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.

Re: The SSSS

Postby agraposo on September 2nd, 2013, 9:04 pm

simonshack wrote:how can an observer from Earth see Mars realigning in front of the same constellation in less than 732 days?

I hope this diagram will help you see this clearly:

Image
http://www.windows2universe.org/mars/mars_orbit.html

In the dates that you selected, the straight line Earth-Mars points to the same position in the celestial sphere (i.e. Mars is in the same right ascension / declination as seen from the Earth).

This "re-alignment" doesn't happen precisely when Mars and Earth are in opposition, as you can also see in this graphic:

Image
http://science.larouchepac.com/kepler/newastronomy/part1/marsyear.html

I think you are using the term "re-alignment" for two different things:
- Mars is seen in the same position in the sky from the Earth (same right ascension / declination);
- opposition (Sun-Earth-Mars is a straight line). In the oppositions, Mars is not seen in the same position in the sky, only approximately after the 15-17 years Mars cycle.
agraposo
Member
 
Posts: 251
Joined: June 10th, 2011, 10:48 pm

Re: The SSSS

Postby simonshack on September 3rd, 2013, 1:23 am

agraposo wrote:I hope this diagram will help you see this clearly:

Image
http://www.windows2universe.org/mars/mars_orbit.html



Sorry, I don't understand: would I be able to see Mars aligned with the exact same point of the LIBRA constellation (as shown in my NEAVE screenshots) at all of the above four moments in time ? If so, how? :huh:

I know parallax is virtually impossible to detect between different stars - but between Earth/Mars and the distant stars, surely parallax must occur when looking up at the same angle from two different positions of Earth's orbit ? See, NASA simply doesn't feature any stars in their 'footage' - I suppose they know how easy it would be to call them out on their BS if they showed impossible things (...ehrm, well - wishful thinking perhaps...). But let's stay real and not treat the stars as if they weren't there. Also, I think you are a using a tad too confidently diagrams from various websites as 'proof positive' that things are the way they claim they are - in the real world / universe. Of course, neither of us have access to observatories or top astronomical equipment to empirically confirm / or disprove the astronomical academia's claims - but we should at least use our logic and critical faculties to verify their plausibility.

Anyhow, to show my good disposition to debate I have made a little animated gif with the screenshots that you proposed from that Windows2Universe website. I have also added a short, speculative caption to it - so as to anticipate a possible explanation which you may have to this thorny issue :

Image

So is this, perhaps, a case of "light refraction", of "curved space" or - wait - perhaps it's what they call "the aberration of light"? <_<
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6405
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The SSSS

Postby agraposo on September 3rd, 2013, 9:16 pm

simonshack wrote:
agraposo wrote:I hope this diagram will help you see this clearly:

Image
http://www.windows2universe.org/mars/mars_orbit.html



Sorry, I don't understand: would I be able to see Mars aligned with the exact same point of the LIBRA constellation (as shown in my NEAVE screenshots) at all of the above four moments in time ? If so, how? :huh:

Please note that the white lines (Earth-Mars) are parallel, and will converge in the same point of Libra, because the stars are located in the celestial sphere, at a remote distance. This was the assumption made by ancient astronomers, and is also being used today, for example in the NEAVE planetarium.

The celestial sphere can be considered to be infinite in radius. This means any point within it, including that occupied by the observer, can be considered the center. It also means that all parallel lines, be they millimetres apart or across the Solar System from each other, will seem to intersect the sphere at a single point, analogous to the vanishing point of graphical perspective.


Or think in the skinny triangle. If r (distance to Libra) is very large compared to b (position of the solar system), the angle will tend to zero.

Image
agraposo
Member
 
Posts: 251
Joined: June 10th, 2011, 10:48 pm

Re: The SSSS

Postby simonshack on September 3rd, 2013, 10:56 pm

agraposo wrote:Or think in the skinny triangle. If r (distance to Libra) is very large compared to b (position of the solar system), the angle will tend to zero.


Well, the only skinny thing I can see here is your argument, Agraposo. If this is the way our debate is going, we might as well give up using our brains and return to our origins, just picking berries and chasing rabbits for food - and bid farewell to any quest for cosmic understanding. To accept your point is tantamount to accepting that our natural, optical senses are so hopelessly poor as to be completely useless in determining anything at all. Your argument sounds like something out of a Jim Fetzer text book, creating enough uncertainty so that everything is believable and nothing is knowable. Perhaps this is the way this world is going - and we will eventually give up all search for knowledge - who knows?


Until then, I will continue to trust my natural senses - and to believe that parallax is very much a reality.

Image
It should be obvious that, on October 5, 2010 - we couldn't possibly have seen the exact same star behind Mars as on October 24, 2008. That is, not if our universe obeys to the Copernican model with its supposed geometry.

For you to bring up the 'skinny triangle' issue in this debate, sorry to say, only goes to show that you have a thin grasp of the matter at hand. When I mentioned 'stellar aberration', I made it clear that I was only joking. To be sure, the 'skinny triangle' is even more of a joke in this context - which specifically deals with EARTH / MARS / STAR triangulations and has nothing to do with interstellar perspectives.

Need I remind you of this ?
Image
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6405
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The SSSS

Postby agraposo on September 4th, 2013, 11:35 am

simonshack wrote:Image
It should be obvious that, on October 5, 2010 - we couldn't possibly have seen the exact same star behind Mars as on October 24, 2008. That is, not if our universe obeys to the Copernican model with its supposed geometry.

To be able to observe that angle difference with the naked eye (human visual acuity is considered to be 5'), the distance to the star should be less than 1375 times the distance Earth-Sun (AU).

tg (5') = 2 AU / r
r = 1375 AU

According to mainstream science, the closest star (Proxima Centauri) is at a distance of 4.24 light-years, i.e. 268.142 AU. In this case the angle is 1,5374" (twice the parallax 0,768").

tg (1,5374") = 2 AU / r
r = 268.142 AU

Those small angles can't be observed by the naked eye or distinguished in simulators like NEAVE.

May I suggest that you give us your estimates of the distances involved in the SSSS model?
agraposo
Member
 
Posts: 251
Joined: June 10th, 2011, 10:48 pm

Re: The SSSS

Postby simonshack on September 4th, 2013, 10:48 pm

agraposo wrote:Those small angles can't be observed by the naked eye or distinguished in simulators like NEAVE.

May I suggest that you give us your estimates of the distances involved in the SSSS model?


I really don't know what you're on about now, Agraposo. Are you suggesting that the NEAVE simulator doesn't show what can actually be observed in the skies? That it is a grossly inaccurate celestial simulator?

See, I do not think so at all : I think the NEAVE simulator is absolutely spot on. It shows that the sidereal period of MARS is, in fact, nowhere near Kepler's calculation of "687" days. It shows that the REAL sidereal period of MARS is around 709 days (as it is, the expert ancient Maya astronomers actually had that figure at 707 - I just learned... that's AFTER I'd computed my own 709 average figure the other day, heh! ). Of course, it also shows that the synodic period of MARS is around 778 days (as no one would argue about). In fact, the NEAVE interactive planetarium data most accurately confirms the SSSS model so far - and I'll soon attempt to prove it both mathematically and geometrically. Stay tuned!
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6405
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The SSSS

Postby simonshack on September 6th, 2013, 4:48 pm

*


THE PERPLEXING MARS DECLINATIONS

To those who may not know what 'declination' means in astronomical terms, it is simply the elevation angle at which an observer on Earth will see any celestial object in the sky. For instance, the Sun will be at about +23,5°dec in June and at -23,5°dec in December. This, we are told, is due to the axial tilt of our planet - which would also be the reason for our seasons. But I'm sure you've all heard of this before. So let me get on to my ongoing study of Mars which have led me to some remarkable realizations which, I believe, merit consideration in their own right - on the basis of plain logic and fully verifiable empirical observations. To be sure, I now think that the most accurate statement Kepler ever uttered was that "Mars is the key to understanding our Universe". For now, however, I'll only make some points about the perplexing declinations of Mars as it circles our planet once in about two of our Earth years.

The orbit of Mars is said to be inclined by a modest 1,85° in relation to the ecliptic (which is the 0° plane we consider our Earth's orbit to be in relation to the Sun). Indeed, most planets' orbits are believed (in the heliocentric Copernican solar system) to be pretty much 'level' with each other - with a few exceptions such as Mercury (approx 7°) and Pluto (a hefty 17°- yet Pluto is not considered to be a planet anymore). Here's a conventional diagram of our epoch's universally accepted Copernican model - which one may rightly call with a pinch of irony, the "FLAT" universe:

Image


Let us now look at how MARS 'behaves' in the skies - as seen from Earth. We will start with this screenshot from the NEAVE planetarium which shows MARS and the SUN side by side, as it is predicted that they will be on June 22, 2015. As you can see, they both appear to be at almost identical declinations - and we should probably presume that this would be due to our Earth's axial tilt :

Fig.1:
Image

So, should we not expect to see Mars, six months later (as we go halfway around the Sun) to 'descend' at (almost) the same rate as the Sun? Of course, we have to keep in mind Mars's 1,85° orbital inclination, so we should also logically expect Mars's declination to be offset with the Sun's declination by a maximum of 3,7°(1,85°X2). Well... here is what we can actually observe six months later - in December:

Fig2:
Image

Evidently, Mars's orbit is NOT offset with Earth's ecliptic plane by only 1,85°. Now, one may argue that this enormous 16° discrepancy is due to Mars's considerable distance from Earth (but if so, how is the 1,85° Mars orbit inclination calculated?). In Figure 1, we see that Mars in June is at 2.57AU from Earth - while having this steep +24°6' declination (1 AU is equal to 150 million km, our alleged distance to the Sun).

Well, as we will now see, in August 2018, Mars will have a declination of an equally steep -26°29' while being extremely close to Earth, this time at a distance from Earth of only 0,4 AU. The very same day, the Sun will be at a declination of +13°26'... That's a MARS-vs-SUN declination-discrepancy of 39°!!! Holy Planets! What's going on here? Here are three sequential MARS/SUN declinations - from August 2018 to May 2019:

Image

I know, your head is probably spinning by now - as this needs plenty of time and effort to be properly processed and assessed (unless you are already familiar with these peculiar astronomy terms and measurements). Anyway, I have taken the three above positions of MARS and inserted them into my Tycho/SSSS model - which postulates that the Sun and Mars both revolve around a stationary (yet rotating) Earth. As far as I can tell, within my model, those Mars declinations work out pretty well. However, and as ever, it is up to the reader to evaluate all this for him/herself:

Image
(the max and min declinations which I have of MARS, +27° and -28°, are deduced from this chart which lists decades of astronomical observations of MARS's oppositions: http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/onlinebk ... PPENDS.HTM )

There's plenty more to come, so please stay tuned. The SUN-MARS relationship appears to be quite astonishing ...
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6405
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The SSSS

Postby agraposo on September 6th, 2013, 6:07 pm

simonshack wrote:
agraposo wrote:Those small angles can't be observed by the naked eye or distinguished in simulators like NEAVE.

May I suggest that you give us your estimates of the distances involved in the SSSS model?


I really don't know what you're on about now, Agraposo. Are you suggesting that the NEAVE simulator doesn't show what can actually be observed in the skies? That it is a grossly inaccurate celestial simulator?

Don't you see that the angle Mars-Earth-Star (on Oct, 5th, 2010) is very small (less than 1", if we accept that the distances to the stars are measured in light-years), and is not observable with the naked eye, and can't be represented in the NEAVE simulator (in this simulator RA is measured in hours and minutes, and declination in degrees and arcminutes)? So, theoretically there is a displacement of Mars's position against the fixed stars between those dates, but that displacement (less than 1") is not observable by the naked eye or the NEAVE simulator. Within this observable restriction, it is demonstrated (with the copernican model) that in those two dates, the lines Earth-Mars are parallel, and the position against the fixed stars is the same (except for that very small difference).
Image
agraposo
Member
 
Posts: 251
Joined: June 10th, 2011, 10:48 pm

Re: The SSSS

Postby simonshack on September 6th, 2013, 6:18 pm

agraposo wrote:Don't you see that the angle Mars-Earth-Star (on Oct, 5th, 2010) is very small (less than 1", if we accept that the distances to the stars are measured in light-years), and is not observable with the naked eye, and can't be represented in the NEAVE simulator (in this simulator RA is measured in hours and minutes, and declination in degrees and arcminutes)?


Agraposo, the NEAVE simulator correctly shows that the sidereal period of MARS is, in average, around 707/709 days - just like the ancient Maya astronomers knew full well. This is the time in which MARS realigns with the same constellation, i.e. the REAL sidereal MARS period. The '687-day' sidereal period of Kepler is quite simply incorrect.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6405
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The SSSS

Postby agraposo on September 6th, 2013, 6:18 pm

simonshack wrote:So, should we not expect to see Mars, six months later (as we go halfway around the Sun) to 'descend' at (almost) the same rate as the Sun?

Why? Mars and Sun move both along the ecliptic, but six months later Mars is not in the same position in the ecliptic like the Sun, because they move at different speeds along the ecliptic. So, after six months (or whatever) the Sun's declination can be quite different from Mars's declination (declination is the angle respect to the celestial equator).

Image
http://crab0.astr.nthu.edu.tw/~hchang/ga1/ch02-02.htm

Simon, I don't want to be annoying, maybe I'm not able to express myself clearly enough in English, and I'm not as skilled as you making graphics, but I think up to now you haven't found an argument that can't be explained by the heliocentric model. Of course, in your SSSS model everything makes sense, but I insist that both models are geometrically equivalent.
agraposo
Member
 
Posts: 251
Joined: June 10th, 2011, 10:48 pm

Re: The SSSS

Postby agraposo on September 6th, 2013, 6:57 pm

simonshack wrote:
agraposo wrote:Agraposo, the NEAVE simulator correctly shows that the sidereal period of MARS is, in average, around 707/709 days - just like the ancient Maya astronomers knew full well. This is the time in which MARS realigns with the same constellation, i.e. the REAL sidereal MARS period. The '687-day' sidereal period of Kepler is quite simply incorrect.

Then how is this explained? Mars is not in the same constellation after 711 days.

Image

After 711 days:
Image
agraposo
Member
 
Posts: 251
Joined: June 10th, 2011, 10:48 pm

Re: The SSSS

Postby simonshack on September 6th, 2013, 7:21 pm

agraposo wrote:
simonshack wrote:So, should we not expect to see Mars, six months later (as we go halfway around the Sun) to 'descend' at (almost) the same rate as the Sun?

Why? Mars and Sun move both along the ecliptic, but six months later Mars is not in the same position in the ecliptic like the Sun, because they move at different speeds along the ecliptic. So, after six months (or whatever) the Sun's declination can be quite different from Mars's declination (declination is the angle respect to the celestial equator).

Basically, what you are saying is this:

- If an earthly observer watches the Sun and Mars in June (with Earth tilted by +23,5° towards the Sun) as they are straight ahead of the observer - he will see them both at the same elevation.

- When this earthly observer watches the Sun and Mars in December, (with Earth tilted -23,5° away from the Sun) and Mars and the Sun are separated laterally by 5 hours of Right Ascension, Mars will appear to the earthly observer to be 16° higher in the sky than the Sun.

Sorry - but this doesn't work out for me. Try to imagine watching two airplanes flying (at the same altitude) at the very far edges, East and West of your horizon. Now, imagine that Earth suddenly tilts downward by "X" degrees. Would this make one of the two planes appear to fly at higher altitude than the other? It doesn't matter in which position Mars is in its orbit: its orbit is always supposed to be, in the Copernican model, almost level (+/1,85°) with the Sun, at all times. Yet, this is evidently not the case.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6405
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The SSSS

Postby simonshack on September 6th, 2013, 8:09 pm

agraposo wrote:Then how is this explained? Mars is not in the same constellation after 711 days.

Image

After 711 days:
Image


Bravo, Agraposo! You have just discovered the short ESI - something which the Maya astronomers already were aware about quite some time ago: a shorter Mars cycle, which recurs every 7 or 8 years. You can read all about it here:

"The frequency of occurrence of long and short ESIs follows a pattern of 7L + S + 7L + S + 8L + S + . . . (repetition of this sequence)."
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/4/2107.full
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6405
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The SSSS

Postby simonshack on September 7th, 2013, 2:08 am

agraposo wrote:Why? Mars and Sun move both along the ecliptic, but six months later Mars is not in the same position in the ecliptic like the Sun, because they move at different speeds along the ecliptic. So, after six months (or whatever) the Sun's declination can be quite different from Mars's declination (declination is the angle respect to the celestial equator).


Agraposo,

Let me depict in a somewhat more realistic way what the NEAVE planetarium tells us about the various seasonal positions of Mars and the Sun. See, I think that we need to illustrate these things in a more comprehensible manner for the common man to visualize and understand. You know, I have the utmost respect for the common man, since I'm one of those myself! So here's what the NEAVE Planetarium tells us about the celestial positions of Mars and the Sun between June and December - I don't think my visual approximation of these motions is way off the mark:

Image
Note: there is only a 5h gap in RA (Right Ascension) between the June and December viewings of Mars and the Sun.

Would you still say that this whopping 16°shift between the orbit declinations of MARS and SUN
is just due to Mars being in a different position in its orbit - between June and December?
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6405
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The SSSS

Postby agraposo on September 7th, 2013, 12:24 pm

simonshack wrote:Bravo, Agraposo! You have just discovered the short ESI - something which the Maya astronomers already were aware about quite some time ago: a shorter Mars cycle, which recurs every 7 or 8 years. You can read all about it here:

"The frequency of occurrence of long and short ESIs follows a pattern of 7L + S + 7L + S + 8L + S + . . . (repetition of this sequence)."
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/4/2107.full

Oh, my God! :) We are talking of different meanings for the term 'sidereal period' of Mars:

- (Earth-centric)sidereal period: number of days it takes for Mars to go to the same position in the sky, as seen from the Earth. It is directly observable (we see the sky from the Earth).
Apparently the Mayans weren't aware of the heliocentric model, and, as good observers, they just recorded the position of Mars in the sky and found that its position (in longitude) was the same every 700 days or so (long period L) or 540 days or so (short period S), with the following pattern throughout the years: 7L, S, 7L, S, 8L, S, ...
Except in the retrograde periods, as in this period the planet goes back and forth again, and passes through the same position three times in a period of 75 days or so.
Quite complicated, isn't it?
By definition, Mars is seen in the same position in the sky after the (Earth-centric)sidereal period, 700 days or so (long period), 540 days or so (short period) and three times in 75 days or so (retrograde period).

- (Sun-centric)sidereal period: number of days it takes for Mars to go to the same position in the sky, as seen from the Sun. It is not directly observable (we don't see the sky from the Sun).
Its value is 687 days. This is the orbital period of the planet.
Quite simple, isn't it?
Obviously, with this definition, Mars is not seen in the same position in the sky from the Earth after the (Sun-centric)sidereal period, 687 days.

Now that it is clear the meaning of the sidereal period for the Mayans and for modern astronomers, we can say:
- in the SSSS model or the Copernican model, Mars's (Sun-centric)sidereal period is 687 days, and it is the planet orbital period, whether the Sun rotates around the Earth, or the Earth rotates around the Sun. The models are equivalent. :)

Problem solved! An easy demonstration is done here:
http://astro.unl.edu/naap/ssm/ssm_advanced.html

This demonstration is independent of the model chosen, SSSS or Copernican.

Image
http://astro.unl.edu/naap/ssm/modeling2.html
agraposo
Member
 
Posts: 251
Joined: June 10th, 2011, 10:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests