- Thank you received: 0
Requiem for Relativity
- Joe Keller
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
15 years 10 months ago #15724
by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
The Boston banker has emailed me six individual Dec. 22, 2008, image FITS files from the U. of Iowa website, that (?) were median-stacked to make the single image I have (and which "Stoat" processed and posted here). "Stoat", "Marsrocks", "Maurol" and other contributors, might think of better ways to stack these (let me know if you want them). I haven't looked at them yet because this hotel computer's firewall blocks the NRAO FITS reader.
I myself found, on the U. of Iowa website, many "zip" files dated 12/22, possibly all individual images made for me, though the banker doubted that. I only found one such "zip" file of later date, namely 12/27.
On Dec. 22, Barbarossa was near stationarity and moving only 2"/day retrograde (the Dec. 22 photos could have been separated at most by a few hr). Frey would have moved even less because its orbital motion almost would have canceled the retrograde geocentric motion.
The banker's message:
"I went to the U of Iowa website and found your original images, but I had to do a lot of searching and downloading to find them. There are six, your name and Barbarossa are in the header of each. They were in the images/external/images/njk/2008/357 folder (x3) and images/external/images/njk/2009/357 folder (x3) ["2009" suggests a new photo, but "357" is the code for the 12/22 photo - JK]. ...In opening many, many other pictures, I noticed the dates indicated next to these files on that website and the dates within the headers almost never matched. Also, many, many pictures have the 12/22 date. So, I'm wondering if somebody is just neglecting to properly enter the date in the header."
I myself found, on the U. of Iowa website, many "zip" files dated 12/22, possibly all individual images made for me, though the banker doubted that. I only found one such "zip" file of later date, namely 12/27.
On Dec. 22, Barbarossa was near stationarity and moving only 2"/day retrograde (the Dec. 22 photos could have been separated at most by a few hr). Frey would have moved even less because its orbital motion almost would have canceled the retrograde geocentric motion.
The banker's message:
"I went to the U of Iowa website and found your original images, but I had to do a lot of searching and downloading to find them. There are six, your name and Barbarossa are in the header of each. They were in the images/external/images/njk/2008/357 folder (x3) and images/external/images/njk/2009/357 folder (x3) ["2009" suggests a new photo, but "357" is the code for the 12/22 photo - JK]. ...In opening many, many other pictures, I noticed the dates indicated next to these files on that website and the dates within the headers almost never matched. Also, many, many pictures have the 12/22 date. So, I'm wondering if somebody is just neglecting to properly enter the date in the header."
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Joe Keller
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
15 years 9 months ago #23573
by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
Note on Social Method
I've been asked, quite reasonably, to gather in one post, all the coordinates and plate numbers for the relevant 1954, 1986, 2007 and 2008 objects, that conform to the solar and binary orbits. I expect to do this soon, but I'm waiting until someone with official academic credentials asks me.
This way, I know that none with any official credentials - none of the journal editors, none of the conference organizers, none of the managers of government-funded telescopes, none of the professors - who ignore my findings or dismiss them with mere pejoratives - know what they are talking about. None of them have bothered to check to see if these points satisfy, against all odds, an accurate orbit, or not. I know they haven't checked, because though all the necessary information is posted, they would at least want to double check with me, whether the points they read about in my old posts, really are the relevant ones. I'm willing to assist the bureaucracy, but they have to talk to me.
Here is one line of thought that some of the more communicative bureaucrats have (I paraphrase):
"We have to keep beating the drum for funding. The undesirable side effect of this, is that the public, instead of merely writing their Congressmen and asking for more astronomy funding, actually thinks about astronomy and burdens us terribly with, maybe, one email a day about a theory that is so unlikely, often little better than 'the moon is made of green cheese', that we really don't have time to check it out. Our solution to this, is to make a rule that we ignore everyone's ideas unless they have a Ph.D. in astronomy. Really, we go further, because there are so many Ph.D.s in astronomy now, that we have to ignore everyone but the journal editors. The National Science Foundation goes by what the journal editors say, therefore so must I.
"I feel some sympathy for you, Dr. Keller, because your father spent his life savings to put you through Harvard, I've verified that you really did graduate cumlaude in Mathematics there, you have some recent job experience indicating that you are able very successfully to apply what you learned as an undergraduate, and this is all undergraduate mathematics. So, I have no reason to doubt what you tell me about your calculations.
"However, if I were to break the rule against paying attention to anyone but a journal editor, where would it end? Certainly not in NSF funding, unless you are correct. Yet there is already an approved list of activities for which I can get NSF funding, correct or not. The central committee (NSF, journal editors, etc.) owns everyone's time; there's no time for you. To do your calculations correctly involves considerable work, which I do not want to duplicate unless I am sure I will be paid. - Sincerely, Prof. ABC"
I've been asked, quite reasonably, to gather in one post, all the coordinates and plate numbers for the relevant 1954, 1986, 2007 and 2008 objects, that conform to the solar and binary orbits. I expect to do this soon, but I'm waiting until someone with official academic credentials asks me.
This way, I know that none with any official credentials - none of the journal editors, none of the conference organizers, none of the managers of government-funded telescopes, none of the professors - who ignore my findings or dismiss them with mere pejoratives - know what they are talking about. None of them have bothered to check to see if these points satisfy, against all odds, an accurate orbit, or not. I know they haven't checked, because though all the necessary information is posted, they would at least want to double check with me, whether the points they read about in my old posts, really are the relevant ones. I'm willing to assist the bureaucracy, but they have to talk to me.
Here is one line of thought that some of the more communicative bureaucrats have (I paraphrase):
"We have to keep beating the drum for funding. The undesirable side effect of this, is that the public, instead of merely writing their Congressmen and asking for more astronomy funding, actually thinks about astronomy and burdens us terribly with, maybe, one email a day about a theory that is so unlikely, often little better than 'the moon is made of green cheese', that we really don't have time to check it out. Our solution to this, is to make a rule that we ignore everyone's ideas unless they have a Ph.D. in astronomy. Really, we go further, because there are so many Ph.D.s in astronomy now, that we have to ignore everyone but the journal editors. The National Science Foundation goes by what the journal editors say, therefore so must I.
"I feel some sympathy for you, Dr. Keller, because your father spent his life savings to put you through Harvard, I've verified that you really did graduate cumlaude in Mathematics there, you have some recent job experience indicating that you are able very successfully to apply what you learned as an undergraduate, and this is all undergraduate mathematics. So, I have no reason to doubt what you tell me about your calculations.
"However, if I were to break the rule against paying attention to anyone but a journal editor, where would it end? Certainly not in NSF funding, unless you are correct. Yet there is already an approved list of activities for which I can get NSF funding, correct or not. The central committee (NSF, journal editors, etc.) owns everyone's time; there's no time for you. To do your calculations correctly involves considerable work, which I do not want to duplicate unless I am sure I will be paid. - Sincerely, Prof. ABC"
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
15 years 9 months ago #15756
by Maurol
Replied by Maurol on topic Reply from Mauro Lacy
<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 />Note on Social Method
"However if I were to break the rule against paying attention to anyone but a journal editor where would it end? Certainly not in NSF funding unless you are correct. Yet there is already an approved list of activities for which I can get NSF funding correct or not. The central committee (NSF journal editors etc.) owns everyone's time; there's no time for you. To do your calculations correctly involves considerable work which I do not want to duplicate unless I am sure I will be paid. - Sincerely Prof. ABC"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Which is to say: "As long as we scientists are busy earning a living doing conventional science in our fields, we cannot afford nor have time to do unconventional science in these very own fields, to advance them or produce new discoveries in them."
Which is ludicrous.
As long as I(fortunately it seems) am not a scientist, I can afford to do whatever I want with my time (without getting paid, horror of horrors!) Even spending it in issues and calculations that are clearly not my field. So here we go:
What's Barbarossa period around the Sun?
According to my calculations, based on Joe's data, it's roughly 5142.5 years.
Joe, it could be interesting to know where's Barbarossa now, related to Jupiter and maybe also Saturn (are they now aligned? are they in opposition?)
I don't know if you heard about it, but the Sun is acting "weird" lately. That is, solar cycle 24 is arriving late to the party, so to speak. And nobody seems to know why.
Solar cycles seem to be related to the solar system barycenter being closer and farther of the Sun's surface. Maybe Barbarossa is in opposition or conjunction with Jupiter and/or Saturn right now, and that's changing the Solar system barycenter enough to delay the beginning of solar cycle 24.
Best regards,
Mauro
<br />Note on Social Method
"However if I were to break the rule against paying attention to anyone but a journal editor where would it end? Certainly not in NSF funding unless you are correct. Yet there is already an approved list of activities for which I can get NSF funding correct or not. The central committee (NSF journal editors etc.) owns everyone's time; there's no time for you. To do your calculations correctly involves considerable work which I do not want to duplicate unless I am sure I will be paid. - Sincerely Prof. ABC"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Which is to say: "As long as we scientists are busy earning a living doing conventional science in our fields, we cannot afford nor have time to do unconventional science in these very own fields, to advance them or produce new discoveries in them."
Which is ludicrous.
As long as I(fortunately it seems) am not a scientist, I can afford to do whatever I want with my time (without getting paid, horror of horrors!) Even spending it in issues and calculations that are clearly not my field. So here we go:
What's Barbarossa period around the Sun?
According to my calculations, based on Joe's data, it's roughly 5142.5 years.
Joe, it could be interesting to know where's Barbarossa now, related to Jupiter and maybe also Saturn (are they now aligned? are they in opposition?)
I don't know if you heard about it, but the Sun is acting "weird" lately. That is, solar cycle 24 is arriving late to the party, so to speak. And nobody seems to know why.
Solar cycles seem to be related to the solar system barycenter being closer and farther of the Sun's surface. Maybe Barbarossa is in opposition or conjunction with Jupiter and/or Saturn right now, and that's changing the Solar system barycenter enough to delay the beginning of solar cycle 24.
Best regards,
Mauro
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
15 years 9 months ago #20306
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
Joe, Maurol,
(Welcome to Meta Research, Maurol)
Contrary to popular opinion, comming up with ideas, even good ones, is not even a little bit hard.
The real trick is turning an idea, even a good one, into a successful business. Or into a successful experiment.
If you don't have the money to fund the attempt on your own, you have to try to convince someone else to put their money at risk. I hate it that mainstream scientists, and their funding sources, are not willing to spend a little of their money on odd ball, long shot ideas. But that is the way the world operates. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
===
If you really want to become famous in the world of science, figure out a way to fund some of the more promissing kook theories (like yours, or ours).
Regards,
LB
(Welcome to Meta Research, Maurol)
Contrary to popular opinion, comming up with ideas, even good ones, is not even a little bit hard.
The real trick is turning an idea, even a good one, into a successful business. Or into a successful experiment.
If you don't have the money to fund the attempt on your own, you have to try to convince someone else to put their money at risk. I hate it that mainstream scientists, and their funding sources, are not willing to spend a little of their money on odd ball, long shot ideas. But that is the way the world operates. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
===
If you really want to become famous in the world of science, figure out a way to fund some of the more promissing kook theories (like yours, or ours).
Regards,
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
15 years 9 months ago #15734
by Maurol
Replied by Maurol on topic Reply from Mauro Lacy
<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 />Joe, Maurol,
(Welcome to Meta Research, Maurol)
Contrary to popular opinion, comming up with ideas, even good ones, is not even a little bit hard.
The real trick is turning an idea, even a good one, into a successful business. Or into a successful experiment.
If you don't have the money to fund the attempt on your own, you have to try to convince someone else to put their money at risk. I hate it that mainstream scientists, and their funding sources, are not willing to spend a little of their money on odd ball, long shot ideas. But that is the way the world operates. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
===
If you really want to become famous in the world of science, figure out a way to fund some of the more promissing kook theories (like yours, or ours).
Regards,
LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hi Larry, thanks.
I'm not sure if I want to become famous, in any world. What I'm sure is that I want to help in the discovery of a new solar system planet or star.
Regarding ideas: ideas are the fuel of scientific progress! And not everything should or need to be profitable, IMO.
Regarding experiments, calculation, verification, etc. In this particular case, is it really that hard? experimentally, the first thing that must be done is to point a good telescope and take a plate of a particular region of the sky, to see if a little dot shows up there, at a very specific point.
Regarding calculations, I calculated Barbarossa's orbital period in less than 30 minutes, using the internet, a units program, and a command line calculator. I plan to do the same for the solar system barycenter now.
Of course a complete verification of Joe's calculations must be done at a certain point in the future, and that could be very hard to do, but now the first thing that is needed is a good picture of that region of the sky. And no one is willing to do that? Because it is so difficult/expensive?
Btw, I'm not the author of the theory of sunspot-barycenter correlation. A quick google search for 'sunspot barycenter' gives a number of interesting results, but it's not clear, at least to me, who the author is. Seems to be a very recent theory.
As you can see, this "simple" idea of sunspot barycenter correlation, seems to have remained undiscovered by more than 500 hundred years(since sunspots are counted).
The only needed thing was to look for other near 11 year cycles in the cosmos(i.e. Jupiter orbital period) and draw two time related charts. Simple, isn't? But, as far as I know, nobody had come up with that idea and done that by more than 500 hundred years.
My idea is that Barbarossa could be playing a part in the sunspot-barycenter cycle.
Regards,
Mauro
<br />Joe, Maurol,
(Welcome to Meta Research, Maurol)
Contrary to popular opinion, comming up with ideas, even good ones, is not even a little bit hard.
The real trick is turning an idea, even a good one, into a successful business. Or into a successful experiment.
If you don't have the money to fund the attempt on your own, you have to try to convince someone else to put their money at risk. I hate it that mainstream scientists, and their funding sources, are not willing to spend a little of their money on odd ball, long shot ideas. But that is the way the world operates. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
===
If you really want to become famous in the world of science, figure out a way to fund some of the more promissing kook theories (like yours, or ours).
Regards,
LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hi Larry, thanks.
I'm not sure if I want to become famous, in any world. What I'm sure is that I want to help in the discovery of a new solar system planet or star.
Regarding ideas: ideas are the fuel of scientific progress! And not everything should or need to be profitable, IMO.
Regarding experiments, calculation, verification, etc. In this particular case, is it really that hard? experimentally, the first thing that must be done is to point a good telescope and take a plate of a particular region of the sky, to see if a little dot shows up there, at a very specific point.
Regarding calculations, I calculated Barbarossa's orbital period in less than 30 minutes, using the internet, a units program, and a command line calculator. I plan to do the same for the solar system barycenter now.
Of course a complete verification of Joe's calculations must be done at a certain point in the future, and that could be very hard to do, but now the first thing that is needed is a good picture of that region of the sky. And no one is willing to do that? Because it is so difficult/expensive?
Btw, I'm not the author of the theory of sunspot-barycenter correlation. A quick google search for 'sunspot barycenter' gives a number of interesting results, but it's not clear, at least to me, who the author is. Seems to be a very recent theory.
As you can see, this "simple" idea of sunspot barycenter correlation, seems to have remained undiscovered by more than 500 hundred years(since sunspots are counted).
The only needed thing was to look for other near 11 year cycles in the cosmos(i.e. Jupiter orbital period) and draw two time related charts. Simple, isn't? But, as far as I know, nobody had come up with that idea and done that by more than 500 hundred years.
My idea is that Barbarossa could be playing a part in the sunspot-barycenter cycle.
Regards,
Mauro
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
15 years 9 months ago #15758
by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
Very roughly, the sun, saturn and barbarossa are in line, Jupiter, uranus and neptune are on the other side. So the barycentre will shift in a little towards the sun's surface. Tricky saying where the sun's surface is but there could well be something in the theory for sunspots.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.560 seconds