- Thank you received: 0
Requiem for Relativity
- Joe Keller
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
10 years 6 months ago #22314
by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
What time is indicated by the trilithons of the large horseshoe at Stonehenge?
My previous posts explain why it is reasonable to suppose that the orientation of the trilithons relative to the posthole AB line, indicates declinations of four particular bright stars. My first effort used the trilithons in isolation. Correcting for precession and proper motion, I now find that the times indicated this way are
Rigel 1953AD
Regulus 1444AD
Spica 1915AD
Procyon 1902AD
The outlier, Regulus, corresponds the trilithon that was re-erected. As I mentioned in my previous post, there is reason to think that re-erection was misguided by an overly simple idea of the stone arrangement.
As discussed previously, the position of the four trilithons on their circle, gives another set of implied declinations. Using a slight correction to the positions, to make the circle perfect, I find the indicated times are
Rigel 2172.5 AD
Regulus 2024.4 AD
Spica 2012.3 AD
Procyon 2012.3 AD
While the agreement between Spica and Procyon must be partly accidental, it is remarkable that Spica and Procyon do correspond to the only pristine trilithons. Rigel's trilithon has one pillar fallen, so I had to guess the center position. As mentioned above, Regulus' trilithon was re-erected.
So we have a remarkable agreement with the theory that Stonehenge was yet another 2012 predictor, in addition to Giza, Teotihuacan, and Cholula.
My previous posts explain why it is reasonable to suppose that the orientation of the trilithons relative to the posthole AB line, indicates declinations of four particular bright stars. My first effort used the trilithons in isolation. Correcting for precession and proper motion, I now find that the times indicated this way are
Rigel 1953AD
Regulus 1444AD
Spica 1915AD
Procyon 1902AD
The outlier, Regulus, corresponds the trilithon that was re-erected. As I mentioned in my previous post, there is reason to think that re-erection was misguided by an overly simple idea of the stone arrangement.
As discussed previously, the position of the four trilithons on their circle, gives another set of implied declinations. Using a slight correction to the positions, to make the circle perfect, I find the indicated times are
Rigel 2172.5 AD
Regulus 2024.4 AD
Spica 2012.3 AD
Procyon 2012.3 AD
While the agreement between Spica and Procyon must be partly accidental, it is remarkable that Spica and Procyon do correspond to the only pristine trilithons. Rigel's trilithon has one pillar fallen, so I had to guess the center position. As mentioned above, Regulus' trilithon was re-erected.
So we have a remarkable agreement with the theory that Stonehenge was yet another 2012 predictor, in addition to Giza, Teotihuacan, and Cholula.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Joe Keller
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
10 years 6 months ago #22706
by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
What time is indicated by the trilithons of the large horseshoe at Stonehenge?
My previous posts explain why it is reasonable to suppose that the orientation of the trilithons relative to the posthole AB line, indicates declinations of four particular bright stars. My first effort used the trilithons in isolation. Correcting for precession and proper motion, I now find that the times indicated this way are
Rigel 1953AD
Regulus 1444AD
Spica 1915AD
Procyon 1902AD
The outlier, Regulus, corresponds the trilithon that was re-erected. As I mentioned in my previous post, there is reason to think that re-erection was misguided by an overly simple idea of the stone arrangement.
As discussed previously, the position of the four trilithons on their circle, gives another set of implied declinations. Using a slight correction to the positions, to make the circle perfect, I find the indicated times are
Rigel 2172.5 AD
Regulus 2024.4 AD
Spica 2012.3 AD
Procyon 2012.3 AD
While the agreement between Spica and Procyon must be partly accidental, it is remarkable that Spica and Procyon do correspond to the only pristine trilithons. Rigel's trilithon has one pillar fallen, so I had to guess the center position. As mentioned above, Regulus' trilithon was re-erected.
So we have a remarkable agreement with the theory that Stonehenge was yet another 2012 predictor, in addition to Giza, Teotihuacan, and Cholula.
My previous posts explain why it is reasonable to suppose that the orientation of the trilithons relative to the posthole AB line, indicates declinations of four particular bright stars. My first effort used the trilithons in isolation. Correcting for precession and proper motion, I now find that the times indicated this way are
Rigel 1953AD
Regulus 1444AD
Spica 1915AD
Procyon 1902AD
The outlier, Regulus, corresponds the trilithon that was re-erected. As I mentioned in my previous post, there is reason to think that re-erection was misguided by an overly simple idea of the stone arrangement.
As discussed previously, the position of the four trilithons on their circle, gives another set of implied declinations. Using a slight correction to the positions, to make the circle perfect, I find the indicated times are
Rigel 2172.5 AD
Regulus 2024.4 AD
Spica 2012.3 AD
Procyon 2012.3 AD
While the agreement between Spica and Procyon must be partly accidental, it is remarkable that Spica and Procyon do correspond to the only pristine trilithons. Rigel's trilithon has one pillar fallen, so I had to guess the center position. As mentioned above, Regulus' trilithon was re-erected.
So we have a remarkable agreement with the theory that Stonehenge was yet another 2012 predictor, in addition to Giza, Teotihuacan, and Cholula.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Joe Keller
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
10 years 6 months ago #22315
by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
"Chemtrails"
Over the years there's been speculation that the increased width and persistence of the white trails left by some jets, to the extent that they often cover much of the sky, is due to a fuel additive (such as barium salts or metallic microfibers) that is part of a government program to cool the Earth. Most people who discuss the topic date the appearance of the new so-called "chemtrails" to 1996, and that's when I first noticed them.
I found some confirmation of this in the current issue, July 2014, of Sky & Telescope, "Illuminating Earthshine", p. 55:
"...Earth's albedo made a distinct jump (by roughly 0.5%) from late 1998 through mid-2000, and then afterward it largely leveled off. By comparison, the Sun's output varies only by about 0.1% over an 11-year-long solar cycle."
The Stefan-Boltzmann law (which says that radiated energy is proportional to the fourth power of absolute temperature) gives an estimate of how much this would affect Earth's temperature. I think the most appropriate definition of Earth's albedo would be the "Bond albedo", 29%. So if reflectance is 0.5% more, then absorption is affected proportionally less, by a factor 29/(100-29):
300K * 0.005/4 * 29/71 = 0.15 degrees centigrade colder
Over the years there's been speculation that the increased width and persistence of the white trails left by some jets, to the extent that they often cover much of the sky, is due to a fuel additive (such as barium salts or metallic microfibers) that is part of a government program to cool the Earth. Most people who discuss the topic date the appearance of the new so-called "chemtrails" to 1996, and that's when I first noticed them.
I found some confirmation of this in the current issue, July 2014, of Sky & Telescope, "Illuminating Earthshine", p. 55:
"...Earth's albedo made a distinct jump (by roughly 0.5%) from late 1998 through mid-2000, and then afterward it largely leveled off. By comparison, the Sun's output varies only by about 0.1% over an 11-year-long solar cycle."
The Stefan-Boltzmann law (which says that radiated energy is proportional to the fourth power of absolute temperature) gives an estimate of how much this would affect Earth's temperature. I think the most appropriate definition of Earth's albedo would be the "Bond albedo", 29%. So if reflectance is 0.5% more, then absorption is affected proportionally less, by a factor 29/(100-29):
300K * 0.005/4 * 29/71 = 0.15 degrees centigrade colder
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
10 years 6 months ago #23229
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Dr Joe, The blackbody law predicts the power level of radiators and since our lovely planet is radiating at some level above 275K how much energy is it radiating? Also, since our planet receives ~7% more sun light in the month of Dec. than it gets in June why is zero cooling noticed in June?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Joe Keller
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
10 years 6 months ago #22316
by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />...since our planet receives ~7% more sun light in the month of Dec. than it gets in June why is zero cooling noticed in June?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Good point: the usual explanation is, that the seasons are more extreme in the southern hemisphere because they're tipped away from the sun and farther from the sun at the same time. But all this is open to being questioned.
<br />...since our planet receives ~7% more sun light in the month of Dec. than it gets in June why is zero cooling noticed in June?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Good point: the usual explanation is, that the seasons are more extreme in the southern hemisphere because they're tipped away from the sun and farther from the sun at the same time. But all this is open to being questioned.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
10 years 6 months ago #22317
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Dr Joe, It is one of several tiny effects swept aside in astronomy. The fact the moon orbits the sun is another tiny effect. My reason for bringing up stuff like this is they are far more important to events related to the climate and weather on Earth than anything done by humans such as the vapor trails of jet plains. Back in Newton's time it made sense to avoid tiny details since he had to work with ink and a quill pen. We have powerful computers currently being misused that could be used to determine what these real and tiny forces do.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.330 seconds