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 72

Jim

1816 Posts

Posted - 16 Nov 2010 :  14:49:35  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dr Joe, Why not report this Baghdad event to JPL and see how they explain Venus being observed one degree from the location their generator shows it to be? I would go with the observation assuming it was writen down at the time of the event because as good as the the JPL generator is it has its faults.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 16 Nov 2010 :  19:51:47  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat

Hi Joe, according to the Stellarium program, there was an occultation of mars and venus seen from Baghdad on the 22nd of October 864 at 3.50 a.m. ...


Hi Bob!

Fantastic! Thanks for the information. I'll check to see if my own estimate agrees with Stellarium.

- Joe
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 16 Nov 2010 :  20:07:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jim

Dr Joe, Why not report this Baghdad event to JPL and see how they explain Venus being observed one degree from the location their generator shows it to be? I would go with the observation assuming it was writen down at the time of the event because as good as the the JPL generator is it has its faults.



Hi Jim!

Thanks for the suggestion. Here we have the written record [by Ibn Iounis, cited in Robert Newton's book] disagreeing both with JPL's program and with Bob's Stellarium. [edit Nov. 17: I rechecked my work, which had been based on the JPL Mars and Venus ephemerides and the time-dependent Mars orbital elements, and found complete agreement with Stellarium.]

A website, www.bogan.ca, "List of Mutual Planetary Occultations" (cites Albers, Sky & Telescope, March 1979 for the 1557-2230AD part of the list) misses both the recorded 1590AD and the recorded 864AD Venus-Mars occultations. At least JPL [and Stellarium] found the 1590AD occultation spot-on, and Bob's work with Stellarium [and mine with JPL, now] finds the 864AD occultation, though a few days off.

- Joe

Edited by - Joe Keller on 17 Nov 2010 22:09:03
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1816 Posts

Posted - 16 Nov 2010 :  20:38:13  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dr Joe, The generator at JPL is a model focused on the Earth/Moon barycenter as best I can determine. I don't have the mathematical background to really understand what better model might be used but I do know the Earth/Moon barycenter does not move around around the sun in an elliptical orbit as is assumed by the people who made the generator. I figure that is reason for the small error in the numbers the generator produces. Maybe you with your strong background in math could do something to correct this problem at the source by pointing out errors like the Baghdad occult. I'm sure there are more like this one if anyone looked.
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 17 Nov 2010 :  03:35:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Stellarium shows a occultation of mars and venus at Heidelberg on Oct. 13th 1590 at about 5 a.m. That looks right as Germany, a protestant country, remained on the julian calendar for some time, so a ten day error.
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1816 Posts

Posted - 17 Nov 2010 :  13:04:00  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Sloat, Can you report this to the guys at JPL? I tried to point out an error in their generator several years ago but never had solid data like you found. The JPL staff are nice people and I found them to be quite helpful explaining how to do set ups but had no luck pointing out error caused by a faulty model-I'm not diplomatic and like anyone they have short fuses when it comes to issues like this.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 17 Nov 2010 :  21:53:23  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat

Stellarium shows a occultation of mars and venus at Heidelberg on Oct. 13th 1590 at about 5 a.m. That looks right as Germany, a protestant country, remained on the julian calendar for some time, so a ten day error.



Hi Bob,

Thanks for the additional information. I rechecked and confirmed my work on this occultation, which had been based on the JPL Venus and Earth ephemerides and the Mars orbit; it had to be the AM of Oct. 3rd, 1590 in the Julian calendar, which the Protestants were still using, and that was Oct. 13th in the Gregorian calendar then. I guess Stellarium uses the Gregorian calendar, at least for dates after the Gregorian reform.

- Joe
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1816 Posts

Posted - 18 Nov 2010 :  13:57:34  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dr Joe, All the orbital calculations are based on the JPL generator as noted at all the sites posted so far. JPL has a better way of dating that I don't understand but you might like better than calender dates. You can ask JPL how it works-I don't have any idea how useful it might be.
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 21 Nov 2010 :  05:19:15  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I think the JPL site is in need of a face lift, it looks dated and it's not that user friendly. There's going to be errors, leaving aside the problem of the year zero and the ten days due to calendar changes. A program that compensates for leap seconds is going to be too slow for the site.

I remember putting up a link here on the problems of historical supernovas. As I recall one of them was of particular interest to South Americans as the nova appeared next to the moon. One European sighting was discounted, because of where the nova remnant is thought to be! It might be an idea to find that article again. I think it's odd that two eleventh century novas should have been reported and them not being where they are supposed to be.
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1816 Posts

Posted - 21 Nov 2010 :  20:22:00  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Sloat, A SN next to the moon would only place the event somewhere near the orbit of the moon with no info about the RA of the event. That's a lot of space to search for a remnant.
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 22 Nov 2010 :  07:17:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Jim, the 1006 a.d. supernova is the brightest historical supernova. As i recall, it was seen as a red disk just under the moon by about a half degree, on a certain date. Now this account was rejected, and again from memory, that had something to with the phase of the moon. It simply had to be wrong, because we know where the remnant is, and of course we know where the barycentre of the solar system is.

Well, the link to the paper is somewhere here in this thread. At the time, I mentioned it to Joe as something to look into, Joe wasn't then looking at historical accounts. We've got two supernova that came along like busses. 1006 and 1054, the remnants don't match up to where the historical records mark the positions. This could possibly give us an estimate of whether the barycentre is where we think it is.
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1816 Posts

Posted - 22 Nov 2010 :  12:59:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Sloat, If the location of the barycenter of the Solar System is the cause of a misplaced SN you can be sure the error is the barycenter. The Barycenter is always misplaced by lazyness of astronomers. They like to use it as a mass center when its easy to look and see its not.
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 23 Nov 2010 :  05:06:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Jim, someone in this thread put up a link to a program that lets you look at the movement of the barycentre for the solar system, and add other planets. It's movement is incredibly complicated. We have to add the fact, that the people who are looking at ancient historical records of astronomical events, tend not to be working astronomers. There are only a handful of people who can read Sanskrit, or eleventh century Korean. Even less can interpret amerindian cave drawings. It's only with those two eleventh century super novae that a team was put together by NASA.

The problem is, if Joe's right, then the barycenre isn't where it's assumed to be. If he can show that the solar system still works as it appears to, then it will be accepted. However, we do have that little problem of the speed of gravity. Let's say that Joe's theory really does put the cat among the pigeons with something like the Mercury problem. Then working astronomers will remain shtum, as they will be seen to be stepping on Einstein's toes.

I thought of another avenue of approach to this yesterday. It's the rather curious orbital behavior of the "Earth's second moon"! It now seems that there's more than one of these, and Mars also has a few. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3753_Cruithne

Edited by - Stoat on 23 Nov 2010 05:06:53
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 23 Nov 2010 :  06:10:33  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
On the problem os encounters with the ghost of Einstein, I thought I'd ask a guy who's working on gravito magnetics for his thoughts on the speed of gravity. His reply was, what's your point. Nothing can travel faster than light. End of discussion! Another one, was where I commented on a facebook page of another guy, and said that we can divide mc^2 by the Planck mass and lose the units but I questioned the Planck mass. The post got deleted by the guy. Easy the best one. A guy told me that Newton was confused by the word "instantaneous" because he rode a horse. Wow!

A little update on that Hawking problem.

Power = (16pi G^2 M^2 / c^4) (pi^2k^4 / 60 hbar^3 c^2) (hbar c^3 / 8pi G M k)^4

Just for fun I thought I'd see what it would look like if the Planck particle was a toroid.
area = 4 pi^2 R r

With this, we don't replace the c^4 in the first bracket with b^4 (being the speed of gravity) we have instead (16 pi^2 G^2 M^2 / b^2 c^2)

Just about everything cancels out. We still get that peculiar number in the numerator though. Remember that I divided c^12 by b^4 to get 0.725634065 (100 times the fine structure constant perhaps?)
The same number shows up when I multiply c^12 / b^2 c^2 by hbar.
Anyway I get 16 * 0.725634065 / 60 c^2
This will give a power output of about five times the unit charge. I'm toying with the idea that the square root of 2pi will come into it somewhere.

At the moment I'm just interested in it as a toy but it is interesting as both G and M have dropped out altogether.


Go to Top of Page

Jim

1816 Posts

Posted - 23 Nov 2010 :  13:48:41  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Sloat, The barycenter is simple to locate between two mas systens like the solar system has. The problem occurs because the barycenter moves-its not fixed as all models assume. We have two bodies with one orbiting the other so the point we call the barycenter is always in motion between the two bodies. If that is Dr Joe's reason for his undiscovered body then he should redo his math correcting for a moving barycenter. As for Einstein why has he been promoted to god by so many people who should know better? I don't think he would approve.
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 24 Nov 2010 :  06:46:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Joe, can I pick your brains again. I've assumed that the ratio of the speed of gravity to the speed of light is 1.05457148E-34 = c^2 / b^2
b = speed of gravity

Now when I look at that Hawking radiation equation I have c^12 / b^4 = 0.7256340
if I want it to equal one, then the speed of gravity would be 2.6944002E 25 (log errors and e maybe?)but that would throw out my ratio value from the numerical part of hbar to 1.2379901E-34

What I was toying with doing was to consider that b^4 power in terms of x,y,z and t and looking at it with regard to Poisson's equation. A sort of grivito statics problem.

Edited by - Stoat on 24 Nov 2010 07:02:07
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 25 Nov 2010 :  05:06:28  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Jim, Joe's aware of what you say, that's why he has a large section on pulsars. obviously we can hold the barycentre still and have the whole solar system wobbling in a corkscrew around it as it moves through the galaxy. Or we can shift it to the centre of the sun and not be far off when we measure the angle between us and some far off body. To be really accurate though, we should be able to use frequency shifts in pulsars.

Now Joe's proposed planet, being way out in the boonies, means that we have to shift the barycentre out from the centre of the sun. Then the question becomes, are we misinterpreting the data from pulsars?

I'm sure Joe will explain better than I can what the problems with pulsars might be. One problem that springs to mind is something to do with Jupiter. Jupiter rotates but its magnetosphere is at a slightly different angle, as is the magnetosphere of the Earth. We have magnetic north and true north, so does Jupiter but, don't quote me on this, I believe the magnetic poles of Jupiter are flipped at the moment. The thing about Jupiter though, is that the magnetosphere is off centre by about a quarter of the radius. Are pulsars similar?
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1816 Posts

Posted - 25 Nov 2010 :  15:30:36  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Sloat, You explain it well enough. The problem as I see it is a fixed barycenter no matter what two mass units are used to determine where the barycenter is located. With Sun/Jupiter the barycenter is near the surface of the sun and the sun if it moves toward Jupiter it will not rotate around the barycenter. I don't know what point is the real center of motion but its clearly not the barycenter. You don't need pulsars to see this simple truth-don't need to over think it either. But, If pulsars indicate a problem with the barycenter-that's good.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 27 Nov 2010 :  21:11:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I've rewritten my Nov. 15 post, "The case of Mars"; see above.
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 30 Nov 2010 :  09:52:29  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Joe, on the subject of occultations, have you read the stuff on working out the speed of gravity from an occultation of Jupiter, among the papers by Tom Van Flandern on this site? I think that all the guy did was to work out the speed of light (as did Tom) but his speed of light is slightly faster. This he put down to experimental error but I think that might be about the only thing he got right.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 72  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 2.45 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.03