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 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 72

Joe Keller

USA
958 Posts

Posted - 03 Oct 2009 :  16:18:16  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Heinrich Events: Barbarossa Laps Precession

Small climate changes called "Heinrich events" reportedly happen at variable intervals, every seven to ten thousand years. (See: Bond & Lotti, Science 267:l605, 1995)

Let's do this math ourselves. From the sky surveys, I found Barbarossa's orbital period, 6340yr. Newcomb found Earth's (rotational) precession period, 25785yr. While Barbarossa makes one orbit, Earth's precession makes about one quarter cycle. Barbarossa must gain another 90 degrees to catch up to, and lap, Earth (if the presumed opposite direction of the motions, Barbarossa's orbit prograde vs. Earth's axis precession retrograde, could be made superfluous). Barbarossa might be fast, moving from perihelion to latus rectum in 434yr, while Earth precesses little. So, almost the shortest Heinrich event interval, is 6340+434=6774yr.

Barbarossa might be slow, moving from latus rectum to aphelion in 2736yr. Meanwhile Earth precesses about 1/8 cycle, so Barbarossa must move an extra 1/8 cycle, but then Earth has time to precess another 1/16 cycle, etc.; 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... = 1/2, so this Heinrich interval, about the longest possible, is 6340 + 2736*2 = 11812.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
958 Posts

Posted - 03 Oct 2009 :  16:35:53  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The time interval between, the sighting of Sirius on the meridian at the vertex of Menkaure's pyramid with Arcturus at the vertex of Khufu's, and the sighting of Sirius on the meridian at the vertex of Menkaure's with Barbarossa's 20l2 position in the constellation Crater at the vertex of Khafre's, is 6170yr. This differs only 2.7% from Barbarossa's orbital period, and the location differs only 0.8deg from Barbarossa's Dec. 2012 position.

It would seem that the Egyptians used their freedom, in the design of the Giza pyramids, to memorialize information about the orbital period and critical sidereal location of Barbarossa. The numerical agreement is all the more remarkable because of the hints that Earth's rotation has been disturbed in the meanwhile.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
958 Posts

Posted - 03 Oct 2009 :  22:43:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Halley's Comet: more evidence for Barbarossa

Halley's comet happened to have, most likely, its second longest known period, during the interval 1066AD-1145AD. Barbarossa's incoming latus rectum was 1144AD, according to my calculation.

One internet source says that the perihelion-to-perihelion period 1066-1145AD was 79.3yr and tied for 1st-2nd place for longest. Wikipedia's list says that the 1066-1145AD period was 79.1yr, and tied for 2nd-3rd place for longest; on this list, the other period tied for 2nd-3rd place, was two cycles later. These periods seem to have been calculated from a compromise between celestial mechanics and historical records.

Wikipedia's article also notes that in 1145AD, Halley's comet was drawn with a fan tail as in 1986AD, and does not mention this for any other return. The outgoing latus rectum is 2012AD. However, John H. Lienhard (article online, www.uh.edu, #1642) shows multiple examples of fan tails recorded in other returns, and there is even another such in the Wikipedia article, though labeled "fanciful".

According to Wikipedia, most returns since 240BC (and another likely return three cycles before that) are documented in surviving records, except for that of approx. 1378AD (aftermath of the Black Death) and, it seems to be implied, those six of approx. 218AD through 607AD and the one of 760AD (decline of Rome, and Dark Ages). This leaves 18 observationally (though often not very accurately) defined cycles.

Edited by - Joe Keller on 05 Oct 2009 16:56:27
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
958 Posts

Posted - 05 Oct 2009 :  18:23:37  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dec. 21, 2012: Our Four Giant Planets Lie on a Circle

Above, I note that every 6340.0yr, Uranus achieves a recurring position relative to Neptune, according to the currently most accepted values of their periods (indeed the position recurs 37 times in 6340yr). According to the currently accepted values of their periods, Saturn and Jupiter do not achieve an exactly recurring position relative to Neptune (and Uranus) in 6340yr, but the interaction of Saturn and Jupiter is stronger, so their periods probably are known less accurately; also, their angle changes faster, so their periods need to be known more accurately.

Nevertheless, the four outer planets achieve a special geometry at approx. Dec. 21, 2012. They lie on a circle.

Let the angle in space, between, say, Uranus and Jupiter, with Saturn at the vertex, be "USJ", etc. (this is standard geometry terminology). Then, to no worse than about one arcminute accuracy, the following are true, on Dec. 21, 2012:

NJU = NSU = 29.69 deg
USJ = UNJ = 31.14 deg
JNS = JUS = 23.16 deg
SUN = SJN = 96.02 deg

These are the angles in space, not projected onto any plane. These equations all are satisfied if the planets lie on a circle (Euclid's Elements, Prop. III.20, the Central Angle Theorem).

On one hand, Jupiter and Saturn might really achieve recurring positions relative to Neptune, producing a congruent figure every 6340yr. On the other hand, they might produce a different figure each time, using only one of their two degrees of freedom, to make a circle somewhere.

I found the positions of the planets by extrapolating heliocentric coordinates and distances for the equinox and ecliptic of date, from the Astronomical Almanac, for late 2010AD. For Jupiter I used the four-point (i.e. third order) backward Newton formula, for Saturn & Uranus the second order, and for Neptune the first order. The inaccuracy expected from the extrapolation is about an arcminute. The above equations are most precise on about Dec. 20.7, but this one day discrepancy could be due to the inaccuracy of the extrapolation.

The positions of the inner planets, in the famous recent crop circle depiction, define the Dec. 2012 date most precisely, but this part of the crop circle was destroyed very soon after its formation. Fortunately the positions of the outer planets contain a valuable hint.

From the positions of Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, in the approximation that these are projected onto the ecliptic, the center of this circle is at x = 8.8AU, y = -11.5AU. Its radius is 17.94AU.

Edited by - Joe Keller on 05 Oct 2009 23:41:32
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
958 Posts

Posted - 05 Oct 2009 :  23:57:36  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
My poster to be displayed at Walter Cruttenden's (Binary Research Inst.) CPAK (Conference on Precession and Ancient Knowledge) conference (Oct. 10, 2009, U. of California - Irvine) can be seen on Mauro Lacy's server (thanks, Mauro!) at:

http://maurol.com.ar/barbarossa

This includes 20 sheets of text, some with diagrams, plus 5 color illustrations.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
958 Posts

Posted - 06 Oct 2009 :  15:40:35  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
text of Joseph C. Keller's poster for Oct. 10, 2009 CPAK conf. (U. of California - Irvine), p.1

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

The author, Joseph C. Keller, is a 1973 graduate of Scottsbluff (Nebraska) High School (covaledictorian, National Merit Scholar), a 1977 graduate of Harvard College (A. B.,*****laude, Mathematics, i.e. "pure Mathematics"; nominated for Marshall Scholarship, awarded NSF Fellowship in Physics; awarded fellowship in Applied Physics to Cal Tech), and a 1980 graduate (M. D.) of the Univ. of Nebraska College of Medicine.

He is author of a chapter on optics in Yang & Kline's textbook on intraocular lenses. He is primary author of "Pioneer Probe Generates Space Warp, Disproves Big Bang", Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology vol. 74, no. 3, 2002.

For alleged underpayment of state income tax and child support, the author's medical licenses and passport have been revoked. His driver's license was revoked for the same reason but has been reinstated. For the same reason, the American Board of Ophthalmology said they might revoke his board certification, but never told him whether they had or not, unless he threw their letter away by mistake.

The author is descended from the original European-American settlers of Washington (Seattle, Redmond, Woodinville) and of West Virginia (Wayne County).
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
958 Posts

Posted - 06 Oct 2009 :  15:50:00  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
text of Joseph C. Keller's poster for Oct. 10, 2009 CPAK conf. (U. of California - Irvine), p.2

IN MEMORIAM: DR. TOM VAN FLANDERN

Essentially all my work on this subject is posted to the messageboard of the website of the late Dr. Tom Van Flandern, www.metaresearch.org. I have always posted there under my real name, "Joe Keller". Because of the relevance to ether drift theory, to the so-called "Cosmic" Microwave Background, and to the "Big Bang", my work on this subject is posted to the "Requiem for Relativity" subthread. The coordinates of my objects on the sky surveys, and many other important details, will be found there.

I had found that most other astronomy messageboards in the U. S., including all the Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers (ALPO) messageboards that I tried, which was most of them, censored my posts. Though Dr. Van Flandern sometimes disagreed with my points, I never have been censored on his messageboard. I doubt that this work could have been accomplished without this moral support from Dr. Van Flandern.

CONTACT INFORMATION

I may be "private message" ("PM") emailed through Dr. Van Flandern's messageboard at www.metaresearch.org, to my membership name, Joe Keller. Or, use my email addresses: josephkeller100@hotmail.com

or *********@*******.com

Regular mail: Joseph C. Keller, M. D.
POB 9122
Ames, Iowa 50014
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
958 Posts

Posted - 06 Oct 2009 :  15:59:22  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
text of Joseph C. Keller's poster for Oct. 10, 2009 CPAK conf. (U. of California - Irvine), p.3

MY DISCOVERY OF PERCIVAL LOWELL'S PLANET X:
BARBAROSSA

The name is from the prologue to a Berry Fleming political satire, that became a 1945 Hollywood movie. My study of Dayton Miller's ether drift experiments, and the cosmic microwave background, made me suspect that a large undiscovered planet lay near the positive CMB dipole. The Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt suddenly ends, and the Pioneer 10 probe made strange signals, at the very distance where the sun's gravity equals the maximum self-gravity of a proton. At this distance, the gravitational potential energy of an electron, equals the energy of a typical CMB photon.

A planet beyond this spherical, 52.6AU radius movie screen, at which the CMB originates, makes the defined locus oblong, and the potential energy unequal. For a planet at 200AU, 0.01 solar mass is needed to give the correct CMB dipole, though the higher multipoles are somewhat too large. In February 2007, I searched for the planet near the positive CMB dipole, and found it.

Originally, I looked for discordant "Red 1" adn "Red 2" magnitudes in the billion-star USNO-B online catalog. A moving planet, its moons, or its nebula, might cause mistaken identity in this automated catalog, or cause transient dimming.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
958 Posts

Posted - 06 Oct 2009 :  16:10:49  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
text of Joseph C. Keller's poster for Oct. 10, 2009 CPAK conf. (U. of California - Irvine), p. 4

(schematic drawing of "disappearing dot" on plate scans, here)

FINDING BARBAROSSA AND FREY

Finding an excess of such discordant magnitudes near the (+) CMB dipole, and several on a line, almost parallel to the ecliptic, I next checked online sky surveys for disappearing dots. (A Harvard astronomer told me how to open the "FITS headers" of these files.) Eventually, on all relevant Red (three of these) and Optical Infrared (one of these) plate scans, I found disappearing dots of comparison Red or Optical Infrared magnitude +17.5 to +19.5, for Barbarossa and its moon, Frey. Some more distant dots might be another moon, Freya, and there is evidence that Frey's orbit precesses due to Freya plus a third, unseen moon, Lowell. Thus I found evidence of three of the "nine companions" of the Mayan "Bolon". The mass ratio Barbarossa::Frey is 40::1.

I estimated Frey's orbit about Barbarossa, at 1.6AU and 20yr. All dots were fairly starlike, often with the Eberhard effect. Though Frey's orbit is vague due to uncertain, contradictory identifications, the precision of Barbarossa's trajectory is, considering that I found only about one disappearing dot per 15x15 arcminute frame, very significant.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
958 Posts

Posted - 06 Oct 2009 :  16:22:06  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
text of Joseph C. Keller's poster for Oct. 10, 2009 CPAK conf. (U. of California - Irvine), p.5

(schematic drawing of x, y, z vs. t graphs, here)

FINDING BARBAROSSA'S ORBIT

Prof. Taff's textbook on celestial mechanics teaches that orbit determination often is inaccurate because the equations usually are poorly conditioned, i.e., small input errors cause large output errors. However, only six parameters are needed to define the trajectory, and with four observations, I have eight parameters (4x2 = 8 coordinates).

My procedure was to guess Barbarossa's heliocentric radius at the 1997 observation, and guess the first and second time derivatives then too, which gives the radius for all the observations, because for these observations the effects of any realistic third or higher time derivatives of the radius, are negligible, vs. the observation accuracy. Then I drew a smooth curve (specifically, a unique sinusoid+constant of a reasonable predetermined frequency) through the 1954, 1986 and 1997 x-coordinates, and likewise through the y- and z-coordinates. I assumed that the orbit would make all three curves pass through the appropriate value at 1987. The result is semimajor axis 344AU, eccentricity 0.6106, true anomaly 90deg within a few days of Dec. 21, 2012; ascending node 293, inclination 12.9, longitude of perihelion 86. The J2000.0 celestial coords. for 12h GMT Dec. 21, 2012 are RA 11:27:46.95, Decl -9:22:53.1 (barycentric sidereal period, approx. 6339.93 yr).


Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
958 Posts

Posted - 06 Oct 2009 :  16:33:25  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
text of Joseph C. Keller's poster for Oct. 10, 2009 CPAK conf. (U. of California - Irvine), p. 6

(world map with -9deg lat, and Sacramento, S. Arizona, & Tenerife marked, here)

ATTEMPTS TO PHOTOGRAPH BARBAROSSA PROSPECTIVELY

The first to attempt to photograph Barbarossa prospectively, was Joan Genebriera of Spain with his 16-inch telescope on Tenerife, March 2007. A week later, in April 2007, Steve Riley of California attempted, with his 8-inch telescope near Sacramento. My prediction of Barbarossa's position, and my interpretation of electronic photos, have improved over the last three years, but the results of all attempts so far, to photograph Barbarossa prospectively, can be summed up by the word, "equivocal".

In December 2008 the Univ. of Iowa began allowing me, with the help of Prof. Robert Mutel, to hunt for Barbarossa with their 14 inch robotic telescope in southern Arizona. One batch of photos was stacked by Prof. Mutel, another by Mauro Lacy of Argentina (Alan Grow of Rolla, Missouri helped Lacy retrieve the files from the U. of Iowa database). Both Lacy and Grow are professional computer programmers who donated their time. So far only Visual band photos have been obtained from this 14 inch robotic scope, and these are equivocal.

The Red and Optical Infrared band magnitudes of Barbarossa on the sky surveys are about +19, but on Blue it is absent, therefore dimmer than about +21. By analogy with other red objects like Sedna or Mars, I can guess that Barbarossa's Visual magnitude is +20.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
958 Posts

Posted - 06 Oct 2009 :  16:42:30  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
text of Joseph C. Keller's poster for Oct. 10, 2009 CPAK conf. (U. of California - Irvine), p. 7

(schematic of photographic plate design, here)

BIGGER TELESCOPES ARE NEEDED

The successful sky survey photos of Barbarossa were with 48-inch telescopes, operated in the Red or Optical Infrared bands, with exposures near an hour, using hypersensitized photographic emulsion plates. The nearest I've gotten to repeating that experiment, is two photos donated in 2009 by an unknown amateur using a 17 inch telescope; one of these was in the Red band, integrated over almost four hours by an unknown algorithm (because my orbit extrapolation was less accurate then, I got only an equivocal detection among edge artifacts).

The other electronic photos have been no more than 20 minute exposures; most have been ten stacked one-minute exposures. Such brief exposures, arbitrarily discarding the brightest photos at each pixel (otherwise there are too many false detections) would miss an intermittently self-luminous object. Near the detection limit, cataloged stars sometimes were textbook starlike, fragmentary, and totally absent, all in the same photo.

The online visible and optical infrared electronic (CCD) sky surveys, because of their small patches, happened not to cover Barbarossa's positions at the right times. They did help prove that the sky survey detections were not stars.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
958 Posts

Posted - 06 Oct 2009 :  16:51:18  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
text of Joseph C. Keller's poster for Oct. 10, 2009 CPAK conf. (U. of California - Irvine), p. 8

(diagram of pure hydrogen Jupiter size, vs. heavier element Earth size)

THEORY CANNOT SAY HOW BRIGHT BARBAROSSA IS

Extrapolating quantum mechanics from the laboratory, published theoretical calculations say that if Barbarossa is pure hydrogen, it is about Jupiter's size. On the other hand, when heavier atoms are present, gravitational atomic collapse involves many ionic species, tends to occur sooner, and is so complicated that no calculations have been published. Even if Barbarossa's composition were known, its size wouldn't be. As for albedo, there is a published estimate, that some cool brown dwarfs have albedos of 1% or less.

Barbarossa might be much older than the solar system, or might have formed by accretion or had some other unexpected cooling mechanism. If Barbarossa's temperature is near equuilibrium with solar radiation at that distance, then its (surface) temperature is near that of background interstellar dust and therefore hardly detectable. However, I have found a possible bow shock wave for Barbarossa, on infrared sky maps.

Distant objects, e.g. Sedna, tend to be almost as red as Mars. Barbarossa's appearance on all red and optical infrared sky surveys, but none of the blue, suggests that it is even redder than Mars.


Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
958 Posts

Posted - 06 Oct 2009 :  16:59:40  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
text of Joseph C. Keller's poster for Oct. 10, 2009 CPAK conf. (U. of California - Irvine), p. 9

(diagram showing definition of angular momentum, here)

BARBAROSSA HAS THE MISSING ANGULAR MOMENTUM

Paul Wesson noticed the approximate constancy of the ratio, (angular momentum)/(mass squared) for almost all astronomical systems, large and small. Barbarossa has about ten times Jupiter's mass, and therefore 65 times Jupiter's angular momentum, yet only 0.01 times the solar system's mass. Barbarossa's inclusion brings the solar system's angular momentum up to the norm for its mass.

SUNLIKE STARS OFTEN HAVE "BARBAROSSAS"

Published statistical analyses say that cool, almost undetectable brown dwarfs are commoner than hot ones. Even so, the very nearby sunlike star, Epsilon Indi, happens to have not one, but two, relatively hot brown dwarf companions. Our Sun's Barbarossa and Frey resemble Epsilon Indi's companions, in their distance from each other and in their distance from their star. "Hyperjovian planets" amount to very cool brown dwarfs. Emitting little infrared, if far from their stars (little gravitational wobble) they are impossible to detect.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
958 Posts

Posted - 06 Oct 2009 :  17:10:25  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
text of Joseph C. Keller's poster for Oct. 10, 2009 CPAK conf. (U. of California - Irvine), p. 10

BARBAROSSA HAS TYPICAL BINARY ORBIT

Large binary orbits typically have eccentricities like Barbarossa's. On the average, the less massive (i.e., "late" spectral type) the binary companion of a sunlike star, the more distant. Semimajor axes of more than 100 AU are common for red dwarf or brown dwarf companions of sunlike stars.

PARTLY EXPLAINS PIONEER PROBE ANOMALOUS ACCELERATION

The most accurate estimate of Barbarossa's mass, or rather the combined mass of the Barbarossa system, is by the "resonance of precession" explained on another sheet. This is a sensitive function of the semimajor axis and eccentricity, so I give Barbarossa's mass simply as 0.01 solar. The acceleration (relative to the Sun) of Pioneer 10 & 11 due to Barbarossa, when subtracted from recent estimates of the Pioneer anomaly, leaves a remaining anomaly that is a more smoothly decreasing function of distance from the sun, more amenable to various theoretical explanations.

ALL "PLANET X" SEEKERS PREDICTED BARBAROSSA

Barbarossa's direction, distance and mass all are roughly consistent with the Planet X predictions of David Todd, Percival Lowell, and Robert Harrington, though, as Lowell said, it is practically impossible to decide between a nearer, lighter Planet X, and a farther, heavier one, by planetary influence alone. Barbarossa also is consistent with the ephemeris residuals found by Newcomb and by Eckert.






Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
958 Posts

Posted - 06 Oct 2009 :  17:20:04  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
text of Joseph C. Keller's poster for Oct. 10, 2009 CPAK conf. (U. of California - Irvine), p. 11

(diagram of Jupiter's, Neptune's and Barbarossa's orbital poles, here)

BARBAROSSA CAUSES RESONANCE OF PRECESSION

Barbarossa torques Neptune's orbit, but the rest of the solar system also torques it. The torque on Neptune, per degree of inclination, from Barbarossa vs. the rest of the solar system, is in the ratio 1::3. Neptune precesses around a pole that is 3 times closer to the solar system's pole (3 deg) than to Barbarossa's orbital pole (9 deg). If, for example, Neptune's original orbital pole were the same as the solar system's, Barbarossa never would cause Neptune's pole to move more than 3x2=6 deg away.

Pluto also is torqued by Barbarossa and by the rest of the solar system, but in the ratio 1::2. (In computing this, one must realize that Pluto's perihelion avoids Neptune.) A typical classical Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt object is torqued in the ratio 1::1 (per degree of inclination). What causes these simple ratios, if not Barbarossa?

Eventually the planets transmit the torques to each other, and the principal plane of the solar system precesses about Barbarossa's orbit. This is much slower than, say, the orbital precession of Earth due to Jupiter.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
958 Posts

Posted - 06 Oct 2009 :  17:30:49  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
text of Joseph C. Keller's poster for Oct. 10, 2009 CPAK conf. (U. of California - Irvine), p. 12

(sketch of inner & outer protoplanet orbits, here)

BARBAROSSA CAUSED RESONANCE OF ORBITS

Jupiter's orbital period is in exactly l:534 resonance with Barbarossa's. Suppose Jupiter + Saturn once were one protoplanet having their combined mass and orbital (kinetic plus potential) energy. This protoplanet, J+S, would have been in exactly l:452 orbital resonance with Barbarossa. Even earlier supposed protoplanets, J+S+Uranus and J+S+U+Neptune, would have been in 1:436 and 1:416 resonance with Barbarossa, respectively. (In computing this, one must find the orbital period from the semimajor axis according to Kepler, and include even the mass of moons and the gravity of planets.) These ratios are so close to whole numbers, that the statistical significance is p = 0.001 %.

What Barbarossa did for the outer planets, Jupiter did for the inner planets. The supposed protoplanet, Venus+Earth+Luna, would have been in l:15 orbital resonance with Jupiter. Apparently Mars and Mercury separated before Jupiter and Saturn, because the protoplanet Mercury+Venus+Earth+Luna+Mars would have been in 1:18 resonance with the protoplanet Jupiter+Saturn.


Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
958 Posts

Posted - 06 Oct 2009 :  17:42:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
text of Joseph C. Keller's poster for Oct. 10, 2009 CPAK conf. (U. of California - Irvine), p. 13

BARBAROSSA RESONATES WITH "URANUS MINUS NEPTUNE"

The most accepted values for the periods of Uranus and Neptune, are 84.01 and 164.79 yr, resp. If these are accurate to the last digit, then Uranus passes Neptune 36.994 times per 6340.0 yr Barbarossa orbit.

THERE IS A NEBULA

Among nearby bright stars, those with the strongest interstellar absorption, are those nearest Barbarossa. Systematic inconsistency of USNO-B Red, and Blue, magnitudes occurs near, or slightly retrograde of, Barbarossa, as though a nebula has moved into the region, or recently formed there.

UNDISCOVERED FORCES?

The (+) CMB dipole is slightly retrograde of Barbarossa. Barbarossa presently moves only a degree in 8 yr, and the accuracy of WMAP vs. COBE CMB dipoles, doesn't suffice to prove that the dipole isn't following Barbarossa.

According to modern calculations, future planetary collisions in our solar system (a la Velikovsky) are very unlikely. Yet a nearby sunlike solar system has dust resembling an acute planetary collision. Maybe this "collision" really is something else.

Earth's Younger Dryas period, is marked by rare hexagonal nanodiamonds, but if these came from comet(s), why so few craters and so little iridium? Maybe something made them from our atmospheric CO2.

Many known millisecond pulsars are slowing as if accelerating away from us at: the Hubble parameter times the speed of light. When near its latus rectum, Barbarossa will be accelerating (radially) toward us this much.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
958 Posts

Posted - 06 Oct 2009 :  17:54:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
text of Joseph C. Keller's poster for Oct. 10, 2009 CPAK conf. (U. of California - Irvine), p. 14

ANCIENTS SAW BARBAROSSA

Arguably, the bronze calculating wheels found in the Roman shipwreck off Antikythera, are technology more advanced than the telescope. Telescopes aren't very durable.

Alternatively, Barbarossa might have been visible to the unaided eye. "Catastrophic and cataclysmic variables" brighten 100x, perhaps by gravitational infall. The energy of gravitational infall could brighten Barbarossa 1,000,000x ( = 15 magnitudes) intermittently. Or, the brightening might be from a kind of energy yet undiscovered.

Contributors to Dr. Van Flandern's messageboard, recently told me that some ancient texts say Sirius was red. Maybe the Sirius system had a dusty catastrophe. Maybe the memory of Barbarossa became confused with Sirius.

The star-studded horns of Hathor resemble Crater more than Taurus, especially when corrected for proper motion. Crater is next to Hydra, the water snake. Rising, the upside-down Crater looks like a house. Hathor was "the house of Horus". Egyptians called Mars "the red Horus". Statues show a sunlike "eye of Re" perched between the horns of Hathor, as Barbarossa will be between the horns of Crater in 2012. "The cobra snake of Re" (the uraeus)(Hydra?) wrought destruction.

The major unexplained azimuthal orientation of Egyptian (and to a lesser extent European and Mesoamerican) temples, is toward the rising of Barbarossa at c. 4329BC.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
958 Posts

Posted - 06 Oct 2009 :  19:39:06  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
text of Joseph C. Keller's poster for Oct. 10, 2009 CPAK conf. (U. of California - Irvine), p. 15

KNOWLEDGE OF GEODESY

From British megaliths to Chaco Canyon, lunar "standstill" alignments used for correlating the monthly cycle of lunar declination, with moonrises, allowed determination of longitude.

Bert Janssen noticed that the slopes of the Giza pyramids, roughly equal the slope from the equator, of a great circle to Stonehenge. I go further. Geodesics on an oblate spheroid require calculus, but straight lines through the Earth can be found without calculus. Consider the straight lines through the Earth from Menkaure's pyramid to Stonehenge, and from Menkaure's pyramid to the North Pole. Let the angle between them, be theta. The complement of theta is analogous to Janssen's slope of the great circle. This complement of theta, equals the slope of the granite casing of Menkaure's pyramid, to the accuracy that Petrie was able to determine that slope.

Janssen also noticed that his angle roughly equalled the latitude of Stonehenge. Again I go further. I account for Earth's flattening and for the small pole shift implied by the orientation (not true N) and latitude (not exactly 30N) of the Great Pyramid. The angle theta defined above, differs from the geographic colatitude of Stonehenge by only 0.001 degree: less than the uncertainty of the ancient pole.

To within the accuracy with which Petrie could determine the total height of Khafre's pyramid (i.e., the height above Khufu's base as the reference) Khafre's height :: lunar proxigee (i.e., nearest perigee) = one day :: 6340yr. Such people would have been able to plot Barbarossa's orbit.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 72 Previous Topic 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 4.77 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.03