Requiem for Relativity

LB, Do you know the background data that TVF was using to develop the idea about these bodies? I never have found data TVF said indicated an explosion let alone several.

Jim,

I sympathize. I do in fact know parts of it. But not all. It is called a PhD in astrophysics with specialty in celestial mechanics. Mixed in with about 25 years of mainstream work experience. (That's right, Tom used to be one of THEM. So did I.)

The numbers I use in my posts come partly from the various books and papers Tom wrote over the years (talking about his exploded planet theory in this case). And partly from various standard reference books. And they come partly from my own mind. I've spent years reading and re-reading his stuff. And then re-reading my old physics textbooks. And thinking about what he said and did not say.

I rarely dig up raw observational data and process it myself. It takes decades. If someone is not paying you (and several coworkers) to do it you will probalby never finish.

Wish I could show you the secret of the universe, but honestly I have not found it. (Yet. But if you track down all the stuff I've written here over the years you can get a feel for how my search is going and where it is going.)

I doubt that it will ever be possible to condense everything down to one theory. One equation. That's the holy grail of modern physics - the quest for a TOE (theory of everything) or GUT (grand unified theory). The universe is infinite in five dimensions. One size fits all? Not likely.

I found an interesting quote recently. It seems to fit here.

"Always trust those searching for The Truth, never those who have found it."
~ Jordan Maxwell

Anyone know who he is? (Probably religious. It comes from a hippy website.)

LB

LB, Your last post is all good (but) As far as I know there is nothing in human writing indicating a planet size object has any way to explode but TVF had observational data that lead him to use EPH to explain the data. There was a half light/half dark planet as well as several other observations that he was using as guide lines-I know other people made those observations no problem with that and if anyone wants to look into it they can. I just want to understand why he proposed EPH as the answer that fit those observations (whatever that are).

I think I can answer this question, but it will take a while. And this is the wrong place for the discussion, so I have created a new forum (Exploded Planet Hypothesis in the Planetary Science category).

Jim, will you copy your question to that new forum to start the ball rolling?

LB

First crop circle of 2011, hints at Barbarossa's orbital eccentricity

The first crop circle of 2011 appeared this month, January, in Indonesia. The two main numbers expressing the eccentricity of an ellipse (such as Barbarossa's elliptical orbit) are

e = the eccentricity and

b/a = the axis ratio = sqrt(1-e^2)

The axis ratio, and the eccentricity, are related the same way as the sine and cosine of an angle.

Measuring with a ruler on my screen, from the circle diagram that had been obtained by www.earthfiles.com , I found that the circles of the crop formation, from the smallest that I could find in the formation, up to the largest, have diameters

19.75, 31.33, 40.33, 50.50, and 54.33 mm. When the boundaries were thick, for consistency I always used the outside diameter because sometimes that was the only choice that gave unbroken curves.

Now, for what it's worth, I'll list the ratios of each to the next, call it "x", and in parentheses next to x, give sqrt(1-x^2):

0.6304 (0.7763)
0.7768 (0.6297)
0.7986 (0.6018)
0.9295 (0.3688)

The first three rows, give numbers near the e of Barbarossa, 0.6106, and the b/a of Barbarossa, 0.7919. In the usual textbook diagram illustrating true anomaly and eccentric anomaly for an elliptical orbit, circles with radii equal to "a", and, often, "b", are drawn; for Barbarossa these radii would have a ratio near the ratios that appear twice between the most comparable circles of the Indonesian formation.

Hi Larry, you asked what could be posted to the board from this sim. It can output a series of still images, which can be put together for an animation. You can also save a data sheet which can be opened in a spreadsheet. That will probably be the best as you can then draw graphs of the data.

At the moment I don't know how to do an actual explosion but I know it can be done from reading their message board. (The problem is, when two objects touch they accrete into one object)What's easy to do is to just reduce the mass of a planet and watch its satellites zoom off.

With that, the 20 earth mass planet Tom talks about does produce an asteroid belt in the right place.

I did try the two Mars mass planets in orbit round a 5 earth mass planet and it didn't like it at all. One got threw out into a near Mars orbit. So I looked at Tom's article on Mars, where he gives an 8 earth mass planet, a Mars and a 0.01 mass planet, inner to Mars. That does stay in orbit. Of course that needs fine tuning, and the timing of an explosion needs to be worked out.