Requiem for Relativity

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by cosmicsurfer</i>
<br />I disagree, I think Joe has a right to look at ancient data that might indicate past encounters with our sister sun. Besides it is time that we end the suppression of information, and lay out on the table all of the data. I call what we have now with our suppressive scientific limited thinking counter productive!!!! There are ruins on Mars from a very ancient civilization, are we going to continue to suppress this information? I know that I am very interested in what Joe has to say about our past. John
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I agree with you. Nevertheless, we must not forget that without falsifiable claims, observation and verification, we wouldn't go very far.

In that sense, I was thinking that maybe a "bottoms-up" approach to these matters could be helpful: Instead of searching the sky for "disappearing dots", why not to begin by taking into account the actual known anomalies, and their magnitudes, and proceed from there to the layout of testable hypotesis and models.

Take, for example, the flyby anomaly; maybe developing a new gravitational model to explain it.

Or the bore-hole anomalies, reported and analized by Cahill.

Or the recently announced GP-B results.

Or so called Kimura phenomena. In an old post, I suggested to compare the rate of Earth's axial precession related to the Sun, to the precession rate related to the Polar star. Any difference will be the component of the Sun's movement on the plane of the ecpliptic, after correcting for Earth's axial tilt, and for the known planetary effects.

That way, we would be able to get a clear idea of the magnitude and direction of the Sun movement, and rule out then many possible companions.
The same can be done with the recent GP-B results. After that, the magnitudes can be compared, etc.

This is by no means easy, but has the great advantage of working with known data, and of making falsifiable and verifiable hypotesis and models.

Thanks for your input, Stoat, nemesis, Jim, cosmicsurfer & Maurol! Those are some of the most incisive posts I've ever read! There are a lot of good ideas there.

Yesterday I searched two recent books on Egyptian temples:

McKenzie, The Architecture of Alexandria & Egypt 300BC-AD700, 2007
Wilkinson, Temples of Ancient Egypt, 2000

From their temple diagrams, I confirmed Belmonte & Shaltout's claim about temple orientation. A priori, it isn't significant that 12 of 133 temples (Shaltout & Belmonte Paper 1, 2005; Table 1) would face rising or setting stars at Declinations between 7 & 14 or -7 & -14. This becomes significant, because most of the remaining temples face accurately NSEW or multiples of 45deg, or face the summer solstice sunrise. (Astronomer Mahmoud-Bey's archaeological 1866 street map of ancient Alexandria, confirmed by subsequent researchers, reprinted in McKenzie, Ch. 2, Fig. 20, shows that Alexandria's long avenues are not very parallel to the seashore, but rather aim, according to my ruler measurement, 24.6deg N of E; the summer solstice sunrise at that latitude, about 31.19 N measured from my National Geographic atlas, then was, neglecting refraction, 27.73 N of E, and 27.71 N of E now, due to presumed slight reduction in Earth's obliquity from 23.455 then to 23.439 now.)

I found two temple ground plans in McKenzie and two in Wilkinson, conforming to Shaltout & Belmonte's observed alignment of temples generally with Declination 11 1/4 (+/-) 3/4. These are:

1. The Ptolemaic-era Komasterion (Procession House) "bastion" at Hermopolis Magna (el-Ashmunein, N of Mallawi)(McKenzie Ch. 7, Fig. 272, p. 161). By averaging five ruler, and tracing graph paper, measurements on the page, I find that the steps face 13.66 +/- 0.42 SEM, S of W. The more used part of the temple (with the altar) is at 90 deg to this; maybe the older part was remodelled into what later became the "bastion". Anyway, at this latitude (27.79 N measured from the Natl. Geog. atlas) a star at Declination +12.10 (Barbarossa, one orbit before 12/21/2012) would rise 13.70 N of E, neglecting refraction. Here my theory is that the bastion represents the oldest temple, and originally faced 180deg the other way, toward Barbarossa's rising.

2. The Christian "Great Basilica" (at Abu Mina, 65km SW of Alexandria)(McKenzie, Ch. 11, Fig. 481d, p. 289). The church (i.e. nave --&gt; door vector), by my three measurements, faces 11.36 +/- 0.17 SEM, S of W. A star at Declination +10.50 (i.e, Barbarossa 150 yr later than in #1) would rise 12.24 deg N of E, neglecting refraction (here I estimate the latitude as 30.78 N). Churches often were built squarely on the foundations of pagan temples, even when the temple was much smaller than the eventual church (e.g. McKenzie, Fig. 475, p. 286). Again my theory is that originally the temple faced 180deg the other way, toward Barbarossa's rising.

3. Akhenaten's Great Temple at El-Amarna (Wilkinson, p. 140)(lat 27.66 N). Wilkinson's maps have shorter "N" arrows, but by my measurement, less accurate than for #1 or #2, the sanctuary --&gt; entrance axis, faces 11.9 S of E. A star of Declination +10.50, would rise here at azimuth 11.87 N of E, neglecting refraction, and of course set 11.87 N of W. So, though Akhenaten's temple is said to have been built on a new site, temples oriented this way might originally have faced toward the setting Barbarossa. When Akhenaten was overthrown, 1500 blocks from El-Amarna went into the temple complex at Hermopolis Magna (see #1).

4. The Hibis Temple at El-Kharga (Wilkinson, p. 235)(lat 24.81 N). Unlike the other three, this temple (still?) faces North: 11.3 N of E by my measurement on the page. A star of Declination +10.50 would rise here at azimuth 11.58 N of E, neglecting refraction. Though built mainly during the Persian era, the Hibis temple might have been started in the 25th Dynasty. Texts say an Amun-Re temple was built here during the New Kingdom, but no remnant of any such predecessor has been found.


Besides these, are the 12 "Upper Egypt & Lower Nubia" temples listed in Shaltout & Belmonte, Paper 1, Table 1, which face stars rising or setting at Declinations (+/-) 10.5 (+/-) 3.5 deg. Seven of these face SE, two SW and three NW. As I mentioned before, the three facing NW, correspond to Declination +12.1 +/-0.6 SEM, as calculated by Belmonte & Shaltout. These are (information gleaned from the internet, especially globalegyptianmuseum.org & egyptsites.wordpress.com ):

1. The temple of Montu at Medamud. A falcon-headed solar God from the Old Kingdom, associated with war since the 11th Dynasty, his temple is in ruins and closed to visitors. Though built during the Ptolemaic era, it was built on an earlier temple (maybe 12th Dynasty, i.e. Middle Kingdom) now destroyed, and in turn, that might have been built on an even earlier temple. It had a well, lake, granary, and ram-headed sphinxes.

2. The temple of Khnum at Aswan, on "Elephantine I." (named for rocks resembling bathing elephants): an important ram-headed creation God. Though Table 1 says Roman era, internet sources say 30th Dynasty (with a doorway by Alexander), maybe started in 18th Dynasty, and certainly overlying yet another temple. A 3rd dynasty granite step pyramid, and predynastic artifacts, are nearby. The nearby temple of Khnum's consort Satis, was built during the 18th dynasty, overlying: Middle Kingdom remains, a 6th Dynasty temple, and an Early Dynastic shrine.

3. The temple of Arensnuphis (a.k.a. Arsnuphis; "Arsnuphis belongs to northern Egypt..." - Margaret A. Murray, "Egyptian Temples", 1977; p. 187) at Filae (south of Aswan; moved in the 1970s). Though built during the Ptolemaic era, it was begun in the 30th Dynasty, using blocks of the 25th Dynasty original, plus some 19th Dynasty blocks. The last hieroglyphic inscription here is 394AD (!); its worship was ended by Justinian.

It seems that the Egyptian temples built last (Ptolemaic & Roman) really are generally the most important, popular and much-rebuilt temples. Few temples have had their foundations excavated much, and records (e.g., for the Hibis Temple) show that predecessor temples sometimes have existed though excavation found nothing. For religious and architectural reasons, foundation orientations tend to be preserved.

Some important temples face a setting (Montu, Khnum, Arensnuphis) or rising (Hibis) star of Declination +10.2 to +12.8. Maybe temples were aligned with Barbarossa during a 150 year brightening period during which Barbarossa's Declination was +12, decreasing to +10.5. Monument 6 at Tortuguero, Mexico, says "Bolon descends": i.e. was descending in ecliptic latitude, and Declination, in its orbit then; will be descending again this time; or, by 2012, will have descended in Declination due to equinox precession - all true. If the layouts of Egyptian temples were set during the 1500yr period from 4300BC to 2800BC (start of 3rd Dynasty) then I would expect 1/10 of them to be aligned with Barbarossa, as is the case.

I suppose, about equal numbers of temples faced Barbarossa's rising and setting. Egyptians liked temples facing the Nile; this would tend to split the number half & half, E & W. The preference for the rising sun, would favor an E face, but the preference for an evening star (when people are at more leisure to enjoy the view) would favor a W face. As "Bolon" (= bolus, ball), perhaps like a "second Sun", faded and was forgotten, temples tended to be rebuilt with doors facing south for light and warmth. The sunrise preference made NW-SE temples likelier to be rebuilt than NE-SW temples. Someone noticed that when the Sun's Declination was -11, it was about the right time to plant.

The optimum planting time would have been too debatable, and the floods and agricultural practice too variable from year to year, or century to century, to restrict temple orientations within a range of two degrees. Much later, central authority might decree a planting day, but in a calendar lacking (until Hellenistic times) a leap year, even this wouldn't narrow the range; besides, the foundations of all the predecessor temples had been laid.

About anomalies-is there a list of Earthly movments forced by plate tectonics? The surface of Earth is moving at a rate about one nanometer per second and I never see any reference to that anomaly or other motions of the plates.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />About anomalies-is there a list of Earthly movments forced by plate tectonics? The surface of Earth is moving at a rate about one nanometer per second and I never see any reference to that anomaly or other motions of the plates.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi,
These are not anomalies, but (relatively) known movements.
You're right that these movements must also be taken into account.
I think that they are routinely accounted for, when adjusting the local time and latitude of telescopes and astrolabes.
Indeed, there are papers discussing physical explanations of and even earthquake prediction models based on an irregular variation of these factors. See by example
www.springerlink.com/content/hw512p95131t6238/
and
www.springerlink.com/content/7m511872vr614176/

Maurol, Thats good to learn. What about the barycenter detail? Over look the eliptical orbit and focus on the relative position of the Earth/moon sun. The barycenter model has the Earth is nearer the sun when the moon is full and further at new moon so the moon pushes the Earth. When the fact is just the opposite-the Earth is nearer the sun at new moon-further at full moon. How do star guys correct that?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Maurol, Thats good to learn. What about the barycenter detail? Over look the eliptical orbit and focus on the relative position of the Earth/moon sun. The barycenter model has the Earth is nearer the sun when the moon is full and further at new moon so the moon pushes the Earth. When the fact is just the opposite-the Earth is nearer the sun at new moon-further at full moon. How do star guys correct that?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

When the Moon is full it is "opposed" to the Sun, with the Earth in between; then the Earth is further from the Sun due to the influence of the Moon.
And viceversa.
Star guys have different coordinate systems, and they use the most complex(i.e. solar system barycentric) when great accuracy is needed.

The corrections are based on a gravitational model (a mathematical simulation) of the solar system, I suppose.

Plus the correction of the Moon influence on Earth, other similar corrections are also needed, because the solar system barycenter changes, mostly due to the influence of Jupiter and Saturn, but also due to all the other planets.
Download ssbarycenter.gsim, from gravitysimulator.com, to see the effect of the different planets on the movement of the Solar System barycenter.

I was thinking that the Sun movement can be probably hidden in (at least) three places:
1) My previous "apparent precession" expositions. That is, into the dynamics of the orbits of the planets themselves. Discussed in previous posts.
2) The duration of the second itself (i.e. the "leap seconds" issue). Again, discussed in previous posts.
3) The difference between the number of solar days and sidereal days in a year being exactly one. If the Sun moves "laterally" (with a component of displacement over the ecliptic plane) the number of sidereal days in a year must not be exactly one more that the number of solar days, but slightly more (or less) than one solar day.
And I'm inclined to think that it will be more than one solar day, not less; that is, I'm thinking that the Sun is moving into an "orbit" with the same direction as most of the planets are.

A combination, overlapping, or even partial cancellation of these factors can be possible, of course.