nicholson's photo, this time from a different website, but the same size. The planets' positions are slightly different (according to lining up pinholes) but the difference in the results isn't explained by those differences. The different results must be due mainly to my more careful determination of the axes of the apparent ellipse (a two degree difference), which affects the correction for obliquity.

This time I considered only the angles, between Earth on the one hand, and Mercury, Venus, Mars or Jupiter on the other. I omitted the farther planets because angular distortions due to hilly terrain, the photocopy paper, or the image file itself, would be proportional to the square of the distance from the center, and thus the angle error is proportional to the distance from the center. For Jupiter though, this angle error is small because of Jupiter's small angle with Earth.

The angles between two planets other than Earth are linear functions of the angles between them and Earth, so give no independent information. Also, the circle makers might have been less attentive to such angles, or expected us to ignore them.

I used their orbital periods, to find the planets' positions on Dec. 24.0 & 25.0, 2012, for the equinox of 2013.0, then extrapolated linearly (the linearity of the Dec. 26.0 positions justified this). Because the Astronomical Almanac gives heliocentric coordinates for the equinox of date, only Mercury (because it's weighted so heavily in the computation) and Jupiter (because its previous cycle was in 2001) needed (small) equinox corrections.

If the angle error, as measured, is the same for all the planets, then the computed time error is inversely proportional to the difference in angular speed, planet vs. Earth. So the time computed from the angle, should be weighted proportionally to the square of that difference in angular speed.

Mercury gave December 20.53, 2012, with weight 9, and Jupiter Dec. 24.54 with weight 0.84. Venus gave Dec. 14.695, 2012, and Mars January 14.67, 2013, but with small weights. The weighted average is December 21.21 GMT, with expected error 0.7 d because this is the estimated error of the date given by Mercury.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
1065 Posts

Posted - 01 Aug 2009 :  15:09:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Two years ago, I was completely censored from all the ALPO messageboards to which I tried to post anything (which was most of them, including those for Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and the outer solar system). (This censorship took the form either of denial of membership, or of censoring all my posts in entirety, individually.) One of the ALPO moderators set up a separate messageboard, presumably just for me, which no one else joined.

At the time, I thought the main reason ALPO ostracized me, was that Clay Sherrod had denounced me on one of their messageboards. Sherrod said I held, or had held, heretical political opinions unrelated to astronomy or physics (and I hadn't mentioned them to ALPO) but his context implied that such political heresy was an important reason for ostracizing me from the (federally tax-funded, as ALPO apparently gets at least free rent from the U. of Arizona) scientific forum. Sherrod also claimed that my calculations were erroneous, when in fact either Sherrod knew nothing of my calculations, or, in some cases, my remarks required no calculations.

Subsequently, I became aware, from Richard Hoagland's book, of the flattening of Earth's figure (obvious, if the photos are reliable) at an Earthrise photographed by Apollo 10 (from orbit, not the slow Earthrise visible in some places on the lunar surface due to libration). One of my posts to the ALPO messageboards, just before I was ostracized, had been about a similar distortion of Mars during an occultation.

Maybe the real reason I was banned from ALPO, was that I remarked on this distortion. Such a phenomenon would involve new physics which some might want to keep secret. One or two "big cheeses" could "pass the hint" to their underlings, that I should be ostracized on some irrelevant excuse, and, because such underlings are selected for being able to respond unquestioningly to such hints, they would toss in a few more irrelevant reasons of their own, and see to it that I was ostracized. The main near-term price to them would be, that a few of the more intrepid but less "tame" members of ALPO's flock, would become disillusioned and drift away.
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
1065 Posts

Posted - 04 Aug 2009 :  16:29:37  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Is McCarthyism still operating in the states then Joe? I think over here most people think only about the Hollywood trials but I understand it was pretty far reaching. I didn't know it reached astronomy. Absolutely appalling if it's still going on in the twenty first century.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
1065 Posts

Posted - 27 Aug 2009 :  20:55:28  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Bright Stars over the Pyramids: Atlantean Knowledge
by Joseph C. Keller, M. D., August 27, 2009

Abstract. Standard precession formulas indicate that simultaneous appearances of bright stars over the Giza pyramids and on the meridian, occurred at 2520BC and 7350BC. The 2012AD position I calculate for Barbarossa (from four sky surveys 1954-1997AD) participated in another such alignment, at 8690BC. If Earth's axis shifted c. 4000BC, these dates become consistent with others.

Method. Star positions and proper motions were from the Bright Star Catalog on the VizieR website. The proper motion in Right Ascension is in arcseconds, not fifteenths of a second of RA, so it was corrected by multiplication by the secant of the Declination (Declination as averaged by either the trapezoidal or Simpson rules). As a test, omission of proper motion correction sometimes caused a discrepancy of a few degrees, and sometimes changed the result negligibly. Conversion to coordinates of the equinox of date, was by the "rigorous" formulas on p. B18 of the 1990 Astronomical Almanac (later editions give a formula somewhat less easy to use).

The position of Barbasossa for 2012, is the heliocentric (really barycentric, excluding Barbarossa) 12h GMT Dec. 21, 2012 position, of the center of mass of the Barbarossa system (< 1 arcmin different from the position of Barbarossa itself) which I estimated earlier this year from my four known (online image) sky survey plate detections, 1954, 1986, 1987, and 1997: RA 11:27:46.95, Decl -9:22:53.1. Time of year affects Barbarossa's geocentric position by up to about 1/4 deg Earth parallax, vs. the heliocentric position. This also was converted to coordinates of the equinox of date, using the 1990 Astronomical Almanac rigorous formulas.

The horizontal coordinates of the three large Giza pyramids were from Petrie's survey as given in Petrie's book (sec. 19, p. 35) available for free on Birdsall's website, taken as those of the "center of casing". I rotated the coordinates 1deg12'22" to correct for the offset from true north which Petrie gives for his coordinate system. I rotated the coordinates 5'40" less, in order to use the pyramids' alignment as the presumed true north at the time of their construction (Petrie, sec. 93).

The heights of the pyramids (secs. 25, 67, 81) were from Petrie's determination of the weighted average intersections of the planes of their sides. The relative heights of the bases of the pyramids (i.e., the well-defined pavement on which their bases rest) were from Vyse, as quoted by Maragioglio & Rinaldi, parte VI, p. 34, as cited by EG Calero Alcocer (Erik Calero) on the egyptologist.org messageboard, thread "Base elevs. Giza". As a test, I tried assuming that eye height was 1.7m above pavement (instead of pavement level) but this never mattered much.

My BASIC program ran in a few seconds on my IBM 486 computer.

Results. Between 13800BC and 2100AD, I find three instances, where two important objects could be sighted simultaneously from pavement level, angle theta < 1deg from the peaks of two different pyramids, and where also one of these objects was on the meridian. All dates are +/- about 100yr or less, if random likelihood is proportional to 1/theta^2.

Instance #1. At 2520BC, when Sirius was on the meridian and sighted, from its pavement level, at the peak of Menkaure's pyramid, Arcturus simultaneously would be sighted at the peak of Khufu's. The error in Arcturus' position was 0.8deg.

Instance #2. At 7350BC, when Rigel was on the meridian and sighted at the peak of Menkaure's, Regulus simultaneously would be sighted at the peak of Khafre's, with error 0.5deg.

Instance #3. At 8690BC, when Sirius was on the meridian and sighted at the peak of Menkaure's, Barbarossa's 2012 position lay at the peak of Khafre's, with error 0.8deg.

One instance was excluded because it would have been impossible to sight Barbarossa over Khufu's pyramid due to Barbarossa's slightly northerly Declination at the time. This was 7000BC; with Barbarossa on the meridian sighted at the peak of Khufu's (from inside the pyramid, as if the pyramid had been constructed of air), Sirius would have been at the peak of Menkaure's, with error 0.7deg.

Discussion. If Earth's axis shifted at the last "Barbarossa event", one orbit, i.e., 6340yr, ago, these dates, from precession theory, are unreliable, but might all be corrected by about the same amount. Brauer's onset of the Younger Dryas, determined to the year from lake varves, is 12683yr before 2012, i.e., 12683-2011 = 10672BC, so for Instance #3, let's add 8690 + 1982 = 10672BC. Cayce dated the final destruction of Atlantis at 10600BC (Stearn, "Edgar Cayce", 1967, p. 231).

Adding the same 1982yr to Instance #1, gives 2520+1982 = 4502BC, close to the 4329BC I deduced from "Sothic dates" (see messageboard above, "Hermetic knowledge"). Instance #2 becomes 7350+1982 = 9332BC.

Instance #2 gives us the original date of Giza structures, of those relative sizes and positions. Instance #3 tells us the date of the penultimate (Younger Dryas) Barbarossa phenomenon, and Instance #1 the date of the last one (which was, when the Giza monuments were constructed, then a prediction). To build the three pyramids to indicate these dates, would require solving 3*2 = 6 equations, with 2*(2+1) = 6 unknowns (the positions and heights of the last two pyramids).

The precise 26+ deg slope of the gallery inside Khufu's, might represent the different obliquity then.
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1880 Posts

Posted - 27 Aug 2009 :  22:20:12  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Carbon dating indicates the Giza complex is ~4,500 years old. How does this fact effect the story you are posting in that all the dates except 2012AD preceed the construction? How do these details fit together and what meaning does it have?
Go to Top of Page

Maurol

Argentina
138 Posts

Posted - 28 Aug 2009 :  15:01:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi,
In http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/90705-binary-sun-theory.html there's an interesting discussion between what seems to be Walter Cruttenden himself, and members of the Bad Astronomy Forum.
The conclussion confirms some of the points I've made in this thread months ago: If the Sun is effectively in a binary orbital motion, the movement will look like parallax, not precession. Cruttenden hypothesis of a curving Solar system violates the principle of conservation of angular moment. Moreover: it seems to require two different gravitational physics, one for the interior of the Solar system(where angular moment would be conserved) and another for the exterior(where the Solar system curves en masse, violating conservation of the angular moment of the different planets.)

Unfortunately the bautforum thread is now closed, beacuse a number of very interesting questions arise. Incidentally, there at baut they seem to have this policy where everything must be "closed", "resolved", "debunked", "explained", and "settled". Something that is contrary to the spirit of scientific progress, isn't?

The questions:
1) Suppossing then for a moment than the Sun IS in a binary orbit, and knowing it will look like parallax, can't we be actually confusing or masking this parallax with the parallax produced by Earth's orbit around the Sun? Can't we be just masking the Sun's own movement, into the dynamic parameters of the planetary orbits, as I've suggested in the past in this forum?

2) Maybe there's a coincidence between the amount of movement of Earth's axis attributed to lunisolar precession (50''/yr) with the amount of movement of the Sun in its binary orbit. That is: the period of the Sun's binary orbit (26000 yrs) is similar to the "period" of Earth's precession. Due to some hitherto unknown resonances, by example
I say this because Cruttenden raises one interesting point: if you set a keplerian orbit for the Sun with 500 CE as the apoapsis point, and a 26.000 years period, the actual amount of angular movement of the Sun in that orbit matches the actual rate of precession.
Cruttenden obtains this number(500CE) from a book of an oriental mystic, Sri Yukteswar. This is not the best of sources, but the coincidence certainly deserves some investigation. The eccentricity reamins to be defined, nevertheless, and if you adjust the eccentricity you could probably make things fit as you please.

There's another interesting fact, that Cruttenden does not mention in the forum(but he mentions it in his book): Sirius was regarded as a red star in the past, by a good number of knowledgeable and reputable sources.
The first unambiguous mention of Sirius as a white star seems to happen around 950CE, by a Persian astronomer, Abd al-Rahman al-Sufi (903-986 CE).
This is consistent with Sun and Sirius nearing apoapsis of their binary orbit around that time, Sirius's change of color being a result of Doppler shift effect.

The only problem with all this is that Sirius is at 8.6 light years from us. A new gravitational theory is needed, if all this holds true.

Best regards,
Mauro
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1880 Posts

Posted - 28 Aug 2009 :  23:16:10  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Maurol, The color of Sirius was red according to many observers. Do you know if any Roman authorities made any mention of the color and when the last known reference to a red Sirius was recorded? When was Sirius first called white or blue rather thn red?
Go to Top of Page

Maurol

Argentina
138 Posts

Posted - 29 Aug 2009 :  11:28:02  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jim

Maurol, The color of Sirius was red according to many observers. Do you know if any Roman authorities made any mention of the color and when the last known reference to a red Sirius was recorded? When was Sirius first called white or blue rather thn red?



Hi Jim
As I've said previously:
"The first unambiguous mention of Sirius as a white star seems to happen around 950CE, by a Persian astronomer, Abd al-Rahman al-Sufi (903-986 CE)."

The last reference to Sirius as red star seem to be around as late as the 6th century CE, by a Gallo-Roman chronicler, Gregory of Tours.

I've found this data on the internet. You should clearly do your own research, if you're interested. The internet is a wonderful thing when you pop some words or names in a search engine.
And by the way, here's a "book search" tool that I've devised:
http://maurol.com.ar/bs

You can find [i]The Holy Science[i] book with it(which seems to be in the public domain now), after some searching.

Now, some first hand information:
Months ago I noticed and defined an interesting astronomical fact: Around the 12th century CE, the date of Earth's solstice coincided with the date of Earth's perihelion. That is, around 1.250 CE, Earth's perihelion was around December 21.
This is a "once in 26.000 years" astronomical event.

I've obtained this date using NASA ephemeris data.
I also contrasted it by calculation, using formulas for the date of Earth's perihelion based in the sidereal year, correcting the dates for the diverse calendric modifications throughout past centuries, and counting leap years. This custom method gives me a date some 300 years before than Nasa ephemeris: around 900 CE.

In detail, using Nasa ephemeris data, I've obtained that the first time that the perihelion fell in December 21, was around the year 1134CE, and the last time was around the year 1388AD. The mean being the year 1261AD.

If, as I've said before, there are hitherto unknown resonances or coincidences between the planets of the Solar System and a binary companion, this coincidence of Earth's solstice and perihelion dates could be related to apoapsis of the binary orbit. If true, this means that in a moment around the year 1261CE, plus or minus 130 years, the apoapsis point of the binary orbit happened. This differs from Yukteswar date by around 700 years, but seems to better coincide with historical reports of Sirius's change of color.

It could be interesting to study what other significative or rare astronomical events took place, particularly inside the solar system, around the 12th century CE.

Best regards,
Mauro Lacy
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 250  Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated © © 2002-? Meta Research Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 7.11 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.03