Requiem for Relativity

More
13 years 11 months ago #20980 by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
Just by way of a little note to myself; got a memory like a sieve. Speed of gravity 2.919E 25 metres per second, take the cube root of that and invert it to get the reciprocal. That's the Planck mass. Stick that value into the equation for the Schwarzschild radius with the following alterations.

r = Gm / pi*a*c^2

a = the fine structure constant.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 11 months ago #20981 by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
Hi Joe, to get that last equation I used h / mc = Gm / a*pi*c^2 Then rearranged that to get
h*c*a*pi /G =m^2

Now I seem to recall you had something along those lines someplace in the thread, though with a hbar in it.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 11 months ago #20982 by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
Predicting "2012" from intragalactic redshift periodicity and Barbarossa's orbit

In my previous post, I noted the periodicity in Blitz's 12-CO line catalog of intragalactic HII region RVs. This periodicity was obviously significant for the largest and most precisely measured regions (those six with >= 100 arcminute diameter and < 1 km/s uncertainty).

Last night I expanded my program to include all 194+47=241 definite regions in Blitz's "A" and "B" catalogs. I weighted the regions, not by diameter squared = area, but rather by diameter to the first power = portion of galactic equator subtended. Then, as described in my previous post, I corrected for any possible second harmonic effect of galactic longitude, by multiplying the weights by a second weight factor chosen so that every second-harmonic "bin" (e.g., galactic longitude 15-30 together with 195-210) has the same total weight.

With the second weight factor, the periodogram peak is 2.3459 km/s. Without the second weight factor (using only the diameter^1 weight factor) the peak is 2.3498 km/s. The diameter^1 weight factor makes the data much lumpier in longitude; I think that the second weight factor is needed to correct for this lumpiness. With the second weight factor, the best fitting sinusoid differs only 16deg from a pure cosine, vs. 22deg without it. Using only a pure cosine to fit (this is justified by a symmetry argument), and also using both weight factors, so that both region size and longitude are considered (uncertainty is considered, too, by the method detailed in my previous post) I find

2.3472 km/s

as my best estimate based on all Blitz's data. This corresponds to Barbarossa's scalar speed, relative to the total solar system center of mass (see my previous post) at 2013.19 AD.

Using only every odd datum in the preceding, gives 2.3431 km/s and only every even datum, 2.3426 km/s. This gives an error estimate: if the value 2.3472 represents the average of results of two half data sets both giving values near 2.3472, then I can find the standard deviation of the (four) such half data set results I know about, and thus the error of the full data set result: it corresponds to 0.86 yr of Barbarossa's travel.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 11 months ago #20983 by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
The Bent Pyramid: a bigger winner than I thought

The declination of Arcturus at 4327.5 BC, was +55.2307deg. To make this calculation today, I used:

the "rigorous" precession formula from the 1990 Astronomical Almanac, p. B18
the mean of the J2000.5 and J1999.5 coords. of Arcturus from the respective Almanacs
Wikipedia's proper motion values, -1.09345 & -1.99940 "/yr in RA & Decl
Wikipedia's RV, +5 km/s

I used the usual first-order proper motion extrapolation, correcting the change in RA according to the secant of the midrange J2000.0 declination. My first order correction for RV, which I've never used before, added only 0.0050deg, which I've included in the result. Porter, Astronomical Journal 12:28, 1892, gives PM -0.80 & -1.98 "/yr in RA & Decl; Porter's PM values would have lessened the result by only 0.0034deg. The consensus of published astronomical opinion seems to be that Ptolemy's catalog confirms Arcturus' proper motion as very roughly constant for 2000 yr, and that Brahe's catalog gives much more accurate confirmation going back 400 yr.

This declination, would have been the geographic latitude of a place where Arcturus reached the zenith, according to a plumb line, at the start of the Egyptian calendar one "Barbarossa period" (6339.5 tropical yr) before the end of the Mayan Long Count. (The start of the Egyptian calendar, was at a summer solstice when Arcturus rose heliacally at Giza; but this was changed slightly, when the Upper Egypt calendar, which began a few days later when Arcturus rose heliacally at Elephantine Island the same year, replaced that of Lower Egypt.)

In a 2009 post, accurizing an observation by Bert Janssen, I explain that, considering Earth's oblateness, and assuming a few miles shift in Earth's pole suggested by Petrie (the Great Pyramid aligns 5 arcminutes off present true north, and is about a mile from the 30th parallel today, despite evidence that a relatively awkward building site was chosen because for some unknown reason, fractions of a mile were important in its placement), the 3-space angle, pole-Giza(Menkaure)-Stonehenge equals the angle pole-Earthcenter-Stonehenge with only 100 meters error. Menkaure's slope, well preserved by its granite siding, also equals (the complement of) this angle, with only 4 arcmin error.

So, Menkaure's pyramid memorializes the geocentric latitude of Stonehenge, not the geographic latitude. Likewise the Bent Pyramid apparently memorializes the geocentric latitude of any place where at 4327.5 BC, Arcturus reached the zenith defined by a plumb line. The conversion to geocentric latitude gives 55.0494deg = 55deg 3'. According to an online discussion by John Legon, Petrie's and Dorner's measured values for the mean angle of the "lower part" of the "lower slope" of the Bent Pyramid, are 55deg 1' and 55deg 5', resp., in excellent agreement with this theory.

The builders knew all along, they couldn't maintain that slope all the way to the vertex, so they fulfilled their mission, by making it the lower slope, or at least the lower part of the lower slope, as it is today (in the mean). What about the upper slope?

The "Sothic cycles" of Prof. Eduard Meyer, are the time intervals between heliacal risings of Sirius on a given date in the official (leapyear-less) 365-day Egyptian calendar. In my earlier posts, I explained that the Egyptian calendar, and "Sothic" date of Amenhotep I, are based rather on "Arcturian" cycles. The date of Amenhotep I is two Arcturian cycles after the beginning of the calendar: the average length of these cycles, I found as (4329-1533)/2 = 1398 yr. The Barbarossa period, 6340 yr, nearly equals 4.5 Arcturian cycles = 4.5*1398 = 6291 yr. Perhaps knowing some of this, Joseph Scaliger chose "Julian Day 1" to be about 6295 yr prior to the beginning of the Gregorian calendar. Also, Hindu texts say there are 6333 Gandharvas, asociated with cyclical divisions of the sky.

The Egyptians would have been likelier to memorialize 1/3 Barbarossa cycle, than to memorialize, say, 1/2 or 1/4, because 1/3 Barbarossa cycle is 1.5 Arcturian cycles, not 2.25 or 1.125. A third of a Barbarossa period, is 6339/3 = 2113 yr, that is, 4329 BC + 2113 = 2216 BC. Maybe the Bent and Red pyramids' slopes (upper slope for the Bent) were chosen in anticipation of a timeline milestone almost 400 yr in their future.

At this milestone (i.e., 1/3 Barbarossa cycle = approx. 1.5 Arcturian cycle) the geocentric latitude, where Arcturus is at the plumbline zenith (i.e., geographic latitude = Arcturus' declination in coordinates of the ecliptic of date), would be 43deg 45', with precise enough accounting for proper motion, radial velocity, and precession, similar to my previous calculation. The most often seen estimates of the slopes of the Red (a.k.a. Northern Dahshur), and (upper) Bent (a.k.a. Southern Dahshur), Pyramids, are both 43deg 22'. However, Dr. Ahmed Fakhry, "The Pyramids" (U. of Chicago Press, 1961), p. 95, gives 43deg 40' for the Red Pyramid. Dr. I. E. S. Edwards (Keeper of Egyptian Antiquities at the British Museum 1955-1974), "The Pyramids of Egypt", p. 89, says the Red Pyramid is "the earliest tomb known to have been completed as a true pyramid", and that its slope is 43deg 36' 11".

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 11 months ago #20984 by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
Clues that the Barbarossa orbit is real

The orbit I fit to the four images of Barbarossa, has eccentricity 0.6106. As I remarked in my earlier post, Aitken's text gives 0.61 & 0.615 as mean eccentricities for wide binaries, according to Henry (quoted in Aitken) & Aitken, resp. This eccentricity is close to the "golden ratio", or rather the reciprocal of the golden ratio, 1/1.6180... = 0.6180... . At this eccentricity, the major axis is to the minor axis, as the minor axis is to the interfocal segment. Furthermore, Kapur (cited by Kulshrestha & Sag, Geometriae Dedicata 30:183+, 1989) is said to have proved that a sequence of ellipses for which each ellipse, has interfocal distance equal to the minor axis of its predecessor, and minor axis equal to the major axis of its predecessor, converges to e = 0.6180... (apparently Kulshrestha's abstract gives a slightly wrong value for the golden ratio).

My calculation of Barbarossa's orbit last year (see my earlier post), shows that Barbarossa's aphelion, is 0.4deg or less, from the celestial coordinates of the galactic center. This is more evidence that the sky survey points are real, and that the orbit is real. Also, Barbarossa's orbital pole, at J2000.0 ecliptic coords (200.84, +77.07), is near 45 deg (precisely, 48.24deg) from the galactic north pole at J2000.0 ecliptic coords (180.02320,+29.81153) (Wikipedia value, converted using NASA lambda online utility). These orientations involve a zero rate of change, from galactic tidal forces, of energy and angular momentum.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 years 11 months ago #20985 by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
Height of Mt. Meru: another Vedic record of Barbarossa's period

Above, I mention that apparently, sometimes 27 Gandharvas signified Luna's 27 day (solar day?) sidereal period, but oftener, one speaks of 6333 Gandharvas, perhaps signifying Barbarossa's 6333 year (tropical year?) sidereal period, close to the 6339.5 tropical yr, inferred from the "Sothic" dates of the Egyptian calendar together with the Mayan Long Count, and also close to the 6340 +/- 7 yr calculated from the sky surveys.

Converting this Vedic record of Barbarossa's sidereal period, to sidereal months (instead of tropical years) gives

6333*365.24219/27.322 = 84660 sidereal months = Barbarossa period

Using Joseph Scaliger's obscurely derived 6295 yr, gives

6295/6333*84660 = 84152 sidereal months = Barbarossa period

There is a Vedic record of this figure also. Mt. Meru (roughly the Vedic equivalent of Mt. Olympus) is said to be 84000 yojana high (the yojana was a unit of length equal to several miles).

"Mount Meru...being described as 84,000 Yojanas high, and having the Sun along with all its planets and stars in the Solar System revolve around it as one unit."

- Wikipedia article, "Mt. Meru"

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.557 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum