LB, Your last post is all good (but) As far as I know there is nothing in human writing indicating a planet size object has any way to explode but TVF had observational data that lead him to use EPH to explain the data. There was a half light/half dark planet as well as several other observations that he was using as guide lines-I know other people made those observations no problem with that and if anyone wants to look into it they can. I just want to understand why he proposed EPH as the answer that fit those observations (whatever that are).

I think I can answer this question, but it will take a while. And this is the wrong place for the discussion, so I have created a new forum (Exploded Planet Hypothesis in the Planetary Science category).

Jim, will you copy your question to that new forum to start the ball rolling?

First crop circle of 2011, hints at Barbarossa's orbital eccentricity

The first crop circle of 2011 appeared this month, January, in Indonesia. The two main numbers expressing the eccentricity of an ellipse (such as Barbarossa's elliptical orbit) are

e = the eccentricity and

b/a = the axis ratio = sqrt(1-e^2)

The axis ratio, and the eccentricity, are related the same way as the sine and cosine of an angle.

Measuring with a ruler on my screen, from the circle diagram that had been obtained by www.earthfiles.com, I found that the circles of the crop formation, from the smallest that I could find in the formation, up to the largest, have diameters

19.75, 31.33, 40.33, 50.50, and 54.33 mm. When the boundaries were thick, for consistency I always used the outside diameter because sometimes that was the only choice that gave unbroken curves.

Now, for what it's worth, I'll list the ratios of each to the next, call it "x", and in parentheses next to x, give sqrt(1-x^2):

The first three rows, give numbers near the e of Barbarossa, 0.6106, and the b/a of Barbarossa, 0.7919. In the usual textbook diagram illustrating true anomaly and eccentric anomaly for an elliptical orbit, circles with radii equal to "a", and, often, "b", are drawn; for Barbarossa these radii would have a ratio near the ratios that appear twice between the most comparable circles of the Indonesian formation.

Hi Larry, you asked what could be posted to the board from this sim. It can output a series of still images, which can be put together for an animation. You can also save a data sheet which can be opened in a spreadsheet. That will probably be the best as you can then draw graphs of the data.

At the moment I don't know how to do an actual explosion but I know it can be done from reading their message board. (The problem is, when two objects touch they accrete into one object)What's easy to do is to just reduce the mass of a planet and watch its satellites zoom off.

With that, the 20 earth mass planet Tom talks about does produce an asteroid belt in the right place.

I did try the two Mars mass planets in orbit round a 5 earth mass planet and it didn't like it at all. One got threw out into a near Mars orbit. So I looked at Tom's article on Mars, where he gives an 8 earth mass planet, a Mars and a 0.01 mass planet, inner to Mars. That does stay in orbit. Of course that needs fine tuning, and the timing of an explosion needs to be worked out.

Sounds interesting. My memory of the numbers Tom worked out is not always perfect (I'm now in the process of re-reading the things he has written on EPH), so it is good that you did your own homework. and experimenting is always going to be needed.

Does this simulator allow for any script-based control of the sim? If not, perhaps there are other simulators that do?

And, when you have more to report, please do so in the new forum for the EPH?

Hi Joe, I was looking at these today and thought yo might find them useful. The Kozai ones in particular. They're java little applets that save a lot of work. http://orbitsimulator.com/formulas/

I'd better elaborate on that last post about the Kozai effect. Let's suppose that the Moon was at about ninety degrees to the Earth, so it's in a polar eccentric orbit. The Kozai effect states that it can trade off its eccentricity for an equatorial circular orbit. This is a conserved effect rather like angular momentum is conserved. We need a third mass body, and in this case it would be the Sun.

Now let's jump to any number of exoplanetary systems, and the one to google is Kepler 11. Here we have massive gas giants very close in to their primary, and the Kozai effect is the favourite theory to explain the hows and whys of it. That would mean a hidden mass object, such as Joe's brown dwarf, or galactic centre. In the case of Kepler 11 that hidden object must be at a high angle to the ecliptic of the star, so that the planets have pulled in and gone into a near circular polar orbit. This has to have been a rather fast process as the planets haven't had time to boil of their atmospheres.

Ball park figure for the effect of Joe's planet on the Earth, due to the Kozai effect. The cycle will take about a hundred million year to go from maxima to minima. So the orbit could go from a perfect circle to an ellipse of some eccentricity (not worked out yet as I don't have the inclination)in about fifty million years. Of course then we'd need to work out the Kozai effect on all the planets and see how this correlates to our planet.

Hi Joe, you know that if you write a new post on the thread, then a notification is sent to all the subscribers. However, if you simply edit an old post, then nothing is sent out that directs subscribers to the edited post. It doesn't matter if you're just tidying up the odd typo but if you want comments on your edits, then it's best to quote your earlier post and then say how you want to alter it.

[Stoat] " ... if you simply edit an old post, then nothing is sent out ... "

Technically this is true - nothing is broadcast to the subscribers. However, the editing process does cause the "new post since your last visit" flag to be set, and all members see this the next time they visit. Also, a time stamp note is automatically added to the bottom of the editied post. But if your edit was not to the most recent post, there is no indication to the visitor of which post was edited. You have to search for it, manually, if you are interested.

(It is an old message board product. We have plans to replace it. No guess as to when that will actually happen, however.)

Sloat, You have posted two more gems and they indicate the object Dr Joe does not in fact exist. So, now is the time to look at what is wrong in the math always used by astronomers. The basic problem(IMO) is the misplacement of gravity force that is a clear result of assuming too much when placing the mass of an object at it's center.

First thoughts on that. The star is off centre from one of the "rings," a collapsing protostar will first eject a disk of material from its equator. This will be about half the star's initial mass. At its next disequilibrium point, it will eject a Jupiter mass, or greater, protoplanet. Both bodies have to move when this happens.

Hi Joe, I was looking in an old book by Carl Sagan, and in it he talks about a strange radio emission lobe about thirty degrees from galactic centre. Actually it looks a lot like a "willy." It curves round, ending up at its tip near Crater.

[Today, March 3, 2011, I formally completed the submission of this paper to the peer-reviewed journal, Celestial Mechanics (Springer). The submitted version is on p. 53 of this thread, originally dated Nov. 15, 2010, but improved considerably until Feb. 28, 2011. Before submitting to Celestial Mechanics, I had submitted it twice to Observatory, but minus the best section, Section IX. In contrast to Celestial Mechanics, whose editor rejected the paper within a day without sending it for peer review, Observatory responded appropriately, peer-reviewing it after each submission: the peer reviews amounted to several pages, including a few quantitative checks of my figures, which found no errors. However, Observatory declined to publish the paper. Here is the most improved version. I'll continue to make improvements by editing here on p. 56, while leaving on p. 53 of this thread, the version submitted to Celestial Mechanics.

(Apr. 9) I have now sent the paper to the editor of Astronomische Nachrichten but have heard nothing, not even an acknowledgment (as of May 5); maybe sending the paper in the body of an email was not acceptable to him and deemed unworthy of response. So, tomorrow I'll arrange to print up nice copies that I'll distribute myself.]

Mars' medieval and ancient orbital period

Abstract. Vedic planetary and lunar parameters, mostly originating c. 3100BC, conform superbly to modern theory, except that the Vedic orbital period for Mars is short. Most of the best ancient and medieval information (Seleucid Babylonian, Arabic/Byzantine/Persian, and most moderns before LeVerrier) shows a swift linear time trend in Mars' orbital period. However, Ptolemy and Kepler, and also the Seleucid Babylonian record of a Mars stellar conjunction at stationarity, conform well to modern theory. The apparent anomaly of Mars' orbital period, shows suggestive relationships not only with Earth's precession period, but also with the deviation of the Jupiter-Saturn Great Inequality from its average value.

Contents

I. Introduction II. The 1336AD Trebizond & related 1353AD almanac tables III. The Trebizond and Alfonsine almanac parameters IV. Refining the almanac parameters V. The 1590AD Heidelberg Venus-Mars occultation VI. The 251BC Seleucid conjunction of Mars with Eta Geminorum at stationarity VII. Seleucid and Ptolemaic parameters VIII. Han China IX. Vedic India X. Discussion Appendix 1. Plethon's mean motion of Mars Appendix 2. Kepler's mean motion of Mars Appendix 3. Ancient sidereal year and mean solar day

I. Introduction.

The well-known 13::8 Venus::Earth conjunction resonance point, regresses with period 1192.8 yr, according to prevailing modern estimates of the planets' periods. Likewise the analogous 19::3 Mars::Jupiter conjunction resonance point, progresses with period 2*1188.48 yr, twice the period of the Venus-Earth point.

Suppose this -2::1 ratio, of the Venus::Earth regression to the Mars::Jupiter progression rates, is constant. Maybe an unknown force, acting on triads instead of pairs of bodies, causes this. The orbits of Venus and Earth are nearly circular and relatively close to the Sun. The orbital period of Mars might be much more affected by Jupiter or other perturbations. Suppose the orbital periods of Venus and Earth are practically constant, so the Venus::Earth regression rate stays the same. Then, the orbital period of Mars must change by the same proportion as that of Jupiter, if the Mars::Jupiter progression rate is to stay the same too.

If Jupiter and Saturn maintain constant total J+S orbital angular momentum, nearly constant semimajor axes, and small eccentricity, then their orbital frequencies must change by almost exactly equal and opposite amounts. Then the Great Inequality of Jupiter and Saturn, can be restored to its calculated average value, 1092.9 yr [1, p. 287], only by shortening Jupiter's period, by about 1 part in 3000. According to the speculation of the previous paragraph, the orbital period of Mars also would shorten by 1 part in 3000.

The published calculations based on the theory of gravity, say that planetary orbital periods change only very slowly; Mars' orbital period shortens only 1 part in 350,000,000 per 1000 yrs [2, p. 24][3]. At that rate, 10^8 yr might be needed, in a linear extrapolation, to restore the Great Inequality to its average value. If fluctuations toward or away from the average Great Inequality occur much faster, there might be historical evidence. The purpose of this paper is to examine medieval and ancient records for evidence of a change in the orbital period of Mars.

Sometimes upper and lower bounds will be found, often due to rounding error in the information source, restricting the result to an interval of a priori uniform probability. Sometimes several results found by similar methods, will be averaged with equal weight. Always, uncertainty will be given as root-mean-square ("rms") using, when appropriate, Standard Error of the Mean ("SEM").

II. The 1336AD Trebizond & related 1353AD almanac tables.

Trebizond was "the last refuge of Hellenistic civilization" [4, article "Trebizond, empire of"]. The 1336AD Almanac for Trebizond was authored by Manuel, a Christian priest of Trebizond, but apparently referred to parameters from contemporary Persian and Arabic almanacs. Mercier [5] also includes fragments of three 1353AD almanacs: the 1353AD Constantinople almanac by Manuel's student Chrysococces, and two 1353AD Persian almanacs, the Zij-i Ilkhani & Zij-i Alai, on which that of Chrysococces might in part be based [5, p. 161].

The Trebizond almanac table is said [5, p. 60] to give noon planetary, lunar and solar longitudes to the day and arcminute (the other almanacs resemble it, except that the Persian almanacs give longitudes to 0.1'). Because of the mathematical and astrological importance of planetary conjunction, the almanac should be most accurate then. Consideration of longitude differences, circumvents exact determination of the almanac's equinox. Interpolating, I find the geocentric ecliptic longitude difference between Venus and the Sun, at the time when Mars and Venus have equal geocentric longitudes, according to the Trebizond almanac for Muharram 10 & 11, 1336AD, and again according to the JPL ephemeris for 0h Aug. 19 & 20 [6]. In [6] I work from heliocentric planetary positions corrected for light time and for Earth surface parallax at Trebizond. I neglect the small error due to use of the J2000.0 ecliptic for heliocentric longitudes in [6] but use of the approximate ecliptic of date in the Trebizond almanac.

Ideally, the Venus-minus-Sun longitude difference, at Venus-Mars conjunction, would be the same in the medieval almanacs as in [6]. Actually, when Venus-minus-Sun is the same, the discrepancy in the Venus & Mars longitudes is 10.3 arcminutes in the Trebizond almanac; almost three times it, in the Persian almanacs; and almost ten times it, in Chrysococces' almanac. So henceforth I consider only the Trebizond almanac: the most favorable 0.5 arcminute rounding corrections, reduce its discrepancy to 8.0'. This discrepancy can be removed by moving Mars 857 minutes of time, prograde in its orbit in [6].

In my Sec. V, I find that the Moestlin/Kepler description of the 1590AD Venus/Mars occultation, most reasonably implies that Venus' orbital period is slightly longer than in [6]; this amounts to moving Venus 93.6 minutes of time prograde in 1336AD in [6]: with such a corrrection, Mars need be moved only 418 minutes of time prograde in [6]. (Relying on [6] circumvents the need to make elliptical orbit calculations requiring the formulas given in, inter alia, [7, eqns. 4.57 & 4.60, pp. 84, 85].) Mars' orbit is more eccentric and more subject to perturbation by Jupiter, so Mars' JPL ephemeris for a remote time would be less accurate than for

Bright Stars over the Pyramids: Atlantean Knowledge (Part 4) by Joseph C. Keller, M. D., September 2, 2009

Luna's vs. Khafre's heights. ...

"...secondary cycle...of perigee...lunar distance varies between 356,375 and 406,720km, the minimum being the 'proxigee' [cites FJ Wood, "Tidal Dynamics", 1986]."

- JH Duke, 2009, johnduke.com

Measuring from the base of Khufu (the biggest pyramid, and the one with the lowest base) the height of Khafre's apex (the highest pyramid) is 5664 +/- 13 inches (per Petrie) above Khafre's base; Khafre's base is 1011 cm (per Vyse) above Khufu's base, giving Khafre's total height as 6062.0 inches.

The ratio of Luna's "proxigee" (nearest perigee, as center-to-center distance) to Khafre's total height, equals the number of days in 6337 +/- 14 yr. My best estimate of Barbarossa's period (either from my four sky survey detections, or from my calculation of Year One of the Egyptian calendar from Sothic dates) is 6340yr.

...

The number of Julian days in 6339.5 tropical yr, assuming a 365.25636 Julian d sidereal yr and Newcomb's precession (linear formula) for 6339.5/2 - 113 yr before 1900AD (i.e., midpoint of latest Barbarossa period) is 2315454.1. Assuming 2.0 ms/century day lengthening, this becomes 2315455.8 actual mean solar days. Solstice-to-solstice time also varies a few days because of Earth's eccentricity, but this is negligible anyway. The latter figure, times the height of Khafre's pyramid (6062 +/- 13 inches, referred to Khufu's base) is 356522 km (the last two or three digits are not significant).

The JPL Horizons ephemeris gives the closest approach (center to center) of Luna to Earth on March 19, 2011, as 356574 km. Though of questionable numerical significance, this fits the above, better than the 356375 km theoretical proxigee.

Dr Joe, Can you post an explaination of why you have been logging in and not posting anything for several months? I am puzzled and wonder if I'm missing something important. thanks