Requiem for Relativity

Dr Joe, This acceleration mystery at ~53AU has been kicked around a few years ago. I wonder if disk of the galaxy might be the cause. At some point the gravity effect of the sun will be reduced below the effect the disk has and that point might be at 53AU.

Seven crop circles in Italy, one in France, three in England, imply Aug 9, 2013

1. A crop formation was reported at Modena (Finale Emilia) in Italy on June 9, 2013. Near a paved highway, it is thought to have appeared during the previous night of June 8-9. The New Moon occurred June 8 at 16h GMT.

This was one of several crop circles that already this spring have been reported in Italy. Maybe the circlemakers cannot wait for sufficiently tall crops to appear in England.

The five disks inside the large circle, signify the first five Full Moons Feb '13 through Jun '13, which occur between Luna's most southerly and most northerly ecliptic latitudes. Luna's maximum northerly ecliptic latitude, geocentric, of date, for the month, occurs at Feb 10, 06:48 GMT whereas Luna's minimum illuminated fraction (i.e. New Moon) occurs at almost exactly the same time, at 07:20 GMT. Thus the first Full Moon occurring after, rather than before, the maximum southerly latitude, is the Full Moon of 21h GMT Feb 25. The rightmost disk of the crop formation (as the formation is shown in most of the drawings and aerial photos online) is the disk just inside the large circle at the end where there are no disks outside the circle. This disk signifies the Full Moon of Feb 25.

The outermost disk, of the three outside the large circle on the left, would signify the Full Moon of September 2013. That is the last Full Moon before the equinox.

If a New Moon could occur 5 1/2 draconic months = 5.5*27.2122 = 149.67d after the Feb 10 New Moon, it would occur at the most southerly latitude for the month. Instead, five synodic months = 5*29.5306 = 147.65d. That is, the time period between the New Moons of Feb and July, symbolized by the string of five Full Moons within the large circle, is two days too short. Maybe it would have been more obvious to put six disks inside the large circle, but six synodic months = 6*29.5306 = 177.18d slightly exceeds 6.5 draconic months = 6.5*27.2122 = 176.88d. It was perhaps decisive, that the circlemakers wished to emphasize not the position of Luna's orbit six months after the Feb New Moon, but rather a position of Luna's node when the Sun lay near the node.

The April 25 20:07 GMT Full Moon in the center, occurs at a small southern latitude -1.008deg & longitude 215.87. The May 25 04:10 Full Moon to its left, is next nearest the ecliptic, at a slightly larger northern latitude, +1.555deg & longitude 243.98. Within the large circle, the sizes of the disks signify the closeness of the Full Moons to the ecliptic, with their diameters roughly inversely proportional to their latitudes. The latitude ratio is 1.555/1.008 = 1.543. Using Luna's orbital inclination 5.145deg, the ratio of their longitude distances from the node would be arcsin(1.555/5.145)/arcsin(1.0008/5.145) = 1.557.

The diameter ratio (according to my screen measurements from the 1st, 4th & 5th aerial photos at cropcircleconnector.com on Aug 8, both major and minor apparent axes, giving six estimates 1.54,1.625,1.57,1.56,1.61,1.55) is 1.576 +/- 0.009 SEM. This is confirmed by the measurements printed on the map on the "ground shots" page for this crop circle at cropcircleconnector.com: 8.70/5.50 = 1.582 +/- 0.010 rms implied rounding error. Combining mine and his with equal weight gives 1.579 +/- 0.008, differing from the foregoing theory by about 3 sigma at least. So possibly the circle designers were encoding the interpolated time ((May 25 04:10)*1 + (Apr 25 20:07)*1.579) / (1+1.579) = May 7 05:07. Luna lies on its ascending node Apr 26 14:06.5 at longitude 226.8344 and its descending node May 9 19:12.6 at longitude 46.8668 = 226.8668 - 180. Interpolation gives the ascending node at May 7 05:07, as 226.8605. The sun lies at longitude 226.8605 - 90 = 136.8605, at Aug 9 06:54. Remarkably, another interpolation scheme, interpolation in longitude according to the longitude distance of the April & May Full Moons from the node, give the same result to the nearest minute.

At this time, Mars is at long 107.8154, lat +0.7825, and Jupiter is at long 99.7007, lat -0.1533. For reference in part 2, this difference in longitude of Mars & Jupiter is 8.115deg.


2. The difference in longitude, 8.115deg, is shown on a previous crop formation reported June 6 at Barbiano Lugo near Ravenna. The diameters of the three circles given by online sources amount to 9m, 16m, and 300/pi = 95.5 m (i.e. circumference 300m). I confirmed this: despite the oblique view, one can measure the circles' diameters assuming that the farm vehicle tram tracks are equally spaced. I use the ninth photo from the top at www.fainzashiatsu.it ; this is the only aerial photo on that page which appears on my browser. I find that the small circle is about 6/15 of one tram space, the midsize circle about 10/15, and the big circle about 4 + 5/10 + 6/15 = 4.90 tram spaces; the ratio of these diameters is

1:1.67:12.25

which, considering the crudity of the measurement, is as close as can be expected to

1:1.88:11.86

which is the ratio of the sidereal orbital periods

Earth:Mars:Jupiter

and it is these periods by which these planets seem to be identified in the crop formation. Likewise the diameters prominent on the Italian website give 9:16:95.5 which is

1:1.78:10.61

also a good match. A diagram on the Italian page gives more precise diameters 8.70:14.30:87.90 which is

1:1.64:10.10

a good match yet again.

With my protractor on the circle diagram on that page, measuring by eye from the centers of the circles, I find that the angle Mars-Earth-Jupiter is about 9deg. The most magnified aerial photo on cropcircleconnector.com gives a break angle for the centers of the small & midsize circles and the junction of the midsize and large circles, uncorrected, of

arctan(9.3/72.9) = 7.3deg

but the axis ratio of the midsize circle in this photo is 54/76, with the ellipse axes rotated about 13 & 6deg from the broken line, so an approximate correction for the oblique view gives break angle

arctan(9.3/72.9*(1 + 22/54*(1 - 2*sin(6)))) = 9.575deg

from which the Jupiter-Earth-Mars angle is found by the Law of Sines to be

arcsin(sin(9.575)*(11.862+1.881)/(11.862+2*1.881+1)) = 7.90deg

near the theoretical 8.115deg. The angle 7.90deg occurs Aug 8.8130.


3. A third crop formation was reported June 8 near Cava Manara in Italy. New Moons occur at about 15.5h GMT June 8 and about 22h Aug 6; the latter date is 2.37d prior to the date indicated by the other two crop formations above. The two central disks of the Cava Manara formation, signify the June & July New Moons, or the July & August New Moons, or in any case, two synodic Lunar months. The two pairs of arcs between these New Moons signify the extra two days. For more precision, let us consider the large crescent. Its sagittal depths from the tips of its horns, are 52 & 75mm on my screen. This signifies a time of (75-52)/75 / 4 synodic months = 2.19d, only 0.18d different from the date indicated by the other two formations.


4. On June 20, fifty days before Aug 9, a crop formation was reported at Cisterna di Latina, Italy. This crop formation signifies the number 50, three different ways:

#1: On the aerial photo at cropcircleconnector.com (same as the Earthfiles photo) I measured the diameters of the inner rim of the inner and the outer rim of the outer circles, along the long axis of the apparent ellipse due to the oblique view. One must take care to measure to the top of the crop, that is, to the line between standing crop and shade at the shady side, and to the line between the standing crop and the sun at the sunny side. The ratio fo these diameters, on two measurements, I found to be 49.45:60 and 50:60. I also found that the spaces between the small half-disks on the outer rim, are, approximately if not exactly, twice the diameters of those small half-disks. Thus assuming that the circumference of the outer rim is 20*(1+2) = 60 units, the circumference of the inner rim is 60*49.7/60 = 49.7 units +/- 0.3 SEM, where presumably each unit (diameter of a small half-disk) represents one day.

#2: If the large rings represent one synodic month and the small half-disks represent one day, then the formation represents 29.53 + 20 = 49.53d.

#3: The Platonic solid with the most faces is the icosahedron, with 20. The number of faces + edges for this solid, is 20 + 20*3/2 = 50.


5. A "vesica piscis" (pair of congruent circles each with its center on the circumference of the other) crop formation was reported at Enna, Sicily, June 16. June 16 is 54 days before Aug 9. Two sidereal months is

27.3217 * 2 = 54.6434 d

but the actual result is closer to 54 than to 55. My most precise determination of the "doomsday" time, is 06:54 GMT Aug 9, from formation (1) above. Luna's longitude (geocentric, with equinox of date) then, is the same as Jun 15 19:24, for a difference of 54.4792d. The apparent Right Ascension is the same Jun 15 19:41, for a difference 54.4674d.

The "vesica piscis" arrangement emphasizes the congruence of the circles, therefore suggesting sidereal months. Sidereal months are more equal than synodic months, because of Luna's eccentricity. Furthermore, Aug 9 is a date at which the sidereal month is especially constant. Let's measure the sidereal month as the time from August back to July when Luna's apparent Declination (geocentric, equinox of date, per JPL online ephemeris) was the same. By this definition, the sidereal month lengthens by 35 minutes between 0h Aug 8 & 0h Aug 11. Interpolating with a cubic curve through 0h Aug 8, 9, 10 & 11, I find that the rate of increase almost becomes zero (i.e., the length of the sidereal month almost becomes constant, increasing at only 0.304 seconds/hour) at the inflection point Aug 9 18:04 GMT. This may be the equality to which the vesica piscis refers.


6. The crop formation reported July 1 in Cavallo Grigio, Italy (east of Turin) amounts to a sequence of binary numbers equal to 11, 4, 11, 12, 10, 11, 11, 7. Not only is there a narrow line of demarcation between each four-digit binary number, the (two sets of) eight large triangles around the perimeter also emphasize that there are eight numbers. Naturally the small line segments would signify 0 and the much more prominent disks signify 1. The special triangle marked with six seemingly random small triangles, signifies the starting point. We shall see that these six triangles symbolize the six visible planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus. The single triangle near the third number and the double triangle near the sixth number mark for us the direction of increasing time and also the direction of increasing value to the places of these base-2 numbers. We also shall see that another purpose of these marks is to give extra value to those two numbers.

There are six visible planets and the sidereal month is about 27 days. So, Luna is in conjunction with a visible planet on average about once every 27/6 = 4.5 days. The sum of the eight binary numbers is 77; if they signify half-days, then they average 77/2/8 = 4.8 days, so maybe they signify conjunctions of Luna with a planet. Let's check this, because July 1.0 + 77/2 days = August 8.5.

According to a webpage of the TAU Astronomy Club ( astroclub.tau.ac.il ) the interval 0h GMT Jun 20 2013 to 0h GMT Aug 13 2013 contains ten conjunctions of Luna with the six visible planets Mercury through Uranus:

1) Mars Jul 6 11:56 GMT
2) Jupiter Jul 7 02:55
3) Mercury Jul 8 11:45
4) Venus Jul 10 18:21
5) Saturn Jul 16 23:31
6) Uranus Jul 27 19:16
7) Jupiter Aug 3 21:32
Mars Aug 4 09:37
9) Mercury Aug 5 06:20
10) Venus Aug 9 22:46

Indeed Jul 1.0 + 11/2 d = Jul 6.5 is conjunction (1). Conjunction (1) + 4/2 d = Jul 8.5 is conjunction (3). Like conjunction (3), conjunction (9) is with Mercury. Conjunction (9) is 7/2 days before Aug (5.3 + 3.5) = Aug 8.8, almost Aug 9.

The third number is 11, but the prominent small single triangle near it, perhaps increases its value, signifying a unit in the next place, 16, giving 27. Conjunction (3) + 27/2d = Jul 22.0, near the only planet-planet conjunction in the relevant interval:

A) Mars-Jupiter Jul 22 06:49 = Jul 22.284

Using the next binary number of the formation, Jul 22.0 + 12/2 = Jul 28.0 is near conjunction (6) which is at Jul 27.803. The next numbers, 10,11,11, summed give Jul 28.0 + (10+11+11)/2d = Aug 13.0. If the prominent small double triangle signifies -16, the net result is Aug 13.0 - 16/2d = Aug 5.0 which is near conjunction (9), Aug 5.264.


7. Finally there is the Jul 4 crop formation near Sarrebourg in Moselle, France. The large disk within a concentric ring, signifies not the 7h GMT Jul 8 New Moon, but rather the next New Moon, that of 22h Aug 6. That is, the next New Moon after the upcoming one.

The four smaller disks to one side, signify days after the Aug 6 New Moon. The three small disks to the other side, signify a gap of three intervening days Jul 5,6,7 between the crop formation's appearance Jul 4 and the Jul 8 New Moon. The break angle between the two opposing rows of disks might signify the 29.5/365*360 = 29deg traveled in one synodic month.

The arc implies that something will happen almost two days after the New Moon of (minimum Moon-Sun-geocentric Earth angle) Aug 6 21:53. The one aerial photo on cropcircleconnector.com is quite oblique but I estimate roughly that the arc touches the small disk 30 degrees from its end, i.e. (1-cos(30))/2 = 0.067d before the end of that second day. So the implied time is about

Aug 6.912 + 2 - 0.067 = Aug 8.845

which agrees with the Aug 8.8 deduced in section 6 above.


8. The crop formation reported July 6 near Avebury, England, depicts level curves of the logarithm. The rings become unusually narrow to tell us we should measure to the centers of the ring boundaries, then wide so we cannot fail to notice the rings. Measuring on the screen to the centers of the ring boundaries, along the major axis of the moderately oblique aerial photo on cropcircleconnector.com, I find that the largest ring is almost exactly 4x the diameter of the smallest, which in turn is almost exactly 4x the diameter of the central button. So the inner ring signifies the number 1, the outer ring the number 4. The distance between rings is proportional to the diameter of the ring, so if the rings are "level curves" of a surface, then 1 / (dy/dr) is proportional to r, that is dy/dr = a/r, so y is a logarithm function. The abscissas of the rings are 1 = 4^(0/, 4^(1/, 4^(2/,...,4^(8/. Regardless of the base of the logarithms, the ratio of the last ordinate to the next to last, is 8/7, and this number is the message of the formation.

One mean synodic month * 8/7, is

29.5306 * 8/7 = 33.7493d

Local midnight (minimum solar elevation) occurs July 6 00:12 GMT; this time + 33.7493d = Aug 8.7576. However, the New Moon to New Moon geocentric synodic month July 08 06:48 -Aug 06 2013 21:54 is 29.6292d, which gives Aug. 8.8702.

There is a double entendre in this crop formation. What about sidereal months instead of synodic, and from sunrise July 6 rather than midnight? For this option, consider the convexity of the logarithm, specifically the ratio of its integral from 1 to 4, to the area under the line from (1,0) to (4,ln(4)). Again, this ratio is independent of the base of the logarithms, and equals

(4*ln(4)-4 + 1)/(0.5 * ln(4) * (4-1)) = 1.22397

Using the mean sidereal month 27.3217d, and sunrise 04:06 GMT Jul 6 gives

Jul 6.1708 + 27.3217*1.22397 = Aug 8.6117.


9. The crop circle reported at Bienate, near Milan, Italy July 3. I use the "outstretched" photo version on cropcircleconnector.com. The axis ratio of the large disk, I measure as 2.53; this is used as a multiplier for the tangents, to estimate the actual angles.

The large disk represents the Sun, the middle disk Venus, and the small disk Luna. The point at the head of the flag-like hook at lower right, is the geocentric observer. Measuring from the centers of the ellipses, the angle between the observer-Luna-Venus line and the Venus-Sun line, I find as 63deg, correcting for obliqueness to 36.3deg. This isn't too different from the Sun-Earth-Venus angle Aug 10.0: 34.6deg.

More precisely, the diagram signifies the conjunction of Luna & Venus; their longitudes are equal Aug 9 22:04 GMT. The flag-like hook represents a change in Luna's angle relative to Venus, measured on the screen as 24deg and corrected for obliquity to 18.9deg. This is the Luna-Venus longitude difference at Aug 8.255, or, if Luna's & Venus' position at the time of conjunction is used as the reference, then it is the longitude difference at Aug 8.405.


10. The crop formation reported Aug 1 at Milk Hill in Wiltshire, England, amounts to a direction marker. Its cross formation suggests that it is a direction relative to one of the cardinal directions NSEW. The axis ratio of the aerial photo on cropcircleconnector.com is 3.148 as I measure on my screen. With straightedge and protractor I find that the arrow is 10deg clockwise from the major axis of the large circle's apparent ellipsoid, and that the tramlines (tractor tracks) are 10deg counterclockwise from it. Multiplying the tangents of these angles by the correction factor 3.148 gives 40 & 29deg, resp.

So, according to my measurement on my screen and a rough correction for the obliqueness of the photo, the arrow is 90-40-29 = 21deg from perpendicular to the tramlines. Measuring degrees in an average sidereal Lunar orbit, this angle past the August New Moon corresponds to

Aug 6.9125 + 27.3217 * 21/360 = Aug 8.506

and for a synodic Lunar orbit

Aug 6.9125 + 29.5306 * 21/360 = Aug 8.635.


11. The formation reported July 15 at All Cannings, Wiltshire, England can be analyzed just as #10, and gives the same angle, 69 deg, by my measurement, thus the same predicted times. This formation has threefold symmetry and hence three times as many interpretations, however. On the other hand, its aerial photo on cropcircleconnector.com is less oblique so perhaps my angle estimates are more accurate.


Relationship to other dates. Aug 9, 2013 is 305 days after Oct 8, 2012. The numbers 305 & 365 have a special quadratic relationship:

305 = 5*61 in prime factors
365 = 5*73 in prime factors and

61^2 = -2 modulo 73

Besides Oct 8, 2012, the other "doomsday" date I had identified from crop circles, was Feb 17, 2013, 173 days before Aug 9. Note the similar quadratic relationship (173 is prime):

173^2 = -1 modulo 73

Oct 8 is 132 days before Feb 17 and

132 = 12 * 11
11^2 = -1 modulo 61

Organizing this, let's say that Oct 8 is A, Feb 17 is B, Aug 9 is C. Let's define the distance AB as the largest prime factor of the difference in days B-A, etc. Let's define one year as 73, the largest prime factor of 365. Then

AB^2 = -1 mod AC i.e. mod 61
BC^2 = -1 mod 73
AC^2 = -2 mod 73

To complete the pattern, I need a date "O" such that

OB^2 = -1 or -2, mod AC i.e. mod 61

Let O = the beginning of the Mayan Long Count:

B - O = 5200*360 + (Feb 17 - Dec 23) = 1872056
= 8*234007

where I use the alternative Dec 23 end for the Long Count. The prime number 234007 = 61*3836 + 11 so

OB^2 = 234007^2 = 11^2 = -1 mod 61

This is evidence not only for the coherent planning of crop formations to indicate the dates Oct 8, 2012, and Feb 17 & Aug 9, 2013, but also to indicate Dec 23, 2012 as the correct end of the Long Count.

<b>[Joe Keller] "... an electron at this radius r from the Sun, would have, if heated to the CMB temperature, ..."</b>

<b>[Jim] "... So then the issue is does the electron obey thermal laws? In my world the electron is not real and does not obey any laws(why should it?). It is a sc-fi idea that is deeply embedded in physical theory and the cause of much confusion ..."</b>

For individual atoms and molecules the propety of temperature does not have the same meaning as it has for larger accumulations of mass. For the latter it is a measure of how fast and hard the particles are vibrating and banging into each other. For the former it is essentially an alternate measure of velocity.

This is even more so for individual sub atomic particles. Jim is right to question whether electrons "obey thermal laws" (not in the way we normally interpret them) but for the wrong reason (electrons are as real as protons - we can weigh them both, and make them do things according to any number of laws).

For individual partcles, temperature and especially <u>heat</u> are not well defined properties.

***

As long as Joe understands this distinction, he is not in trouble theory-wise when he talks of 'heating' an electron to some 'temperature'. It is fairly common usage in some parts of particle physics, because it can make solving some problems easier.

But because of the potential for confusion, he should be careful to mention this when talking to a lay audience. It is kind of like when relativists divide time by the speed of light, call it a 'space-like' dimension and then create a 4D space-time model of the universe. It works mathematically, and some problems can be solved with less effort - even if you count the work needed to translate the answer into a useful format (3D space plus 1D time) for building something based on your results.

But they ought to be more careful about explaining things to lay audiences. And in this context a 'lay audience' can be anyone not working in their specific sub-speciality.

LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br /><b>[Joe Keller] "... an electron at this radius r from the Sun, would have, if heated to the CMB temperature, ..."</b>

<b>[Jim] "... So then the issue is does the electron obey thermal laws? ..."</b>

...For individual particles, temperature and especially <u>heat</u> are not well defined properties. ...

LB

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes, what you say is true and I stand corrected here. I recall now that in my undergrad Harvard course in chemical thermodynamics, Prof. Leonard Nash, then head of the chemistry dept., always was careful to speak of "ensembles" rather than individual particles, when discussing temperature.

Dr Joe, Chemistry uses moles of molecules as a base and the gas constant in SI units. Boltzmann divided the gas constant by the mole number. So, using the Boltzmann Constant should allow your equation. My issue is not that at all-I am saying the electron is only a vehicle to carry the electronic charge much like several made up items in common use these days. And electric charge doesn't obey thermal laws for very simple reasons-mainly charge is energy and thermodynamics is a study of the interplay of energy and matter(AKA protons)

The proton is only a vehicle to carry the protonic charge much like several made up items in common use these days. And proton charge doesn't obey thermal laws for very simple reasons - mainly charge is energy and thermodynamics is a study of the interplay of energy and matter (aka ATOMS, lots of them, big wads of them).

If you try to apply the laws of thermodynamics to a small wad of atoms or to individual sub-atomic particles then you are using the thermodynamic models incorrectly.


LB