The SSSS - early musings - 2013>2015

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

The SSSS - early musings - 2013>2015

Postby simonshack on July 12th, 2013, 1:01 am

*

ADMIN NOTICE (simon) - December 4, 2015: This thread only represents the initial musings and thought processes which, starting back in late 2012, motivated me to embark into the admittedly 'madly-ambitious' endeavor to try and answer and resolve (at least for myself!) the many questions posed by the universally-accepted heliocentric, Copernican /Keplerian solar system model. Naturally, many of my initial, tentative theories had to be discarded as I went along my 'astronomical learning curve' - yet all errors were made in earnest and certainly were never meant to confuse, mystify or disinform. I am locking this thread indefinitely (yet will keep it posted 'for the historical record') to avoid confusion with my upcoming, far more developed cosmic model (provisionally named "TYCHO-SSSS") which, I dare say, has satisfactorily resolved all of the major problems with the Copernican model which, as I will thoroughly demonstrate, is not only problematic - but downright impossible.





THE "SSSS"

The Earth rotates around its own axis - but not around the Sun.


A new perspective of our planet's place in the skies - by Simon Shack, July 2013

Image Image


Preamble
It would appear that Mother Earth does not, after all, circle the Sun at the fantastic speed of 108.000km/h - as we are told. I will try my very best to expound my audaciously-named "Simon Shack Solar System" in a simple manner - and hopefully be able to illustrate it with sufficient clarity. Yes, I have had the unmitigated gall to look into our solar system and to question Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and all - but as you will see – I have done so while duly respecting the most empirically sound and solid observations acquired throughout the times.

Abstract
I submit a revised model of the solar system wherein the Earth rotates around its own axis (at a fixed / constant rate) but does not orbit around the sun. Instead, it circles in a far smaller orbit perpendicular (or almost so) to the sun's ecliptic. This model provides a number of logical resolutions to empirically observed celestial motions and interactions - some of which are dubiously 'explained' by the classic heliocentric model, from the Analemma ‘phenomenon’ to the puzzling, non-uniform rate of the seasonal solar declination. It is proposed that the never-accounted-for (in conventional astronomy) LATERAL drift of the Earth versus the sun is at the root of all erroneous interpretations of Earth’s spatial motion.

Here is an illustration of the main concept of my SSSS:

Image

Fooled by the CLOCKS
The ‘Equation of Time’, a man-computed convention around which our clocks are calibrated, has caused several flawed conclusions - as it has made our clocks tick 4 minutes a day faster than the sidereal day (the time it takes for our stars to revolve around the Earth). This error adds up to a monthly 2-hour lag with respect to the speed of the stars' revolution. Moreover, it has led to the erroneous assumption of Earth’s motion in space - and its alleged 1billion-km-long orbit around the sun – at the mind-boggling speed of 30km/s or 108.000km/h. To be sure, no such speeds have ever been corroborated by experimental data – such as the famous, near-null results of the Michelson-Morley tentative earth speed measurements. In fact, if only our clocks had been calibrated around the 4-minutes shorter sidereal day (23h56min), far less confusion would have arised - as this would have made it obvious that Earth is (almost) stationary vis-à-vis the stars throughout the year(s).

The "PHANTOM DAY" - February 29
Instead, by ‘running fast’ by about 4min each day, and thus ‘over-counting’ by about 2 hours (4min X 30days=120min) each month, our clocks may well have fooled our astronomers into concluding that the Earth must move around in space at great speed - due to this 'unfortunate' error which causes an exaggerated, apparent discrepancy/ parallax between the Sun and the stars. Now, this monthly, 2-hour error adds up to an annual "over-reading" by our clocks (of our Earth's yearly revolution) of as many as 24 hours. Yet, we are also told that the actual time it takes Earth "to revolve around the Sun" is 365 days+6hours. So this would seem to bring down our clocks' error to 'only' 18 hours. We therefore have an extra day accounted for ... minus 6 hours! Are those 6 hours perhaps the basis for the Gregorian calendar’s puzzling "phantom day" (February 29), the so-called “leap year” occurring every four years? Food for thought. Now, you the reader may ask: "what issues do you, Simon, have with our established, heliocentric solar system model? Doesn't everything match up quite nicely? Earth rotating & orbiting around the Sun, etc?" Well, no. Here are a few things which have long baffled me:

The breathtaking ORBITAL SPEEDS
A widely accepted scientific dogma is that our universe is some sort of supersonic highway of incredibly fast-moving planets and stars. Just as an example, you may wish to check out this wiki link, which ends with this final, extraordinary sentence: "Total earth speed through space is about: 516 miles/second (830 km/s); 1,860,000 miles/hour (2,990,000 km/h)". Yes folks - that's almost 3 million km/h. Picture that for a second. Then, step back down to Earth and try matching these outlandish figures with what you see in the sky at night, with your own eyes: a perfectly placid, stable and static 'canvas' of countless, interlocked constellations drifting by above our heads, year after year, century after century. Yet, we are asked to believe that our stars and planets are hurtling across space at the unimaginable speed of 3million km/h. All in superb, unperturbed synchrony.


The “WOBBLING” Earth

Earth's supposed inclination and orbit around the sun - as of the Copernican theory:
ImageImage
Threre are two major problems I have with the concept that our planet would 'wobble' back and forth (allegedly between 22 and 24.6 degrees) as it circles around its purported 1billion km journey around the Sun. The first is that we have a star called ‘Polaris’ stuck right above our North polar circle and it doesn’t seem to move very much - if at all (we will see about the 26.000-year precession later). The second problem is that this axial tilt would cause our Northern icecap to be inclined by about 23.5° towards the sun in our Northern summer - and our Southern icecap to be inclined towards the sun by the same amount in our Southern summer. So how come – one may wonder, that our icecaps do not melt during these sunny, night-less summer months? (Official explanation: "The sunlight's angle of incidence doesn't really affect the temperatures on Earth.") Well, if that were true, there would be no noticeably different temperatures in Moscow (55°45′06″N) and Rome(41°53′35″N)! Of course, I do not deny the 'midnight sun' as we can see it at the North Pole - but I trust that you'll appreciate how the SSSS accounts for this in more plausible fashion. As for the South Pole being considerably colder than the North Pole, I will elaborate this issue at a later time: there is only so much I can expound here without making your heads spin out of orbit. Let me just mention that I am writing this exposé in the most ‘reader-friendly’ manner possible, intentionally avoiding to cite a whole bunch of referential, academic/scientific material - which I have indeed delved into. So rest assured that, as the un-credentialed “layman-astronomer” that I am, a fair amount of homework has been done.

Here's another illustration of my SSSS - just to show how the seasons would work in this system:

Image

The ANALEMMA
The 'Analemma' is something which any photographer armed with a clock-watch can catch on film given due patience and dedication. See, if you put a camera on a tripod for a full year and take a picture of the sun (once every week or so, at the exact same time of day) you will end up with this pretty 8-shaped figure called "the ANALEMMA":
Image
Now, you've got to ask yourself: WHAT exactly makes the sun go up and down - AND sideways – as seen in the above ANALEMMA image, during the course of a year? Here we have a classic animated illustration of our solar system which we have all been taught at school, with Earth's supposed orbit around the sun - showing that 'axial tilt' (the Copernican model) :
Image

Does it seem at all possible to you that this motion would cause the tall, 8-shaped ANALEMMA to occur - from the visual frame reference of an observer on Earth? Perhaps the tilt / wobble of the Earth would account for some of it, but what about the LATERAL displacements of the sun that the ANALEMMA shows? (Official explanation: " 1. The Earth is tilted on its axis 23.5° in relation to the plane of its orbit around the sun. 2. The Earth does not orbit the sun in a circle, but in an ellipse." http://www.analemma.com/Pages/framesPage.html ) Well, our Earth's orbit's eccentricity is said to be in the order of 0.0167% or so - not much of an ellipse you could say, yet Kepler’s law assures us that this would cause the Earth’s orbital speed to fluctuate back and forth, from winter to summer…

In any case, I fail to see how any of this would cause the spectacular ANALEMMA-shape. Absurdly enough, it is also academically acknowledged that the Analemma is the result of the Equation of Time (EOT) - or in other words, a mere illusion. It is, in fact, a man-made ‘time-twist’ concocted in order to artificially allow our clocks to tick at a uniform rate, in an effort to counter a pesky and still to this day unexplained “phenomenon” which has baffled everyone for millennia: the bizarre fact that the sun’s motion in the sky, as clocked by a sundial, appears to accelerate and decelerate by as much as 30minutes across the seasons (approx +16 minutes and -14 minutes between the solstices!) As it is, my SSSS proposes to resolve this conundrum once and for all.

Now, and before we go any further, please know that the ANALEMMA used to be printed on all the desktop globes of yesteryear. Yet, for some unfathomable reason, no modern desktop globes features the ANALEMMA anymore. One has to wonder: why would that be? Is the Analemma a taboo subject nowadays?

Image
But let's get on and see how our planet may be spinning in front of the Sun - according to my best observations and deductions. Please stay with me - as we get into the thick of it. I know, this is a long read, but it's the result of many months of vigorous, sleepless head-scratching - admittedly interspersed with many cruel yet sobering ‘back-to-the-drawing board’ moments. I guess that re-designing our “long-established” solar system must come with its fair share of blood, sweat and tears! However, don’t get me wrong: I am not in any way claiming to have wrapped it all up - but I do hope my efforts will serve to the good cause of re-opening the long dormant debate as to precisely how our universe spins about.

The ANALEMMA in the SSSS model
We may intuitively figure how the Analemma would occur in the SSSS model: it would appear to be the logical result of the parallax effect caused by the up/down and sideways drift of the Earth versus the Sun:
Image
Imagine our 'JOE' standing at the Equator (at the opposite, sunlit side of Earth) as he snaps a picture of the Sun at noon - twice a month for a full year. What he will record SHOULD be what we see in Fig. 2: as he travels upwards and towards his right between June and September (A), the Sun will appear to drift downwards and towards his left. As he descends from December to March (C), the Sun will appear to drift upwards - and towards his right. Get the drift? Well, the problem was to make a clock which would tick at a variable rate, ergo, at a gradually accelerating and decelerating rate. Sure, it may be done today - but no one knew how to do it 500 years ago.

At this point, dear reader, you really need to read this Wikipedia page about "THE EQUATION OF TIME": Let me just quote selected excerpts of it:

"The right time was essentially defined as that which was shown by a sundial. When good mechanical clocks were introduced, except near four dates a year they did not agree with sundials, so the equation of time was used to "correct" their readings to obtain sundial time. Some clocks, called equation clocks, included an internal mechanism to perform this "correction"."

"The equation of time was used historically to set clocks. Between the invention of accurate clocks in 1656 and the advent of commercial time distribution services around 1900, one of two common land-based ways to set clocks was by observing the sun's transit across the meridian — the moment the sun passed overhead, the clock was set to noon and offset by the number of minutes given by the equation of time for that date."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_time


Well, OF COURSE sundials are the most accurate clocks! That is, if the persons marking with numbers the shadows projected on the dial have any clue of what they are doing - and why the shadows progress at variable rates of time, something which probably has never been understood. Sundials simply reflect sunlight which, as far as I know, is the light cast on this Earth by our Sun, so how can anyone say that they are inaccurate? If sundials were not quite accurate - neither would the shadows that our bodies project on the ground! You cannot beat the maths of Mother Nature.

Let's see now how our Sun's declination (its apparent elevation as seen from Earth) gets recorded by our modern measuring tools. Here follows a diagram illustrating the seasonal motion of the Sun from the vantage point of Libreville (the capital of Gabon) - which lies smack under the Equator. As you will see, the available data clearly supports the basic premise of the SSSS – insofar as the sunlight angles would intuitively behave within its system:
Image
source > NOAA: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/

Remarkable, isn’t it? Now, let's just return to the ANALEMMA issue for a minute. As it is, the actual "ZERO POINTS" chosen by the EQUATION OF TIME to represent the solstices and equinoxes happen to be slightly offset from these exact points - for some reason that we will discuss at another time. By "ZERO POINTS", it is assumed that those are the days when the all-important, two pairs of solstices & equinoxes occur. When consulting available online calculators and such, you will see that that the points which the EQUATION OF TIME equates as "zero" are generally stated as : December25, April15, June13 and September1.

Image

I will now ask you to go to this fascinating, animated Planetarium website: http://neave.com/planetarium/

Firstly, do this experiment: choose any constellation that you like - and get familiar with its shape. Then, click on the month-to-month function. For instance: go from February21 to March 21. As you are at March21, click back the time by 2hours. You will see the exact same constellation returning at the exact same position. This is because the sidereal day lasts about 4min less than the solar time (as tweaked by the EQUATION OF TIME). The same will occur if you go forward two months from Feb21 to Apr21 - and click back 4 hours. Go forward three months - and click back 6 hours from that. And so on and so forth. The exact same constellation will always reappear at its former position. Next, set the time to noon on any date, place the sun in the middle of your screen - then click on the month button and hold it continuously: you will see the 8-shaped 'Analemma' magically being traced by the sun's trajectory. Of course, this is because that Planetarium website's software - as any other clock-based platform - is based on the universally established yet arbitrarily defined, man-made Equation of TIme .

Our clocks have been foolishly calibrated around our most nearby 'star' - the Sun - with all the parallax problems that this entailed. Our clocks should have ideally been calibrated around the far more reliable frame-reference of our distant, star-studded firmament. How distant are the stars and the Sun, you may ask? I don't know - but I do question the official data on these matters. Back in ancient ages, Aristarchus of Samos calculated that the moon's diameter was 3474km. That's pretty damn close to our modern times' figure of 4300km - so good ol' Aristarchus must have known what he was doing! Well, it so happens that he also extrapolated from the very same set of trigonometric calculations that the Sun is 2,4million km away from us. Now, THAT is dramatically different from the "150million km" figure that modern science is claiming. Yet, who are we to believe? Have you calculated the Sun-Earth distance for yourself? I certainly haven't - and would have no idea how to do so.


All comments on my SSSS are warmly welcome. I hope we can enter a new era of understanding our beloved Mother Earth's presence in the skies - as a planet blessed with a tranquil and steady little orbit - basking under its ideal sunlight in a comfortable corner of the universe. :)
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6319
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The SSSS

Postby hoi.polloi on July 12th, 2013, 5:01 am

Thank you for the read. I think the ease with which you've written extremely complex data confirms my suspicions that "john gault" was meant to disrupt your findings and obscure them. That "user" talked about clock data versus solar measurements as well as particularly at the equinoxes and solstices. But what you have written turns out to be not so obscure and self-contradictory. It may have been a great deal of work to put together, but it's not hard to read or understand. I applaud you for that. Thank you for getting through it anyway and leaving your theory clear, concise and free from mental aberrations like those "john gault" type users would besmirch it with.

I will say two negative things about the model only; and I take responsibility for their being consequences of my own mental failures.

One, I am not satisfied with how it addresses (or rather doesn't address) the lack of evidence for a spinning Earth. We just go on assuming the Earth is spinning because it fits with the 24-hour solar day, despite the lack of centripetal effects. It would be good to include in your model the Moon's motions following the Earth's closer than the Sun's and demonstrating why the Sun and cosmos are (or are not) orbiting the Earth. It would be good to consider an expanded physics version of the model whereby all move enough to reject significant physical effects of Earth's measurable acceleration differences across its surface (since there aren't many).

Two, and this is where my own slow brain comes in, the so-called wrongness of time needs some diagram to jump-start the lay person's understanding of how they are inconsistent with what is actually going on. To me, it's not clear precisely what you are saying about the "4 minutes fast" clocks. Yes, we all know about leap year. The clocks are meant to measure a solar day, not the stars' day. Unless you mean to denote two different measurements of what a minute actually is, you're proposing we should restart the day every 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds, and run our clocks on the star data? It seems you addressed a kind of non-problem in your explanation, unless I'm not following your complaint about clocks.

simonshack wrote:This error adds up to a monthly 2-hour error, as to the actual speed of Earth's rotation around itself.


Earth's rotation around itself? That seems an odd way of putting it. The sidereal day is related to the stars' motions and is about 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds. The solar day is related to the Sun's motion and its return to the same meridian or its highest point in the sky. So what's the deal? Can you explain in a patient slow fashion for me what the issue is?

Lastly, thanks for submitting this interesting thing to your own forum, and I hope you will welcome (to a reasonable extent) the surely inevitable questions and critiques from our board of sometimes goofy and sometimes brilliant minds.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4720
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: The SSSS

Postby I, Gestalta on July 12th, 2013, 5:26 am

In several of the instances of the word "rotates", I think "revolves" should be substituted.

I'm going to have to give this a couple more reads before I consider commenting and asking questions of any real meaning. In any case, it was, at the least, a curious and thought-provoking read.
I, Gestalta
Member
 
Posts: 149
Joined: July 25th, 2012, 10:00 pm

Re: The SSSS

Postby simonshack on July 12th, 2013, 6:03 am

hoi.polloi wrote:
simonshack wrote:This error adds up to a monthly 2-hour error, as to the actual speed of Earth's rotation around itself.


Earth's rotation around itself? That seems an odd way of putting it.

Thank goodness I have you as a proof-reader, Hoi! I should have consulted with you beforehand. Of course, what I meant was: "This error adds up to a monthly 2-hour lag with respect to the speed of the stars' revolution." I've now edited that important sentence.

I am off to bed now, but I originally meant to add this little post scriptum to my SSSS presentation. Hope it will do for now, to address some issues regarding the Earth's rotation - and a few thoughts about gravity:


Addendum: About Earth's rotation around its axis - and gravity
A last, brief thought to sum up my stance on these two fundamental questions. While I have no more reasons to believe that Earth speeds around the sun at 108.000km/h (as expounded above), I do accept that it is spinning around its axis (at - plausibly - 1600km/h at the Equator - why not?); after all, when we travel in a plane travelling at almost 1000km/h, we cannot sense the motion unless we look out of the window, can we? We may have cognitive difficulties envisioning our surrounding air/atmosphere/and clouds as being enclosed just like the air in a moving vehicle - but I can personally, somehow, imagine the upper strata of our atmosphere acting as a 'ceiling' against the 'outside' of outer space. Anyhow, we know that meteors get promptly torn to shreds when trying to enter 'our enclosed vehicle', so some seriously strong shield must be enveloping our planet. I call it "our protective ceiling".

I have no idea why the massive vacuum of space doesn't 'suck away' and equalize our atmosphere with the void of outer space - but then again, perhaps its repellent force against air might 'compress' our planet's atmosphere against the Earth's surface? As for gravity, which no one has ever satisfactorily explained, may it possibly be caused by the sheer, tremendous force/weight of air pressure (1kg per cm² or 10 tons on an area of 1m²!!!) pushing us against the Earth surface, thus counteracting the inferior centrifugal force of the spinning Earth? To be sure, gravity is not a 'constant and absolute' force emitted from within the core of our planet - or else, when swimming at sea, you would be plumetting down towards the seabed at 9.8m/s²!
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6319
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The SSSS

Postby Starbucked on July 12th, 2013, 10:57 am

Bravo Simon! That took a couple of reads but I'm starting to get it.
I think this deserves its own Wiki page and perhaps a cheeky TM added: SSSS™ or 4S™ ;)
Looking forward to some more insight and eventually this model getting disseminated throughout the internets. Would make for a lively debate topic!
Starbucked
Member
 
Posts: 209
Joined: November 28th, 2012, 12:33 pm

Re: The SSSS

Postby rusty on July 12th, 2013, 12:19 pm

Simon,

I tip my hat to you for delving into this most complex topic and providing us with much food for thought. I seriously hope that some fruitful discussion and even better some good results will come up in this thread.

I'm all with you on the topic of earth's rotation. I know we discussed it in the "Cold of the universe" thread, and I was open to the outcome of this question. What convinced me about rotation was the line of research into gyrocompasses (triggered by Maat mentioning the German V1 missiles, which were allegedly guided by gyrocompasses) and gyroscopic behaviour. I can't see how this could be explained without the gyroscope itself moving in a rotational pattern. Read here for an in depth analysis:

http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/elect/chap17.htm

That still does not tell us, however, if the geocentric or the heliocentric model is more correct or whether we have to apply the inverse (concave) model of our earth. But we're rotating, this I'm 99% sure by now.

As usual ;) I tend to disagree with you about the modeling used in the software simulation:

simonshack wrote:you will see the 8-shaped 'Analemma' magically being traced by the sun's trajectory. Of course, this is because that Planetarium website's software - as any other clock-based platform - is based on the universally established yet arbitrarily defined, man-made Equation of TIme .


I think that's a pretty bold allegation. I'd really be surprised if this was the case. It would be much easier and straightforward to simply base the software on the geometry of the current heliocentric model! And I'd be really surprised, if the analemma would not show up in such a software model, as I'm pretty sure this would be a MAJOR issue in the scientific community. But, as time permits, maybe I can make my own simple version of such a "sun positioning software based on the current heliocentric model" to confirm my assumptions.

simonshack wrote:To be sure, gravity is not a 'constant and absolute' force emitted from within the core of our planet - or else, when swimming at sea, you would be plumetting down towards the seabed at 9.8m/s²!


Why then, would a rock do exactly that (not at 9.8m/s², but fast enough)? If it's only air pressure, that should not work under water. Do you have general issues with buoyancy?
rusty
Member
 
Posts: 119
Joined: October 10th, 2012, 11:01 am

Re: The SSSS

Postby simonshack on July 14th, 2013, 3:20 pm

Thanks, Hoi, Rusty and Starbucked for your overall encouraging comments. Before responding in due fashion to them, let me just illustrate some more the basic premises of my tentative SSSS model - so as to clarify some key points.
**************************************************************


The SSSS (part2)

The 'Analemma dilemma':

I would like to further clarify what the SSSS assumes the 'mysterious' analemma to be. Here is a simplified (for illustrative purposes) analemma. For now, I have just named the four seasons A,B,C,D. The question of why the real analemma (such as one can photograph in the sky over one full year - see below) isn't a quite symmetrical "8-shape" will be addressed later - in part3.

Image

Here is a fine series of analemmas captured by a patient Greek photographer, Anthony Ayiomamitis. You may read how he went by obtaining these images on his website: http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Solar-Analemma.htm
Image

Now, this may sound redundant to mention - but obviously Anthony used a clock to make sure he snapped each of this series of sun positions at the exact same time of day. Had he used a (modern-day) sundial, he would probably have obtained similar results - since sundials are also calibrated with the same, man-computed Equation of Time. Perhaps, if he'd used an ancient sundial - his results might have come out quite different - who knows? But let me get on. Here is another diagram of mine, illustrating what the SSSS assumes/postulates:

Image

THE LONGITUDE problem

Back in the ol' sea-faring days (1600/1700's), the thorny question of how to determine the longitude of a ship at sea was a most crucial concern of the times - hotly debated by scores of top scientists including our ol' friend Newton himself. Wiki quote: "The problem was considered so intractable that the British Parliament offered a prize of £20,000 (comparable to £2.87 million in modern currency) for the solution". For a short overview of what a huge problem this was, and what sort of solutions were proposed, please read the paragraph titled "LONGITUDE, overview of the problem" on this Wiki page dedicated to John Harrison, inventor of the marine chronometer. (For a fascinating account of this man's harrowing battle to clinch the coveted £20,000 prize, I highly recommend reading this most entertaining article.)

Image

I will stop here for now - and let the reader ponder over the above arguments and illustrations.
However, here's just a last crumb of food-for-thought for everyone to chew on : :)

THE "NOON MARK":
I found this picture of a "Noon-Mark" at the bottom of the "Sundial" Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundial
"A reconstruction of a long lost mean time Noon-Mark, "unveiled" at the Royal Observatory at Greenwich on 10th October 2012. The analemma is the narrow figure-8 shape, which plots the equation of time (in degrees, not time, 1°=4minutes) versus the altitude of the sun at noon at the sundial's location. The altitude is measured vertically, the equation of time horizontally."
Image

Well, as far as I can tell, all this funny "Noon-Mark" does is to measure the amount of lateral error the Equation of Time still contains... If noon were to be measured precisely, there should be ZERO lateral drift of a sundial's shadow at noon!
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6319
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The SSSS

Postby hoi.polloi on July 15th, 2013, 4:10 am

Simon and rusty, I am not sure why you have decided to just accept the idea of a rotating Earth despite a lack of really convincing evidence. I thought this place was all about resting on an important lack of knowledge, and our acknowledgement of that lack of knowledge. After all, we like evidence more than we like resting on speculation, although speculation is fun.

Since I can't get the lack of centripetal force out of my mind, and I don't believe a shield would protect us or even stay up evenly around the globe unless the properties of outer space are much different than we presume (such as there being no vacuum or the Earth isn't a globe), allow me to propose a modest change to your SSSS, Simon.

Proposal 1. By merely having the Sun spiral very quickly (perhaps it is smaller and closer than NASA proposes) around a mostly still Earth, you can reproduce the angles at which the Earth is supposed to be tilted in the Helio model. As the seasons progress, the Sun goes south as the orbit tightens, then north as the orbit widens.
model_SSSS2.GIF
(Please note this illustration is for conceptual explanation and the relative sizes of each body are not to scale.)

I also envision two or three other possible models one could draw from this 'comfy little wobble' you have depicted:

Proposal 2. the Earth goes around the Sun, but does not rotate to the extent NASA supposes; instead the cosmos does a hoola hoop action around the Earth. (See: possible necessitation of Proposal 4)

Proposal 3. (most conservative and one that I can't really get on board with at the moment) the Earth rotates and orbits the Sun, but it is the Earth's orbit that jostles closer and further per Simon's model.

Proposal 4. (forget the "either-or" of Helio versus Geo) the Earth and Sun "orbit" one another based on an invisible midway fulcrum between them, and with all the sundry effects and math that results.

In any case, it is a very important discovery to note the positioning measurement variation caused by our inaccurate clocks. I thank you Simon for that great point. I just don't think we should throw out Airy's experiment because it is convenient to do so. I think the motion may actually be more or less complex than NASA wants us to believe.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4720
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: The SSSS

Postby rusty on July 15th, 2013, 9:09 am

hoi.polloi wrote:Simon and rusty, I am not sure why you have decided to just accept the idea of a rotating Earth despite a lack of really convincing evidence.


Hoi, as I wrote, I did not just accept it, but I had to because of the really convincing evidence of gyroscopic behaviour, as seen, for instance, in gyrocompasses. I'd be glad if you could explain that behaviour to me, because, to be sure, I was more in favor of a non-rotating earth before, and this discovery came as some kind of shock to me. But I'm ready to change my views, if I have to, in either (or aether?) direction.
rusty
Member
 
Posts: 119
Joined: October 10th, 2012, 11:01 am

Re: The SSSS

Postby simonshack on July 15th, 2013, 11:10 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:Proposal 3. (most conservative and one that I can't really get on board with at the moment) the Earth rotates and orbits the Sun, but it is the Earth's orbit that jostles closer and further per Simon's model.


Hoi ! :o

I think we have a few major misunderstandings here - but that's fine: I may well be responsible for it, having perhaps over-simplified my graphics. I thank you for suggesting, through your comments, how to improve and clarify my illustrations of the SSSS. I will now urgently do so.

Firstly, I do NOT suggest that the Earth orbits around the sun - at all ! Secondly, I am NOT NECESSARILY assuming that it jostles closer and further to the Sun. Well, I know that the diagram below suggests so, but what I have postulated here is a quite insignificantly small (celestially-speaking) annual back-and-forth motion of, say, a mere 12,700km (the Earth's own diameter):

Image

In the SSSS, the Earth stays pretty much stationary - in that 'comfy little spot' of the universe that I mentioned (and, again, does NOT revolve around the sun). However, it does rotate around itself, performing a small circular orbit in front of the sun. In the SSSS, the Sun orbits the Earth - while the entire firmament remains also very much stationary.

In fact, as I have tried to explain (quite poorly so far, it seems!) one of the MAIN absurdities of the "universally accepted" Copernican / heliocentric model, is that of Earth's supposedly huge and rapid displacement through space, as it purportedly travels at 108.000km/h, completing - as we are told - a 1-billion km journey around the sun every year! Yet, as heliocentrists have it, in spite of our planet flying around space with its axis tilted on one side by 23.5°, our faithful North Star POLARIS appears to remain almost perfectly stationary over our heads all year long ??? How can POLARIS possibly stay 'stuck' in the very same place above our North Pole throughout the year? And no, just like Tycho Brahe, I am not satisfied with the "huge Earth-to-star distance", Copernican explanation.

In the SSSS model, POLARIS is not expected to move about much at all - JUST as anyone can easily observe - with their own eyes. POLARIS hardly moves - and this is quite simply an empirically verifiable, incontrovertible fact, the sort of which I like to base any of my musings around. Let me try and illustrate this very important point - as best as I can :

Image

Polaris (white dot adjacent to red dot, the Celestial North) as seen looking straight up from the Northern Hemisphere all year long. It appears to circle around the Celestial North - at a fixed declination of +89°15' 51''. All other stars/constellations appear to revolve 'in unison' around Polaris. It would take a lot of imagination to think that it is NOT the Earth that rotates :
Image
INTERACTIVE PLANETARIUM: http://neave.com/planetarium/

Not only George Airy, but a whole bunch of other scientists - as listed here at the Michelson-Morley wiki page - have famously failed to measure anywhere near those alleged, mind-boggling speeds at which Mother Earth is supposed to be travelling at across the aether - or whatever we may call it. But hey, Einstein simply concluded that... the aether "does not exist!".

He might as well have said: "Polaris does not exist!" :lol:


************
The discovery of the so-called "aberration of light - or Stellar aberration" (as studied by Airy and others) appears to be the reason as to why Einstein (and his special relativity monster) was brought in - so as to stymie the rising awareness of our Earth's tranquil motions - quite consistent with the SSSS model :

"Assuming a circular orbit, annual aberration causes stars exactly on the ecliptic (the plane of the Earth's orbit) to appear to move back and forth along a straight line, varying by Image on either side of their position in the Sun's frame. A star that is precisely at one of the ecliptic poles (at 90 degrees from the ecliptic plane) will appear to move in a circle of radius Image about its true position, and stars at intermediate ecliptic latitudes will appear to move along a small ellipse."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_aberration


***
(edited for my brain-fade blunder rightly pointed out by Rusty - regarding the Earth's axial tilt. Thanks, Rusty!)
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6319
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The SSSS

Postby rusty on July 16th, 2013, 9:16 am

simonshack wrote:Yet, as heliocentrists have it, in spite of our planet flying around space AND tilting side-to-side by a yearly total of 47°(23.5° + 23.5°), our faithful North Star POLARIS appears to remain pretty much perfectly stationary over our heads all year long ??? Well, this is patently absurd - in my honest opinion. Even if we disregard Earth's supposed orbital speed - how can POLARIS stay stuck in the very same place above our North Pole - if we are tilting by a whopping 47°throughout the year? No, this cannot be explained by the "huge Earth-to-star distances".


Sorry Simon, but the heliocentric model does not claim that our earth is tilting side-by-side or back-and-forth. Instead, it's tilting stays at a constant 23.5°in one direction. Thus, when the earth orbits around the sun, it's tilted away at one time (in winter on the northern hemisphere) and tilted towards the sun on the other side (in summer on the northern hemisphere), but the absolute inclination remains the same. So the north star, which is supposed to be far far away always stays at the same position.
rusty
Member
 
Posts: 119
Joined: October 10th, 2012, 11:01 am

Re: The SSSS

Postby simonshack on July 16th, 2013, 11:05 am

rusty wrote:Sorry Simon, but the heliocentric model does not claim that our earth is tilting side-by-side or back-and-forth. Instead, it's tilting stays at a constant 23.5°in one direction.

Whoops - Good Heavens, of course you're right, Rusty - thanks! Brain-fade on my part - I should have gone to bed earlier last night, having returned from a long day by the seaside with a painful sunburn so ... blame it on the sun, hehe! I probably badly misread the quoted line below, augh! (*embarrassed lament*). Please forgive me for this slip - I have now amended my above post.
"However, because the ecliptic (i.e. the Earth's orbit) moves due to planetary perturbations, the obliquity of the ecliptic is not a fixed quantity. At present, it is decreasing at a rate of about 47" per century."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt


edit: Oh, wait - I now recall what I was thinking of with that 47° figure: that is of course the total sunlight angle variation (-23.5° / +23.5°) which each hemisphere would experience between winter and summer - in the Copernican model !

In any case, the puzzling question of stellar parallax (or rather, the near-absence of it) has been one of the most hotly debated astronomical issues throughout the centuries. I am putting together a little summary of the subject - so as to have an overview of it. I promise to double-and-triple check all the related data before posting it - so as to avoid further blunders! ^_^
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6319
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The SSSS

Postby simonshack on July 18th, 2013, 9:49 pm

*



The SSSS (part3)


For this part 3 of my SSSS theory, I believe a little preamble is in order. I do realize that, for some of you, this new research of mine may seem as if I am using old, established (and therefore dubious) scientific / astrophysical findings to make my case. Not so. I am doing my very best to keep my mind focused on what can actually be empirically confirmed with our own eyes and telescopes - i.e. sunrise and sunset timelines, stars /constellation motions - as well as observational data (from Earth) such as solar declination/right ascension tables, seasonal stellar motions and so on - which should be easily verifiable by anyone, given due time and dedication. To be sure, it would be pretty foolish to dismissively throw in the dustbin the vast efforts produced by our forebears for untold centuries / millenia as they tried to make sense of our universe. However, I do believe that if my SSSS turns out to have solid and irrefutable points, a whole lot of things will follow such as - ideally - the definitive exposure of NASA as the gigantic fraud that it is (something that we on this forum are already fully aware of).

Now, we all know of the solar system and its supposed workings - as of the current, universally accepted Copernican, heliocentric model. I will now therefore submit something which should - at the very least - throw a big question mark over it. Whether you're interested in astronomy or not, at some time of your life you MUST have asked yourself: "What makes my spring days longer - and my autumn days shorter?" The 'official' explanation is, of course, that of the Earth's supposed "23.5° axial tilt". Yes, but when exactly would that axial tilt cause the days to get longer or shorter? Wouldn't this happen mostly around the summer and winter solstices - as that tilt starts exposing the Earth to a higher/ or lower angle of sunlight? Well, no. Amazingly, the most dramatic variations of solar declination occur around the equinoxes! How could this possibly be?

Image

WHY on Earth would the solar declination increase / decrease by 22 degrees around the equinoxes - in the Copernican model? Isn't our planet supposed to fly around, levelled on the plane of the Sun's ecliptic? In such a scenario, what would possibly make the Sun appear to rise or descend by over 22 degrees in those months - as of the universally accepted model ? YOU tell me!

So does this mean that the Copernican theory is busted and dead? Again - YOU be the judge. If you are an astronomer, be my guest: I warmly welcome you to explain why the maximum variation of solar declination occurs around the equinoxes.

******************

We will now compare the so-called 'SOLAR YEAR' with the so-called "SIDEREAL YEAR". Now, please don't get me wrong: when I say "so-called", this doesn't mean that I dismiss all the calculations made by scores of sharp thinkers who lived back in the 16th century - or way before that. Far from it - although it seems we've had a formidable stagnation of research and curiosity about our universe's workings ever since those old days. All I am doing here is to revive our forebears' best efforts and findings - and to formulate my own interpretation of the same. Ultimately, YOU will be the judge of the points expounded in my SSSS theory - and its proposed revision of the Copernican theory:

Image
You can verify for yourself that the SIDEREAL TIME 'drags' a monthly 2 hours behind the SOLAR TIME (i.e. behind our clocks):
Go to this INTERACTIVE PLANETARIUM: http://neave.com/planetarium/
Just focus on ANY constellation of your choice - put your finger on it on your screen, click ahead one month - then click back 2 hours. You will see your chosen constellation returning to the same position. If you click ahead three months - then click back 6 hours, the same will occur... Go ahead 6 months, click back 12 hours - and so forth and so on.

And just to summarize a few points made so far:

The SSSS model provides plausible / rational explanations for :


- Why our clocks had to be ideally, yet artificially 'tuned' with the Equation of Time in order to tick at a steady, continuous rate.

- Why we get the curious, 8-shaped Analemma when using our clocks to photograph the Sun's annual / seasonal elevations.

- Why we can see different stars rising in the night sky throughout the year - as the Earth drifts laterally vis-à-vis the Sun.

- Why the seasonal solar declination increases / decreases MOST around the equinoxes ( February>April & August>October ).

- Why little or no stellar parallax is detectable (since Earth does NOT travel around the Sun in a 300million km-wide /1billion km-long circle).
Why, also, our North Star (Polaris) appears to remain very much stationary, right above our North Pole - all year(s) long.

- Why the polar circles stay cold throughout the year and do not melt during their respective summer seasons - as they NEVER tilt by 23,5 degrees towards the sun. Why, also, the North Pole is considerably warmer than the South Pole (explanation coming up in part 4).

******************
edit to add:

I've edited the text of my last diagram above ("THE SOLAR YEAR"). I'm posting this text below, in case anyone wishes to quote it for discussion:

The Earth's orbit in the SSSS model explains why we see different stars in the night sky throughout the seasons. Since Earth drifts laterally (for six months 'rightwards' and for six months 'leftwards'), both sunrises and 'star-rises' occur at continuously points as viewed from our earthly perspective.

A solar year contains one more day than a sidereal year. Thus, our clocks 'run faster' (by 2hours monthly) than Earth's actual rotational speed.

It takes (according to our clocks) 23h56min for a given star to reappear in the exact same position in the sky: our longer solar day (24h) is needed to adjust for the parallax caused by our planet's lateral drift vis-à-vis the Sun, Yet, this daily 4-minute increase over sidereal time causes our clocks to invert 'true noon' and midnight every six months.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6319
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The SSSS

Postby simonshack on July 19th, 2013, 4:10 pm

*
For those who have already read my Part 3 : I have made a series of amendments to both text and graphics - in the last few hours. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused !


However, having bumped into a tricky hurdle with my theory, I will lock this thread for now until I wrap my head around of this - hopefully soon. I'll be hitting the sunny beaches these days, so this should help clear up my mind ! :)

The information I've come across about sidereal time/day /year /cycles (which I've tried to make sense of through multiple sources - in several languages) is most bewildering and contradictory - just about the most headache-inducing stuff I've come over in my lifetime! So I'm going to give myself time to get a better grip of it all - so as not to contribute haphazardly to what seems like a particularly blurry field of astronomy.

This said, all of my questions I've raised regarding the Copernican model remain - they certainly haven't gone away!

For now, let the discussion about Earth's place in space continue on this good'ol thread: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1424&start=210
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6319
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The SSSS

Postby hoi.polloi on July 19th, 2013, 7:05 pm

I think if you incorporated geocentrism and/or non-spinning Earth ideas, it could really help your theory. Not necessarily to adopt these ideas but to grasp all that could be going on that we don't think about.

For example, if you add a waveform "bob" to the Earth and Sun by slowly rotating the procession of your SSSS year, the Earth doesn't move in a uniform circle but bobs up and down as if freely adjusting to various forces (gravity, etc.) presumably at work on the Earth.

model_hp2.GIF


This is just what NASA claims the solar system is doing as it "adjusts" to the Milky Way galaxy from the Sagittarius Brown Dwarf Galaxy we are said to originate from.

Hence, to me it's not all that wild or wacky to say the Earth might be doing a bit of its own dance in place. As long as all the math and observations hold up, it could be a good new map for our universe.

If you also add a daily rotation of the Cosmos/Sun around the Earth, you have a fine explanation for lack of centripetal effects that should come with a 24-hour rotation of thousands of miles we are standing on.

model_hp3.GIF


model_hp5-7.GIF


I used figure 4 to come up with some procession, but I am not including it because it started looking like a 1970's psychedelic poster. But note in fig. 6, what I am trying to point out is that (unlike fig. 1, my first proposal in the thread) the Sun stays on the same orbital plane and now merely wraps tight or loose around the "axle" of the Earth. In fig. 7, I tried to show what this might look like from the North and from a "side" view.

Here is a little "toy" I made to explain what I mean. Sorry it's kinda buggy and it uses your old ideas you haven't updated yet (such as Earth getting closer to the Sun during winter, hence my Sun orbit getting tighter during winter) but when you update your SSSS model, I will make a newer version that incorporates your new ideas and also is hopefully less buggy. Anyway, it's fun to speculate on things and practice making explanation graphics:

Animated "sketch" of the SSSS with orbiting Sun (SWF, 13k, requires Flash Player)

Also, I think the "15 days per second" option ended up moving far too fast, the Earth occasionally lights up wrong and so on, but anyway, again I will correct for this in the next version. This is just for me to get thinking about it.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4720
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Next

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests