Requiem for Relativity

More accurate analysis of July 15, 2008 Avebury crop circle:
December 21.2 +/- 0.7, 2012

I printed out another image of Nick Nicholson's photo, this time from a different website, but the same size. The planets' positions are slightly different (according to lining up pinholes) but the difference in the results isn't explained by those differences. The different results must be due mainly to my more careful determination of the axes of the apparent ellipse (a two degree difference), which affects the correction for obliquity.

This time I considered only the angles, between Earth on the one hand, and Mercury, Venus, Mars or Jupiter on the other. I omitted the farther planets because angular distortions due to hilly terrain, the photocopy paper, or the image file itself, would be proportional to the square of the distance from the center, and thus the angle error is proportional to the distance from the center. For Jupiter though, this angle error is small because of Jupiter's small angle with Earth.

The angles between two planets other than Earth are linear functions of the angles between them and Earth, so give no independent information. Also, the circle makers might have been less attentive to such angles, or expected us to ignore them.

I used their orbital periods, to find the planets' positions on Dec. 24.0 & 25.0, 2012, for the equinox of 2013.0, then extrapolated linearly (the linearity of the Dec. 26.0 positions justified this). Because the Astronomical Almanac gives heliocentric coordinates for the equinox of date, only Mercury (because it's weighted so heavily in the computation) and Jupiter (because its previous cycle was in 2001) needed (small) equinox corrections.

If the angle error, as measured, is the same for all the planets, then the computed time error is inversely proportional to the difference in angular speed, planet vs. Earth. So the time computed from the angle, should be weighted proportionally to the square of that difference in angular speed.

Mercury gave December 20.53, 2012, with weight 9, and Jupiter Dec. 24.54 with weight 0.84. Venus gave Dec. 14.695, 2012, and Mars January 14.67, 2013, but with small weights. The weighted average is December 21.21 GMT, with expected error 0.7 d because this is the estimated error of the date given by Mercury.

Two years ago, I was completely censored from all the ALPO messageboards to which I tried to post anything (which was most of them, including those for Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and the outer solar system). (This censorship took the form either of denial of membership, or of censoring all my posts in entirety, individually.) One of the ALPO moderators set up a separate messageboard, presumably just for me, which no one else joined.

At the time, I thought the main reason ALPO ostracized me, was that Clay Sherrod had denounced me on one of their messageboards. Sherrod said I held, or had held, heretical political opinions unrelated to astronomy or physics (and I hadn't mentioned them to ALPO) but his context implied that such political heresy was an important reason for ostracizing me from the (federally tax-funded, as ALPO apparently gets at least free rent from the U. of Arizona) scientific forum. Sherrod also claimed that my calculations were erroneous, when in fact either Sherrod knew nothing of my calculations, or, in some cases, my remarks required no calculations.

Subsequently, I became aware, from Richard Hoagland's book, of the flattening of Earth's figure (obvious, if the photos are reliable) at an Earthrise photographed by Apollo 10 (from orbit, not the slow Earthrise visible in some places on the lunar surface due to libration). One of my posts to the ALPO messageboards, just before I was ostracized, had been about a similar distortion of Mars during an occultation.

Maybe the real reason I was banned from ALPO, was that I remarked on this distortion. Such a phenomenon would involve new physics which some might want to keep secret. One or two "big cheeses" could "pass the hint" to their underlings, that I should be ostracized on some irrelevant excuse, and, because such underlings are selected for being able to respond unquestioningly to such hints, they would toss in a few more irrelevant reasons of their own, and see to it that I was ostracized. The main near-term price to them would be, that a few of the more intrepid but less "tame" members of ALPO's flock, would become disillusioned and drift away.

Is McCarthyism still operating in the states then Joe? I think over here most people think only about the Hollywood trials but I understand it was pretty far reaching. I didn't know it reached astronomy. Absolutely appalling if it's still going on in the twenty first century.

Bright Stars over the Pyramids: Atlantean Knowledge
by Joseph C. Keller, M. D., August 27, 2009

Abstract. Standard precession formulas indicate that simultaneous appearances of bright stars over the Giza pyramids and on the meridian, occurred at 2520BC and 7350BC. The 2012AD position I calculate for Barbarossa (from four sky surveys 1954-1997AD) participated in another such alignment, at 8690BC. If Earth's axis shifted c. 4000BC, these dates become consistent with others.

Method. Star positions and proper motions were from the Bright Star Catalog on the VizieR website. The proper motion in Right Ascension is in arcseconds, not fifteenths of a second of RA, so it was corrected by multiplication by the secant of the Declination (Declination as averaged by either the trapezoidal or Simpson rules). As a test, omission of proper motion correction sometimes caused a discrepancy of a few degrees, and sometimes changed the result negligibly. Conversion to coordinates of the equinox of date, was by the "rigorous" formulas on p. B18 of the 1990 Astronomical Almanac (later editions give a formula somewhat less easy to use).

The position of Barbasossa for 2012, is the heliocentric (really barycentric, excluding Barbarossa) 12h GMT Dec. 21, 2012 position, of the center of mass of the Barbarossa system (< 1 arcmin different from the position of Barbarossa itself) which I estimated earlier this year from my four known (online image) sky survey plate detections, 1954, 1986, 1987, and 1997: RA 11:27:46.95, Decl -9:22:53.1. Time of year affects Barbarossa's geocentric position by up to about 1/4 deg Earth parallax, vs. the heliocentric position. This also was converted to coordinates of the equinox of date, using the 1990 Astronomical Almanac rigorous formulas.

The horizontal coordinates of the three large Giza pyramids were from Petrie's survey as given in Petrie's book (sec. 19, p. 35) available for free on Birdsall's website, taken as those of the "center of casing". I rotated the coordinates 1deg12'22" to correct for the offset from true north which Petrie gives for his coordinate system. I rotated the coordinates 5'40" less, in order to use the pyramids' alignment as the presumed true north at the time of their construction (Petrie, sec. 93).

The heights of the pyramids (secs. 25, 67, 81) were from Petrie's determination of the weighted average intersections of the planes of their sides. The relative heights of the bases of the pyramids (i.e., the well-defined pavement on which their bases rest) were from Vyse, as quoted by Maragioglio & Rinaldi, parte VI, p. 34, as cited by EG Calero Alcocer (Erik Calero) on the egyptologist.org messageboard, thread "Base elevs. Giza". As a test, I tried assuming that eye height was 1.7m above pavement (instead of pavement level) but this never mattered much.

My BASIC program ran in a few seconds on my IBM 486 computer.

Results. Between 13800BC and 2100AD, I find three instances, where two important objects could be sighted simultaneously from pavement level, angle theta < 1deg from the peaks of two different pyramids, and where also one of these objects was on the meridian. All dates are +/- about 100yr or less, if random likelihood is proportional to 1/theta^2.

Instance #1. At 2520BC, when Sirius was on the meridian and sighted, from its pavement level, at the peak of Menkaure's pyramid, Arcturus simultaneously would be sighted at the peak of Khufu's. The error in Arcturus' position was 0.8deg.

Instance #2. At 7350BC, when Rigel was on the meridian and sighted at the peak of Menkaure's, Regulus simultaneously would be sighted at the peak of Khafre's, with error 0.5deg.

Instance #3. At 8690BC, when Sirius was on the meridian and sighted at the peak of Menkaure's, Barbarossa's 2012 position lay at the peak of Khafre's, with error 0.8deg.

One instance was excluded because it would have been impossible to sight Barbarossa over Khufu's pyramid due to Barbarossa's slightly northerly Declination at the time. This was 7000BC; with Barbarossa on the meridian sighted at the peak of Khufu's (from inside the pyramid, as if the pyramid had been constructed of air), Sirius would have been at the peak of Menkaure's, with error 0.7deg.

Discussion. If Earth's axis shifted at the last "Barbarossa event", one orbit, i.e., 6340yr, ago, these dates, from precession theory, are unreliable, but might all be corrected by about the same amount. Brauer's onset of the Younger Dryas, determined to the year from lake varves, is 12683yr before 2012, i.e., 12683-2011 = 10672BC, so for Instance #3, let's add 8690 + 1982 = 10672BC. Cayce dated the final destruction of Atlantis at 10600BC (Stearn, "Edgar Cayce", 1967, p. 231).

Adding the same 1982yr to Instance #1, gives 2520+1982 = 4502BC, close to the 4329BC I deduced from "Sothic dates" (see messageboard above, "Hermetic knowledge"). Instance #2 becomes 7350+1982 = 9332BC.

Instance #2 gives us the original date of Giza structures, of those relative sizes and positions. Instance #3 tells us the date of the penultimate (Younger Dryas) Barbarossa phenomenon, and Instance #1 the date of the last one (which was, when the Giza monuments were constructed, then a prediction). To build the three pyramids to indicate these dates, would require solving 3*2 = 6 equations, with 2*(2+1) = 6 unknowns (the positions and heights of the last two pyramids).

The precise 26+ deg slope of the gallery inside Khufu's, might represent the different obliquity then.

Carbon dating indicates the Giza complex is ~4,500 years old. How does this fact effect the story you are posting in that all the dates except 2012AD preceed the construction? How do these details fit together and what meaning does it have?

Hi,
In [url] www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/907...nary-sun-theory.html [/url] there's an interesting discussion between what seems to be Walter Cruttenden himself, and members of the Bad Astronomy Forum.
The conclussion confirms some of the points I've made in this thread months ago: <b>If the Sun is effectively in a binary orbital motion, the movement will look like parallax, not precession.</b> Cruttenden hypothesis of a curving Solar system violates the principle of conservation of angular moment. Moreover: it seems to require two different gravitational physics, one for the interior of the Solar system(where angular moment would be conserved) and another for the exterior(where the Solar system curves en masse, violating conservation of the angular moment of the different planets.)

Unfortunately the bautforum thread is now closed, beacuse a number of very interesting questions arise. Incidentally, there at baut they seem to have this policy where everything must be "closed", "resolved", "debunked", "explained", and "settled". Something that is contrary to the spirit of scientific progress, isn't?

The questions:
1) Suppossing then for a moment than the Sun IS in a binary orbit, and knowing it will look like parallax, can't we be actually confusing or masking this parallax with the parallax produced by Earth's orbit around the Sun? Can't we be just masking the Sun's own movement, into the dynamic parameters of the planetary orbits, as I've suggested in the past in this forum?

2) Maybe there's a coincidence between the amount of movement of Earth's axis attributed to lunisolar precession (50''/yr) with the amount of movement of the Sun in its binary orbit. That is: the period of the Sun's binary orbit (26000 yrs) is similar to the "period" of Earth's precession. Due to some hitherto unknown resonances, by example
I say this because Cruttenden raises one interesting point: if you set a keplerian orbit for the Sun with 500 CE as the apoapsis point, and a 26.000 years period, the actual amount of angular movement of the Sun in that orbit matches the actual rate of precession.
Cruttenden obtains this number(500CE) from a book of an oriental mystic, Sri Yukteswar. This is not the best of sources, but the coincidence certainly deserves some investigation. The eccentricity reamins to be defined, nevertheless, and if you adjust the eccentricity you could probably make things fit as you please.

There's another interesting fact, that Cruttenden does not mention in the forum(but he mentions it in his book): Sirius was regarded as a red star in the past, by a good number of knowledgeable and reputable sources.
The first unambiguous mention of Sirius as a white star seems to happen around 950CE, by a Persian astronomer, Abd al-Rahman al-Sufi (903-986 CE).
This is consistent with Sun and Sirius nearing apoapsis of their binary orbit around that time, Sirius's change of color being a result of Doppler shift effect.

The only problem with all this is that Sirius is at 8.6 light years from us. A new gravitational theory is needed, if all this holds true.

Best regards,
Mauro