- Thank you received: 0
Requiem for Relativity
15 years 9 months ago #15769
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 />Hi Mauro, I think we had crossed posts there, I was writing my message while you posted a new one. I downloaded that program and the simulator thing, does that need to be put into the gravity program folder? As windows said it's not a program.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Just install the program (run GravitySimulatorSetup.exe), run it (look for "Gravity Simulator" in the Programs menu) and then open ssbarycenter.gsim using File -> Open from the menu bar of the program.
<br />Hi Mauro, I think we had crossed posts there, I was writing my message while you posted a new one. I downloaded that program and the simulator thing, does that need to be put into the gravity program folder? As windows said it's not a program.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Just install the program (run GravitySimulatorSetup.exe), run it (look for "Gravity Simulator" in the Programs menu) and then open ssbarycenter.gsim using File -> Open from the menu bar of the program.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- cosmicsurfer
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
15 years 9 months ago #23397
by cosmicsurfer
Replied by cosmicsurfer on topic Reply from John Rickey
Because it appears that Joe's Barbarrosa has a circular orbit around a common gravitational center with our Sun, I am now thinking that our solar system is not a failed binary star system. In solar system genesis the proto-sun plasma spliting into a binary system with reverse rotations would match greater binary universe dipole motion and the greater gravitational mass rotation of sun would carry with it a string of orbitals that would become our planets as the plasmas spread apart. So, now we are left with answering questions regarding EPH timelines as described on this site by Tom VanFlandern and Earth catastrophes that may also be alligned with EPH events caused by a great intruder [Bodes law resonance not enough to cause both comets and asteroids too large of an explosion]. Okay, so I now think that the solar system has captured a great intruder that orbits around the barycenter of our binary system on an extreme eliptical orbit that is the cause for short period and long period prograde and retrograde comets and EPH distruction of a fifth planet 65 million years ago and a Mars size planetoid destroyed 3.2 million years ago. A short explanation since have to run to meet someone is that comets probably regenerate orbit from the pioneer effect or graviton field boundary zone 'push' and that these left overs from EPH planetary oceans that are now comets are far older then current predictions. We have a periodic intruder with orbiting planetoids that is probably in a retrograde orbit at a steep angle and caused the Hapgood pole shift but in a very short time causing a global catastrophe at beginning of Younger Dryas. Graviton motion is so high that sling shot effect around barycenter is minimized so that captured intruder system cannot escape from the increased gravitational forces near solar system gravitomagnetic field boundaries. So, if an intruder system was captured by our solar system was there an initial orbital deceleration over time causing increased potential for catastrophes during planetary orbital crossings? I would think that the intruders orbit would stabilize over time. Does anyone know if there is any precedence for solar system planetary capture? John
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
15 years 9 months ago #23398
by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
Hi Mauro, got it, it was that window didn't recognise its extension, and I hadn't actually ran the program to see that the barycentre data was already there. So, I'll have a bit play with that tomorrow.
I still like the Dayton Miller target of Vega, as we get about 36 degrees plus the nine form joe'splanet, we are moving at almost ninety degrees to the galactic plane.
I still like the Dayton Miller target of Vega, as we get about 36 degrees plus the nine form joe'splanet, we are moving at almost ninety degrees to the galactic plane.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
15 years 9 months ago #15770
by nemesis
Replied by nemesis on topic Reply from
Precession is a confusing topic to me. Can somebody answer this - 13,000 years in the future, and assuming our calendar is still in use, with it's periodic corrections - will December, January, and February be summer months in the northern hemisphere? Or will they still be winter months?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
15 years 9 months ago #15771
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 nemesis</i>
<br />Precession is a confusing topic to me. Can somebody answer this - 13,000 years in the future, and assuming our calendar is still in use, with it's periodic corrections - will December, January, and February be summer months in the northern hemisphere? Or will they still be winter months?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Always will be winter in the northern hemisphere in december, because we are using the tropical year to rule our calendar. As its name imply, one of the functions of the tropical year is to align the calendar to the seasons.
See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_year , it is well explained.
<br />Precession is a confusing topic to me. Can somebody answer this - 13,000 years in the future, and assuming our calendar is still in use, with it's periodic corrections - will December, January, and February be summer months in the northern hemisphere? Or will they still be winter months?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Always will be winter in the northern hemisphere in december, because we are using the tropical year to rule our calendar. As its name imply, one of the functions of the tropical year is to align the calendar to the seasons.
See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_year , it is well explained.
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 #23658
by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
I need suggestions for "cutting & pasting" from the "command prompt" window, into Windows documents. So far, I've been able only to cut & paste into other command prompt windows. I'd like to paste my new BASIC computer program here. [Done - thanks, Mauro.]
I think this new program is the most valid physically. It varies the Barbarossa/Frey mass ratio, the orbital radius, and the time derivative of the orbital radius, consistent with observed positions, to minimize the unexplained work performed. Commonly, three parameters can be varied to make three functions (such as the components of the unexplained force on Barbarossa) become zero. However, I found that for most choices of Barbarossa and Frey among my Red sky survey "disappearing dots", the unexplained force remained large for all physically likely parameter values. One choice allowed a much smaller force, no more than 1/30 of the sun's gravity (which might be supplied by a relatively small, moderately distant moon).
Varying the orbit to minimize the unexplained force, usually produces a "gutter ball" solution with large eccentricity. Minimizing not the force itself, but the work done by that force, produces smaller eccentricities. My one very good combination of "disappearing sky survey dots" gave mass the ratio Barbarossa::Frey = 0.8770::0.1230, a midrange "barycentric" (not including Barbarossa's mass in the barycenter definition) radius 207.4 AU, and decreasing radius, -26 AU per radian (therefore e > 0.1). That is about as before, but I found that this very good combination occurs, with reversal of the Barbarossa and Frey identities on both the 1954 and 1986 plates. For the first time, objects on the 1987 plate fit perfectly, but again, with Barbarossa & Frey reversed from what I had supposed. The very first object I discovered, and named Barbarossa, becomes Frey on the 1987 plate.
This has implications for the Genebriera, Riley, Turner and U. of Iowa photos. The new predictions are close enough to the old ones, that these photos still are usually of the correct patch of sky, but now there might be other "disappearing" (i.e., not on sky survey) objects on these photos closer to the predicted positions; or, the Barbarossa/Frey roles might need to be reversed. So now, I don't know whether Genebriera, Riley, or either of them, were first to photograph Barbarossa prospectively.
My new program prints out predicted center of mass positions for these photos, and also contains the coordinates of the important "disappearing dots". It will be fairly self-explanatory for someone familiar with engineering mathematics and with BASIC or FORTRAN programming.
I think this new program is the most valid physically. It varies the Barbarossa/Frey mass ratio, the orbital radius, and the time derivative of the orbital radius, consistent with observed positions, to minimize the unexplained work performed. Commonly, three parameters can be varied to make three functions (such as the components of the unexplained force on Barbarossa) become zero. However, I found that for most choices of Barbarossa and Frey among my Red sky survey "disappearing dots", the unexplained force remained large for all physically likely parameter values. One choice allowed a much smaller force, no more than 1/30 of the sun's gravity (which might be supplied by a relatively small, moderately distant moon).
Varying the orbit to minimize the unexplained force, usually produces a "gutter ball" solution with large eccentricity. Minimizing not the force itself, but the work done by that force, produces smaller eccentricities. My one very good combination of "disappearing sky survey dots" gave mass the ratio Barbarossa::Frey = 0.8770::0.1230, a midrange "barycentric" (not including Barbarossa's mass in the barycenter definition) radius 207.4 AU, and decreasing radius, -26 AU per radian (therefore e > 0.1). That is about as before, but I found that this very good combination occurs, with reversal of the Barbarossa and Frey identities on both the 1954 and 1986 plates. For the first time, objects on the 1987 plate fit perfectly, but again, with Barbarossa & Frey reversed from what I had supposed. The very first object I discovered, and named Barbarossa, becomes Frey on the 1987 plate.
This has implications for the Genebriera, Riley, Turner and U. of Iowa photos. The new predictions are close enough to the old ones, that these photos still are usually of the correct patch of sky, but now there might be other "disappearing" (i.e., not on sky survey) objects on these photos closer to the predicted positions; or, the Barbarossa/Frey roles might need to be reversed. So now, I don't know whether Genebriera, Riley, or either of them, were first to photograph Barbarossa prospectively.
My new program prints out predicted center of mass positions for these photos, and also contains the coordinates of the important "disappearing dots". It will be fairly self-explanatory for someone familiar with engineering mathematics and with BASIC or FORTRAN programming.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.435 seconds