- Thank you received: 0
Requiem for Relativity
15 years 9 months ago #20409
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 Stoat</i>
<br />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.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
According to this
www.grandunification.com/hypertext/SunspotPredictions.html
(see Radial Distance between Barycenter and Sun graph)
Solar Minima is produced when the solar system barycenter is farther from the Sun center, and Solar Maxima when it is closer. In fact, the solar system barycenter is <b>inside the sun</b> at times. And this very fact seems to give birth to sunspot activity!
So, first hand, Barbarossa actual position would be contrary to the delay in the beginning of sunspot cycle 24, because logic indicates that Barbarossa should be in conjunction with Jupiter to effect the observed delay, if any.
A small correction to my previous post: although sunspots were observed and mentioned as early as the sixteen century, it wasn't until then beginning of the nineteen century that a cycle was noted, by Heinrich Schwabe. So we're are talking of almost 200 years, instead of more than 500. Which is a lot of time, anyways, for a well known cyclical phenomenon in search for a theory.
The correlation between the Sun's barycenter and sunspot activity is very meaningful to me, and I cannot avoid mentioning Astrology: Suddenly we have a mechanism by which planetary positions (conjunctions, oppositions, cuadratures, triangulatures, etc.) effect electromagnetic changes in the Sun, and consequently the Sun's solar wind. Which in turn effect changes in Earth's climate and other events.
Suddenly also, we have a mechanism by which a new or unknown object can gravitationally affect the Sun's electromagnetic activity.
Mauro
<br />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.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
According to this
www.grandunification.com/hypertext/SunspotPredictions.html
(see Radial Distance between Barycenter and Sun graph)
Solar Minima is produced when the solar system barycenter is farther from the Sun center, and Solar Maxima when it is closer. In fact, the solar system barycenter is <b>inside the sun</b> at times. And this very fact seems to give birth to sunspot activity!
So, first hand, Barbarossa actual position would be contrary to the delay in the beginning of sunspot cycle 24, because logic indicates that Barbarossa should be in conjunction with Jupiter to effect the observed delay, if any.
A small correction to my previous post: although sunspots were observed and mentioned as early as the sixteen century, it wasn't until then beginning of the nineteen century that a cycle was noted, by Heinrich Schwabe. So we're are talking of almost 200 years, instead of more than 500. Which is a lot of time, anyways, for a well known cyclical phenomenon in search for a theory.
The correlation between the Sun's barycenter and sunspot activity is very meaningful to me, and I cannot avoid mentioning Astrology: Suddenly we have a mechanism by which planetary positions (conjunctions, oppositions, cuadratures, triangulatures, etc.) effect electromagnetic changes in the Sun, and consequently the Sun's solar wind. Which in turn effect changes in Earth's climate and other events.
Suddenly also, we have a mechanism by which a new or unknown object can gravitationally affect the Sun's electromagnetic activity.
Mauro
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 #23624
by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
Thanks Mauro, Bob, & Larry, for your posts. The period Mauro gives is "in the ball park", but for accuracy one must, as someone originally suggested to me on this messageboard, very accurately consider Earth parallax (i.e., convert to heliocentric coordinates). Anyway, the period actually is about 2800 yr, I think.
My margin of error probably is big enough to include the period that the philologist, Sitchin, determined for "Nibiru" from ancient texts. Though Barbarossa's orbit is nearly circular, the position of the solar system center of mass (including Barbarossa) is just at the inner edge of the asteroid belt. So, Barbarossa's small eccentricity might have large effects in the inner solar system, if "ether" theories are valid and the solar system center of mass is of absolute physical importance.
I hope to find time soon, to summarize the orbital data and calculations, but I'm also hoping to get two birds with one stone, by waiting for one of the professionals to contact me, so that when I summarize it for him, I can put the same summary here. I'm working on gaining access to a telescope to use myself, and also will be getting new tires soon, so I might make some road trips to sell this to astronomers who might be able to get "telescope time".
My margin of error probably is big enough to include the period that the philologist, Sitchin, determined for "Nibiru" from ancient texts. Though Barbarossa's orbit is nearly circular, the position of the solar system center of mass (including Barbarossa) is just at the inner edge of the asteroid belt. So, Barbarossa's small eccentricity might have large effects in the inner solar system, if "ether" theories are valid and the solar system center of mass is of absolute physical importance.
I hope to find time soon, to summarize the orbital data and calculations, but I'm also hoping to get two birds with one stone, by waiting for one of the professionals to contact me, so that when I summarize it for him, I can put the same summary here. I'm working on gaining access to a telescope to use myself, and also will be getting new tires soon, so I might make some road trips to sell this to astronomers who might be able to get "telescope time".
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
15 years 9 months ago #15736
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>
...
Though Barbarossa's orbit is nearly circular, the position of the solar system center of mass (including Barbarossa) is just at the inner edge of the asteroid belt.
...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
That's very interesting. I've made the calculations and obtained 1.13 AU for the Sun-Barbarossa center of mass(I've erroneously supposed first that the barycenter was much closer to the Sun.)
That means also that, at least once in a year, the Earth would be very close to Sun-Barbarossa's barycenter. Geocentric astronomy anyone?
Mauro
...
Though Barbarossa's orbit is nearly circular, the position of the solar system center of mass (including Barbarossa) is just at the inner edge of the asteroid belt.
...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
That's very interesting. I've made the calculations and obtained 1.13 AU for the Sun-Barbarossa center of mass(I've erroneously supposed first that the barycenter was much closer to the Sun.)
That means also that, at least once in a year, the Earth would be very close to Sun-Barbarossa's barycenter. Geocentric astronomy anyone?
Mauro
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
15 years 9 months ago #15738
by nemesis
Replied by nemesis on topic Reply from
This discussion of a possible correlation between the barycenter and solar activity is very interesting. Could there be any connection between Barbarossa's position and the Maunder Minimum of ca. 1645-1715 and thus the "Little Ice Age", I wonder?
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 #15739
by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
Hi Prof. *********!
This is great! As I've said before, whether the objects exist or not, it advances science to know, one way or the other.
I'll give you the coordinates sometime within the next 24 hrs. (it's 3PM CST, Jan. 20, 2009 now). I'm not admitting that failure to image on one photo, suffices to disprove their existence (I usually can find missing sky survey objects at least a magnitude dimmer than the supposed limit of a CCD photo; manufacturer's claims are one thing and comparison with sky surveys another), but one photo is better than none.
I'll assume that the effective epoch of the photo is 05:00 Mountain Standard Time, Jan. 20, 2009. The retrograde geocentric motion of these planets now is ~10"/day. So, if the stacked photos are within a 2 hr interval, their range is comparable, to a spread of 1 arcsec "atmospheric seeing".
The difference in geocentric position, vs. Dec. 22, is ~7 arcminutes. I don't know whether your team converted to heliocentric coordinates or not (there is a man who writes on Dr. Van Flandern's messageboard, who uses the nom de guerre "Nemesis", who first warned me about the extreme importance of Earth parallax). In any case, I'll give the coordinates, and if by oversight, the wrong coordinates were used, another photo can be taken soon.
By the way, I watched all six hours of President Obama's inauguration coverage this morning, beginning at 6AM. I wish Chief Justice Roberts hadn't surprised Pres. Obama with the pacing of the oath, but all's well that ends well.
Sincerely,
Joe Keller
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:00:41 -0600
>Joe - I have a challenge for you.
>I took some images of the Barbarossa field last night using the Dec 22 coordinates. Since the telescope's field of view is 1530 x 1530 arcsec and the object's orbital motion can only be a few km/s (Keplerian orbit at ~100 AU), the angular distance from the Dec 22 position must be about 90 arcsec, so it should be well within the FOV of last night's image. Since I averaged 16 x 120s images, the limiting magnitude is almost 22, so the object and its satellite should definitely be on the image.
If you accurately calculate the coordinates of the objects, I will check your hypothesis.
- *********
This is great! As I've said before, whether the objects exist or not, it advances science to know, one way or the other.
I'll give you the coordinates sometime within the next 24 hrs. (it's 3PM CST, Jan. 20, 2009 now). I'm not admitting that failure to image on one photo, suffices to disprove their existence (I usually can find missing sky survey objects at least a magnitude dimmer than the supposed limit of a CCD photo; manufacturer's claims are one thing and comparison with sky surveys another), but one photo is better than none.
I'll assume that the effective epoch of the photo is 05:00 Mountain Standard Time, Jan. 20, 2009. The retrograde geocentric motion of these planets now is ~10"/day. So, if the stacked photos are within a 2 hr interval, their range is comparable, to a spread of 1 arcsec "atmospheric seeing".
The difference in geocentric position, vs. Dec. 22, is ~7 arcminutes. I don't know whether your team converted to heliocentric coordinates or not (there is a man who writes on Dr. Van Flandern's messageboard, who uses the nom de guerre "Nemesis", who first warned me about the extreme importance of Earth parallax). In any case, I'll give the coordinates, and if by oversight, the wrong coordinates were used, another photo can be taken soon.
By the way, I watched all six hours of President Obama's inauguration coverage this morning, beginning at 6AM. I wish Chief Justice Roberts hadn't surprised Pres. Obama with the pacing of the oath, but all's well that ends well.
Sincerely,
Joe Keller
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:00:41 -0600
>Joe - I have a challenge for you.
>I took some images of the Barbarossa field last night using the Dec 22 coordinates. Since the telescope's field of view is 1530 x 1530 arcsec and the object's orbital motion can only be a few km/s (Keplerian orbit at ~100 AU), the angular distance from the Dec 22 position must be about 90 arcsec, so it should be well within the FOV of last night's image. Since I averaged 16 x 120s images, the limiting magnitude is almost 22, so the object and its satellite should definitely be on the image.
If you accurately calculate the coordinates of the objects, I will check your hypothesis.
- *********
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 #23504
by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
(email sent 5 min. ago)
Hi Prof. *********!
Here's a (better than the one I sent 5 min. ago) but still crude estimate for Barbarossa's position in geocentric coordinates on the Jan. 20 photo:
RA: 12s West of where it was 12/22
Decl: 54" South of where it was 12/22
This is a rough lowest-order correction for Earth's and Barbarossa's orbital motion around the sun, neglecting Barbarossa's orbital motion around Frey (this binary motion can't be neglected, for Frey).
I'm reworking my calculations from the beginning, using the greater efficiency and generality made possible by hindsight. In a few hours I'll have more accurate information.
Sincerely,
Joe Keller
Hi Prof. *********!
Here's a (better than the one I sent 5 min. ago) but still crude estimate for Barbarossa's position in geocentric coordinates on the Jan. 20 photo:
RA: 12s West of where it was 12/22
Decl: 54" South of where it was 12/22
This is a rough lowest-order correction for Earth's and Barbarossa's orbital motion around the sun, neglecting Barbarossa's orbital motion around Frey (this binary motion can't be neglected, for Frey).
I'm reworking my calculations from the beginning, using the greater efficiency and generality made possible by hindsight. In a few hours I'll have more accurate information.
Sincerely,
Joe Keller
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.568 seconds