Requiem for Relativity

More
11 years 10 months ago #13855 by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
Why the half-width half-maximum uncertainty of doomsday is 64 days

The time of an event involving one electron, has Heisenberg standard deviation uncertainty dt = 1 / omega = hbar / (m * c^2) where m is the electron mass, and the famous relations of Heisenberg, Planck, and Einstein have been used. If Earth participates in an event, as if it were completely decomposed into electrons or positrons, M/m of them, the time uncertainty would be dT = sqrt(M/m) * dt where M is Earth's mass. A neutron can decompose into an electron and a proton, so although baryons are composed of quarks, maybe ultimately quarks can behave as if they decompose into electron masses. Using the 1987 CRC Handbook "consistent values" M = 5.9763*10^27 gram, m = 0.9109534/10^27 gram, hbar = 1.0545887/10^27 erg-sec, c = 2.99792458*10^10 cm/sec, I find

dT = 38.1856 days

Let's further speculate that not only actual leptons (electrons & positrons) but also an equal number of equivalent subspace "holes" participate. Also, let's assume that the associated mass-energy of the electric fields of the (maximally compressed) leptons and holes, does not participate. This introduces correction factors

sqrt(2) * (1 + 1/137.036) = 1.4245336 --> T = 54.3967 days

The half-width half-maximum is T * 1.1776 = 64.058 days, almost exactly equal to the whole number given by the Aug. 9 crop formation in Hampshire.

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

More
11 years 10 months ago #13856 by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
Famous 1990 crop formation trio, indicates Dec 15 - Feb 17 - Apr 22 Full Width Half Maximum

The earliest crop formations shown in Lucy Pringle's gallery, at

lucypringle.co.uk

are the three in 1990. These are the famous "Zeppelin" rock music album cover formation of July 11 in Wiltshire, another less famous and slightly simpler formation also July 11 in Wiltshire, and another formation, simpler than either of the others, July 13 in Hampshire.

In comparing these, it's best to turn Pringle's photo of the "Zeppelin" formation, upside down. The top three disks of that formation now signify Mercury, Venus & Earth; Earth has the three-pronged fork for third planet, and is connected to a "bull's eye" with a line plus two extra bars for emphasis. The other formation of that day, is the same but omits Mercury, Venus and the three-pronged fork; also Earth is below the bull's eye instead of above it as in the Zeppelin formation.

In the bottom parts of both July 11 formations, Venus is denoted by a two-pronged fork. The big bull's eye with either a three-pronged fork or a three-pronged comb, and a small stump opposite that, is Earth again. The stump is the Sun's geocentric ecliptic longitude, and the fork is Earth's heliocentric ecliptic longitude. The two-pronged fork on the connected Venus disk, gives the heliocentric ecliptic longitude of Venus, relative to Earth's, in about Dec. 2012 (Zeppelin formation) or Apr 2013 (other July 11 formation).

The "other" July 11 formation, has a small disk at the bottom, connected by a line to the Earth disk; the junction with this line signifies the longitude of Lunar apogee. In the Zeppelin formation, a line through the small disk and an even smaller one nearby, serves this purpose.

The July 13 formation has four bars, not two. This means that the two July 11 formations signify the half-maxima. When I overcome the difficulty of finding angles exactly from these photos taken from unknown distance, azimuth, altitude, and aim point, then I'll be able to test this theory, and give exact dates.

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

More
11 years 10 months ago #13857 by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
Why Algieba was chosen

In previous posts I show that the latitude of Teotihuacan is such that Algieba would have precisely reached the zenith there, at its opposition in early 2013, if the small pole shift deduced by Petrie from the Giza layout, had not occurred. According to Sky Catalog 2000.0 and the NASA Lambda coordinate utility, the J2000 ecliptic longitude of Algieba (neglecting aberration) at 2013.0AD is 149.6161. According to the JPL ephemeris, the Sun reaches this longitude plus 180 deg, i.e. opposition to Algieba, slightly before 03h GMT Feb. 18, measuring the Sun's longitude using *the ecliptic of date*. Correction to J2000 coordinates, changes this time to a little after 07h GMT Feb. 18. So, the opposition of Algieba occurs only a day after the maximum catastrophe probability, according to my interpretation of the crop circles.

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

More
11 years 10 months ago #13858 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 Joe Keller</i>
<br />Famous 1990 crop formation trio, indicates Dec 15 - Feb 17 - Apr 22 Full Width Half Maximum ...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Contrary to my guess in the above Nov. 13, 2012, message, the two July 11, 1990 crop formations indicate the fall 2012 and spring 2013 equinoxes. I drew the cardinal points of the ellipses (circles distorted by the angle of the photo) by eye, and made a lowest order correction for the oblique view, by stretching the ellipses into circles mathematically by a "homothetic transformation". For example, if the major axis is at theta = 10 deg, a point on the ellipse is at theta = 30 deg, and the axis ratio of the ellipse is 0.8:1, the true angle is estimated as 10 + arctan (tan(30-10)*1/0.8) = 34.5deg. Because the axis ratios were never extreme, the corrections were never more than a few degrees. Because the individual crop circle disks are much smaller than the altitude from which the photos were taken (that is, almost all the error is from oblique view, not the finite distance) this correction should remove almost all the error.

For the "Earth" disks, I drew a line through the base of the "flag" and the base of the "stump" on the opposite side of the ellipse. For the Venus disks, I drew the line through the base of the flag and the center of the ellipse. For Luna, I drew a line through the two small circles near the Earth disk; the smaller of the two small circles seems to have been cut off of Pringle's photo (or maybe there was none).

The JPL ephemeris gives these longitudes:

fall equinox 2012, Sep 22 14:49 GMT

Earth (heliocentric J2000) 359.82
Venus (heliocentric J2000) 68.18
Luna (geocentric, equinox of date) 267.36

spring equinox 2013, Mar 20 11:02 GMT

Earth (heliocentric J2000) 179.81
Venus (heliocentric J2000) 354.88
Luna (geocentric, equinox of date) 97.97

For comparison, the crop formations indicate positions relative to Earth, equivalent to

fall equinox 2012

Venus (heliocentric J2000) 65.9
Luna (geocentric, equinox of date) 274.3

spring equinox 2012

Venus (heliocentric J2000) 358.1
Luna (geocentric, equinox of date) unknown; part of formation missing in photo

Thus the Luna position is off by only 7 deg (half a day's motion) and the two Venus positions off by only 2 or 3 deg (3 to 5 days' motion). What is being bracketed, is not the Feb. 17 date, but rather the winter solstice, bracketed by the two equinoxes depicted by the July 11, 1990 formations.

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

More
11 years 10 months ago #13861 by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
Related prime numbers: a circlemakers' trademark

The July 11, 1990 date for the two crop formations indicating the 2012 autumnal & 2013 vernal equinoxes, might have been chosen because of the following special relation which serves as a trademark of their authenticity:

x^2 / y - y^2 / x = approximate integer, where x & y are prime

July 11, 1990, is 8108 days before the 2012 autumnal equinox (Sep 22) and 8287 days before the 2013 vernal equinox (Mar 20). 8287 is prime and 8108 is almost prime: 8108 = 4 * 2027, and 2027 is prime. Using the prime number 2027 instead of the nonprime 8108, we find

8287^2 / 2027 - 2027^2 / 8287 = 33,384.00295

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

More
11 years 9 months ago #13868 by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
Here's my rewritten post about the Australian crop circle discovered Nov 23, 2012

This rewrite is extensive, and because it was delayed, I had deleted the original version, something I rarely do. Also, this is my rewrite of the version I lost in an internet connection glitch, which caused me briefly to have to post a summary.

I again used the most orthogonal of the images posted on cropcircleconnector.com, a Rosco Williams aerial photo, but this time just for variety I printed it out from weekio.com. My raw measurements, along a line through the flower center and petal tips along the long axis of the vescia piscis, are

top edge top outer circle 14.7 mm
top edge top inner circle 20.1
top edge bottom circle 37.2
flower center 50.0
bottom edge top circle 62.7
bottom edge bottom inner circle 75.2
bottom edge bottom outer circle 88.2

Denoting the raw measurement by x and the corrected measurement by y, I found "a" in the formula

y = -1/a * (exp(-a*x) - 1)

such that the diameters of the two outer circles become equal. The corrected measurements are

14.43, 19.60, 35.51, 46.97, 57.99, 68.49, 79.07

With this correction, the overlap is only 0.70 mm greater than for a perfect vesica piscis (i.e. pair of equal circles through each other's centers). This is within my ruler error and/or the higher-degree error of the correction formula, so I'll assume a perfect vesica piscis, which would have overlap area equal to 0.2430 of the total figure area. The area outside full-width half-maximum of a normal distribution, i.e. farther than 64 days from Feb. 17 according to the theory of my recent previous posts, is 0.2390, giving an error of only (0.2430-0.2390)/0.2390 = 1.7%. Furthermore the flower's six interpetal areas each are divided in two by fine lines, suggesting 2^6 = 64.

The areas between the outer & inner circles, using the corrected diameters, are 0.1388 & 0.2652 for the upper & lower circles, resp. This agrees with the area under the normal curve before Dec 21 (winter solstice) 58 days before Feb 17, which for a normal curve of half-width half-max 64 d, is 0.1429, and the area after Mar 20 (spring equinox) 31 days after Feb 17, 0.2842. The errors are (0.1388-0.1429)/0.1429 = -2.9% and (0.2652-0.2842)/0.2842 = -6.7%, resp.

Summarizing: the Australian crop formation discovered Nov 23, 2012 (said to have been made an estimated week or more earlier) uses an arcuate design, to signify a normal distribution with mean 31 days before the 2013 spring equinox and 58 days after the 2012 winter solstice. The half-width half-maximum is indicated by the flower, to be 64 days.

Addendum Dec 14: For greater accuracy, I averaged my measurements on my old printout from cropcircleconnector.com and my new printout from weekio.com (they are the same Rosco Williams photo and though the sizes are slightly different, that hardly affects the important results):

top edge top outer circle 15.8 mm
top edge top inner circle 21.1
top edge bottom circle 37.8
flower center 50.0
bottom edge top circle 62.35
bottom edge bottom inner circle 74.65
bottom edge bottom outer circle 87.3

Assuming that the formation really is exactly a vesica piscis, I have two conditions on the corrected measurements: that the outer circles have equal diameters, and that the overlap be half that diameter. This allowed me to specify a higher degree correction formula,

y = x + A*x^2 + B*x^3

where A = -0.0043856 & B = +0.000022134, and the corrected measurements now are

14.792, 19.355, 32.729, 41.803, 50.666, 59.418, 68.603

The areas between the outer & inner circles, using these new corrected diameters, are 0.1480 & 0.2775 for the upper & lower circles, resp. This agrees even better with the area under the normal curve before Dec 21 (winter solstice) 58 days before Feb 17, which for a normal curve of half-width half-max 64 d, is 0.1429, and the area after Mar 20 (spring equinox) 31 days after Feb 17, 0.2842. The errors are (0.1480-0.1429)/0.1429 = +3.6% and (0.2775-0.2842)/0.2842 = -2.4%, resp.

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

Time to create page: 0.378 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum