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.
Locked
agraposo
Member
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:48 pm

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by agraposo » Wed Jul 31, 2013 6:05 pm

This animation may illustrate my point.

Copernican model
Image
Tychonian model
Image
http://www.dynamicdiagrams.com/wp-conte ... 11_bce.swf

Starting, for example, from the Great conjunction of May 31, 2000, we can toggle between the Copernican and the Tychonian models, an observe that the graphic is exactly the same at any time. Nevertheless, if we start the animation and continue toggling between both models, we observe that the movement of the objects (trajectory and speeds) is completely different, because in the Copernican model the Sun is at the center, and in the Tychonian model the Earth is at the center. Clearly, to decide which model is the correct one, something more is needed: physical principles (absolute and relative motion and forces). This was done by Newton in the Principia.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newto ... #SciAchPri

agraposo
Member
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:48 pm

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by agraposo » Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:11 am

We have seen that both models are observationally equivalent, and that the heliocentric system is the correct one if we assume Newton laws of motion. Can we use Newton laws to describe also the Tychonian system? The answer is yes!, if we assume the Mach's principle, which states that the pseudo-forces acting on a non-inertial frame (for example, the Earth rotating around the Sun) are real forces due to the rest of the Universe (distant fixed stars). This is to say that the Universe rotating about the Earth will create the same force that the force acting on the Earth in the heliocentric model. In this paper is the mathematical proof.

http://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/616409.0143- ... _2_383.pdf

Mars movement solution (Copernican model and Newton laws)
Image

Mars and Sun movement solution (Tychonic model with Newton laws and Mach's principle)
Image

But if we are not satisfied with Mach's principle, then we still have to find some proof to accept the Tychonian model instead of the Copernican model.

agraposo
Member
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:48 pm

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by agraposo » Sat Aug 03, 2013 1:37 pm

Simon, it seems to me that you are proposing a geocentric-heliocentric model, like the Tychonian model, adding a new small round orbit of the Earth (around what?), just to explain the analemma, seasons, absence of parallax and other things.

As I explained before, there is no way to distinguish between the Copernican and Tychonian models, observationally speaking, except for the stellar parallax and aberration. The astronomer Bessel is credited to have used the parallax to measure the distance to the stars. Is this in doubt?

I would like to hear some physical arguments (not only observations) regarding your model. Are Newtonian physics still valid? Without physics no model is more valid than another.

For example, we could explain the analemma with just the old Greek two-sphere model (go to section "The Motion of the Sun in the Two-Sphere Model")

http://copernican-revolution.org/chapter-two/

Image

In this simulation, click on "show analemma" and start on June, 21. Then drag the arrow over the month line on the top, and you will see the sun moving in the analemma figure.

http://astro.unl.edu/classaction/animat ... tions.html

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by simonshack » Mon Aug 05, 2013 12:23 am

*
Dear Agraposo, I sincerely thank you for your contributions to this thread, for your great links to interesting articles - and for keeping me on edge. The analemma, however, is not explained in satisfactory manner by the currently accepted solar system model. Of course, computer programs based on our world clock time (established by the arbitrary Equation of Time) will exhibit this 'phenomena', but the 8-shaped analemma is nothing that you can see forming in the sky with your own eyes: it is just a shape which we may record by using our (slightly offset) clocks.

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




I have now learned that the solar system theorists who support Tycho Brahe's famous model - although with the proviso that Earth rotates around itself - are called "semi-Tycho" theorists (since Tycho wasn't quite sure whether the Earth rotated around itself or not). Well, I realize now that this makes me one of those 'semi-Tycho' proponents: therefore, and with all respect to Tycho, I think my SSSS should be more aptly / correctly called :


THE SEMI-TYCHO SSSS MODEL


As you will see in the below diagram (and the successive, animated gif), the Sun revolves around the Earth - "dragging" all the other planets around it. In my diagram, I have also integrated the notion of how the so-called "retrograde motions" of our surrounding planets occur. As you may know, Venus and Mercury (our "inner" planets) appear to reverse direction (as viewed from Earth) - for a short yet cyclic / predictable / immutable lapse of time. And so does Mars (although in diverse manner and for different reasons - but we'll see about that later). For now, I'm concentrating on the "inner planets" - Venus and Mercury. Please note that I have divided Venus's orbit in 19 parts (2 of which we will interpret from Earth as if Venus 'reverses its course').

Image

Here's the system in motion - just to give you an idea. Obviously, a lot more things need to be integrated in a proper animated illustration:

Image

As it is, the so-called "retrograde motions" of Venus and Mercury should be pretty easy to understand. Well, this might seem like a presumptuous statement of mine - but let's see if what follows makes sense to you, allright?

Imagine yourself sitting in an airplane and looking out of the window. As you look out at the scenery, you see another airplane parallel to yours, far away in the distance, slowly overtaking you (your plane is travelling at 900km/h - and the other plane is travelling at 950km/h). You watch it for a long, long time, wondering how long it will take for it to disappear ahead of you. You then realize that it is not exactly parallel to your plane - but is veering slowly towards your plane - as if about to make a u-turn! It is now quite a bit ahead of you, but as it keeps turning, it now comes back at great speed towards you. Suddenly, it wooshes right in front of your window - in the opposite direction of your aircraft, at incredible, breathtaking speed! What you will experience visually is the speed of your aircraft + the speed of the other aircraft (a whopping 1850km/h) whereas earlier on, you were only looking at a 50km/h speed difference.

Here's another example. A man standing on the beach watches a planet revolving around the Sun :

Image

And here follows a more 'technical' explanation of the retrograde motion. For this, I used this bicycle wheel for inspiration: ^_^

Image

Image


WILL TYCHO'S SUN COLLIDE WITH MARS?

Now, let's return to Tycho Brahe. What about the allegedly "absurd and insurmountable" problem of Tycho's model? The fact that, in his model, the Mars orbit appears to intersect the Sun's orbit? Tycho dismissed the critics of his model as "stupid folks" - yet, he was apparently never able to demonstrate his quite correct assumption that the Mars and Sun paths NEVER intersect. As I've mentioned before, Tycho died most unexpectedly at the tender age of 54 - and there is a fair amount of evidence as to Tycho being poisoned / murdered by his assistant Johannes Kepler (who went on to establish the Copernican model - the one which is now taught in schools). If this is true, we earthlings are all relying on the words - and 'scientific conclusions' - of a murderous piece of shit!

TYCHO BRAHE______________________________JOHANNES KEPLER

ImageImage

As I said, Tycho's assumption that Mars will NEVER impact the Sun is correct. I have now personally verified this, using all sorts of modern, official data widely accepted by the international astronomical community (for what it's worth!). The data refers to the MARS synodic period which, of course, is defined as "the time required for a body in the solar system to return to the same position relative to the Sun as seen from Earth" (Merriam Webster)

Well, Mars's synodic period is about 780 days (it actually fluctuates back and forth between 764 and 812 - but no more and no less). In any case, this means that throughout the ages, the Sun and Mars ALWAYS keep pretty much the same relative positions - give or take a few hundred miles. It doesn't actually matter how this 780-day-cycle interacts with the 365 days (or 366) of our own definition of "ONE YEAR". What matters is the relative positions of Mars and the Sun. My below diagram shows how Mars and the Sun move around the skies without ever intersecting each others' paths. Tycho Brahe was absolutely correct - and I like to think that he's smiling to me from the Heavens! In any case, Tycho's observations seem to have been amazingly precise - and his long dismissed ideas are now vindicated - and ready for another round of serious discussions. This universe of ours is an awesome clockwork job!

Image

This is all for now. Hope you enjoy the SSSS research - and its interplanetary voyage ! :)


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

A good source of information which confirms that:
"The general rule when dealing with all synodic period calculations, is that the outer planet will make one less orbit than the inner planet."
http://www.1728.org/synodicb.htm

This is, of course, why the Sun (our "OUTER PLANET") shows up only 365 times a year - versus the 366 times that our planet revolves each year!
The Sun revolves around us - NOT the other way round.

"How long is a Mars year?": http://science.larouchepac.com/kepler/n ... syear.html

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by simonshack » Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:57 pm

*

NOTEPAD

Allow me to keep this little notepad about the biggies of astronomy. It should be of interest to whoever is following this research. I'll update it as I go along.



About JOHANNES KEPLER:


Kepler's 3 LAWS OF PLANETARY MOTION:

1. The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci.
2. A line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.
3. The square of the orbital period of a planet is proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27 ... Second_law

Johannes Kepler published his first two laws in 1609, having found them by analyzing the astronomical observations of Tycho Brahe. Kepler discovered his third law many years later, and it was published in 1619. At the time, Kepler's laws were radical claims; the prevailing belief (particularly in epicycle-based theories) was that orbits were perfect circles. Most of the planetary orbits can be rather closely approximated as circles, so it is not immediately evident that the orbits are ellipses. Detailed calculations for the orbit of the planet Mars first indicated to Kepler its elliptical shape, and he inferred that other heavenly bodies, including those farther away from the Sun, have elliptical orbits too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler


MORE KEPLER LINKS:

THE COMPOSITION OF "ASTRONOMIA NOVA" (by James Robert Voelkel)
"It is of great importance to note that by late 1602, Kepler already saw the work on Mars as the "key to universal astronomy". (...) "What had lef Kepler to conclude he held the "key to universal astronomy"? It was not the orbit of Mars. He knew at this time that the orbit of Mars was some kind of oval, but this was a problem that still needed working out."

http://books.google.it/books?id=_NZsb6B ... se&f=false

°°°°°°°

http://www.astronomynotes.com/history/s7.htm

*********
After 400 Years, a Challenge to Kepler: He Fabricated His Data, Scholar Says
"Done in 1609, Kepler's fakery is one of the earliest known examples of the use of false data by a giant of modern science. (...) The fabricated data appear in calculated positions for the planet Mars, which Kepler used as a case study for all planetary motion."

"Isaac Newton (1642-1727), who formulated the law of gravitation, relied on unseemly mathematical sleight of hand in his magnum opus to make the predictive power of his work seem greater than it was. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), the founder of the modern scientific method, wrote about experiments that were so difficult to duplicate that colleagues doubted he had done them."

"In the case of Kepler, a pivotal presentation of data to support the elliptical theory was ''a fraud, a complete fabrication,'' Dr. Donahue wrote in his paper. ''It has nothing in common with the computations from which it was supposedly generated.''
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/23/scien ... all&src=pm


About COPERNICUS:

When Copernicus transformed Earth-based observations to heliocentric coordinates, he was confronted with an entirely new problem. The Sun-centered positions displayed a cyclical motion with respect to time but without retrograde loops in the case of the outer planets. In principle, the heliocentric motion was simpler but with new subtleties due to the yet-to-be-discovered elliptical shape of the orbits. Another complication was caused by a problem that Copernicus never solved: correctly accounting for the motion of the Earth in the coordinate transformation.

Copernicus' theory was at least as accurate as Ptolemy's but never achieved the stature and recognition of Ptolemy's theory. What was needed was Kepler's elliptical theory, not published until 1609. Copernicus' work provided explanations for phenomena like retrograde motion, but really didn't prove that the planets actually orbited the Sun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle


About ISAAC NEWTON

While Newton was able to formulate his law of gravity in his monumental work, he was deeply uncomfortable with the notion of "action at a distance" which his equations implied. In 1692, in his third letter to Bentley, he wrote: "That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27 ... ravitation


ACTION AT A DISTANCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at ... physics%29


About GALILEO GALILEI

Galileo acquired all of the data needed to confirm the Tychonic world system, but he backed the Copernican world system. (...)However, Galileo did not follow his observations to their logical conclusions. He chose to back Copernicus (1473-1543), relying on his unconvincing tidal theory to serve as evidence of Earth's motion.

http://legacy.jefferson.kctcs.edu/facul ... eprint.pdf



About TYCHO BRAHE - (and the 400 years of misunderstanding of his model - on the part of the most eminent scientists of this planet)

TYCHO'S ILLUSION: HOW IT LASTED 400 YEARS,
AND WHAT THAT IMPLIES ABOUT HUMAN COGNITION
http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?9.32


"REGARDING HOW TYCHO BRAHE NOTED THE ABSURDITY OF THE COPERNICAN THEORY REGARDING THE BIGNESS OF STARS, WHILE THE COPERNICANS APPEALED TO GOD TO ANSWER THAT ABSURDITY": http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1112/1112.1988.pdf




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



Apparent retrograde motion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_retrograde_motion

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

The Orbit-Polar Rotation Effect

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Wed Aug 07, 2013 1:50 pm

*


The Orbit-Polar Rotation Effect Hypothesis

Okay, so after some digging, I have become even more confused about the Sun's rotation. Allegedly, various measurements are consistently inconsistent across its latitudes. That is to say, it rotates differentially — mysteriously faster at the equator than anywhere else.

There, its sidereal rotation is roughly supposed to be between 24.47 and some higher number of sidereal days. Yet near 36 days at the poles[1]. Anyway, I think I am going to go with the 24.47[2] period based on what I've found. Feel free to contradict and change this if anyone finds more accurate numbers.

I think it is very significant to talk of its differential rotation (equator rotating faster than its poles) unlike Earth, but akin to differentially rotating gas giants like Jupiter. This is because we may have another interesting question explained by Tycho's model.

You see, the Sun appears to also rotate counter-clockwise. This is curious given that the Heliocentric model says "Earth would appear to revolve in a counterclockwise direction about the Sun."[2]

This means we have a consistent law of bodies that the Helio model throws out, which I'll explain after the next primer paragraph ...

If the Earth (and the Sun's other planets re: Helio model) are having an effect on the rotation of the Sun, or the Sun's orbit has some effect or correlation, one could draw a correlation between the rate at which a body rotates and the rate at which it orbits other bodies or orbits the system or orbits an "arbitrary" point in the system (due to combined effects of the system). Since the counterclockwise fact (for directions of orbit and rotation hypothetically observed from a Northern perspective) is completely modular between very different models (as per my figure 8 below) we can use the various speeds to try to ascertain some correlation.
model_hp8.GIF
Might a tight orbit somehow correlate to a rapid spin? And a large orbit somehow correlate to a slow spin?

If we assume some kind of conservation of energy between all motions, as there has been some postulation about light and other energy, should we be impressed that in the SSSS model, the orbit sizes correlate in the following way:

1. Earth (smallest orbit)
2. Moon (medium orbit)
3. Sun (largest orbit)

and the speed of each body's polar rotation corresponds in the following way:

1. Earth (fastest @ ~1 sidereal day at poles)
2. Moon (medium @ ~27 sidereal days at poles)
3. Sun (slowest @ ~36 sidereal days at poles)

?

Alright, the Sun has its differential rotation of about 24.47 sidereal days at the equator, which beats the Moon's. Yet the Moon is supposedly much smaller, and orbits much faster in its orbit than either the Sun or Earth. And the Sun has its other objects orbiting about its (mean) equator, possibly affecting its plasma. So the polar rotation retains a correlation in the SSSS-Tycho model of spatially larger orbits corresponding to slower polar rotation.

Since we are ignoring (what we don't know about) mass, could it be that the Sun is only about 50% further from the Earth than the Moon, making the Sun much smaller than NASA claims? And perhaps, if there is a size correlation to sidereal rotation, could the Sun's larger-than-Moon size be factored in to explain some retardation of this new correlation law I'm proposing?

(We also have some explanation for why the NASA folks would like to invent some law that says "rotating objects fall faster and climb against gravity better" model. They want to subconsciously erase the correlation and even defy and demonstrate against it. See: Gravity thread.)

Just speculation. I fully expect this musing to be rather wrong in a million ways, and the speed at which a body travels its orbit is certainly the odd man out in the attempt at a correlation. (The Moon's orbit would be the fastest orbit in the known solar system.) But hopefully it is at least interesting to take note of these things as we are learning about our solar system and what it may or may not resemble.

[1] http://www.windows2universe.org/sun/Sol ... ation.html
[2] http://www.universetoday.com/60192/does-the-sun-rotate/
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_orbit
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Tycho-SSSSs v3.0

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:48 pm

Simon, thank you for addressing the "degrees discrepancy" which properly explains the wide variance in Venus' orbit's appearance from Earth.

Though I have tried to follow your latest Mars diagrams, I wasn't quite getting how the 780 day period (or 788 average/mean?) fit into the sidereal orbits, so I snagged Mars' purported sidereal orbit period of 686.98 "days" (I assumed they meant Mars sidereal days which are 1.029 the length of Earth sidereal days, but it turns out they are rather stupidly using Earth solar days) so actually that would mean it takes Mars 686.98 (Earth days) times 1.0027366354007812989617497754288 (ratio of Earth sidereal days within Earth solar days) to reach the number of "sidereal Earth days" for Mars to return to the same "star longitude" (drawn from the Sun to Mars, as measured by the star field).

That number is roughly 688.86.

Whew, why is it important for me to measure everything by sidereal Earth days? This is just because the whole system I am building is based on sidereal Earth days, and I'm not presuming any significant warping of space-time because of the distances/bodies involved. I want a simple calculator that advances each planet's orbit and rotation based on sidereal Earth days. So I have "nudged" the other figures accordingly:

Sun's rotation: approximately 36 (leaving as is until more accurate measurements can be found)
Sun's orbit: 366.242 ESD (Earth Sidereal Days)
Moon's orbit: 27.39647 ESD
Mercury's orbit: 88.20974 ESD
Venus' orbit: 225.315925 ESD
Mars' orbit: 688.86 ESD

So here it is:

SSSSs v3.0 - (incorporating Mercury, Venus and Mars into solar orbits) - 39k SWF (requires Flash player)

Image

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Wed Aug 07, 2013 4:21 pm

agraposo wrote:I would like to hear some physical arguments (not only observations) regarding your model. Are Newtonian physics still valid? Without physics no model is more valid than another.
agraposo, the stories of physics we enjoy learning about today were derived from stories of observations, not the other way around. There is not instantly accessible ultimate truth (unless you are talking religiously). There are only stories that prove or do not prove to uphold consistent "laws" of our world, which we must repeatedly retest in case they prove false. So there is nothing for any of us to go on except consistent communication of ideas between each other and through history. If physics changed and you didn't believe in the change, it wouldn't make the change invalid. We must continually observe anew. Forever! Until the human race is extinguished.

So let's observe for a while, use our senses for a while, as our ancestors did, and then see if we can come up with explanations for things, shall we? I am eager, too, and I don't blame you. But it seems you want to put the cart before the horse. More practical than how we see is what we see. Upon what we see, we can start to base hypotheses of how we see it. Of course stories from the past help, but when those stories fail to explain things, it's our responsibility to future generations (and children living in this very day and age) to modify them to create better stories.

You could come up with really radical physical laws to explain what we see before you even finish observing. Indeed, many have tried. There are always flaws and gaps and the physics of the universe still remains, at large, a mystery. Perhaps actually doing what Simon is doing and collecting more observations and figuring out patterns from them will lead us to your dream of a new more accurate physics.

On the other hand, observations are never finished, so we can't put off the physics questions forever. It's just that this is how science works. People gather and talk about their interests and hopefully if the idea is catchy other people use their skills on it.

I don't think anyone on this forum has a grasp of really deeply mathematical physics concepts and understandings. On the other hand, I have read tons of science forums, science web sites like NASA and so on, and they are filled to the brim with flukes, typos, miscommunications and downright errors. So I also don't think there is the perfect consensus of accepted dogmatic expert "reality" we are taught to believe in. Even the scientists I know on the cutting edge have no time to look into how their research fits into a larger picture than they have time to explore. It doesn't invalidate their observations but it does make the application of their observations somewhat questionable.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Tycho-SSSSs v3.0

Unread post by simonshack » Thu Aug 08, 2013 10:44 pm

hoi.polloi wrote: Though I have tried to follow your latest Mars diagrams, I wasn't quite getting how the 780 day period (or 788 average/mean?) fit into the sidereal orbits, so I snagged Mars' purported sidereal orbit period of 686.98 "days" (I assumed they meant Mars sidereal days which are 1.029 the length of Earth sidereal days, but it turns out they are rather stupidly using Earth solar days) so actually that would mean it takes Mars 686.98 (Earth days) times 1.0027366354007812989617497754288 (ratio of Earth sidereal days within Earth solar days) to reach the number of "sidereal Earth days" for Mars to return to the same "star longitude" (drawn from the Sun to Mars, as measured by the star field).

That number is roughly 688.86.
Hoi,

I fully understand your puzzlement regarding Mars - and its sideral / synodic periods. I will get to this thorny, grey area in a minute - but let me first propose a few amendments to your submitted sidereal period figures. See, the problem with the planet's sidereal period figures (as opposed to the synodic periods which we can precisely observe from Earth) is that they are all approximated calculations as to what we would see/record if we were actually standing on these planets. This is of course not possible and, as you will see, there is a very special problem regarding Mars which, due to its more complex, more-than-one-year-long orbit around Earth - has had all the greatest (European) minds baffled for centuries(yet the ancient Maya people knew better!)

Sun's orbit: 365.242 ESD (Earth Sidereal Days)
Earth's annual rotations: 366.242
This is most important - since we're saying that the Sun (our "OUTER" as opposed to inner 'planet') circles Earth, therefore the one revolution that the Sun makes yearly around Earth will substract one day from the 366 times that we see any given star annually.
Moon's orbit: 27.32166 ESD
(Note: the synodic lunar period is 29.5 days - precisely one day less than the 30.5 average of our earthly months [ 30.5 X 12 = 366 ] - since the Moon is also one of our "OUTER planets").
Mercury's orbit: 87.97 ESD
Venus' orbit: 224.7 ESD
Mars' orbit (ESD) : > well, this is an entirely different matter. Please read on.


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



MARS - the KEY?


It was the great Kepler - not little me - who said that Mars is the key to the understanding of our universe :

"It is of great importance to note that by late 1602, Kepler already saw the work on MARS as the "key to universal astronomy".
http://books.google.it/books?id=_NZsb6B ... se&f=false

Before I submit and expound my personal, humble take on Mars's cyclic motions in our skies, let me firstly highlight how much Mars meant to Kepler - and how fundamental his work on Mars's motions (using/& abusing Tycho Brahe's empirical observations) was to be in his path to universal fame as the 'Giant of Astronomy' which he's still considered to this day. Here are some extracts from "The Composition of Astronomia Nova" - a book by James Voelkel (linked above) which should give you a sense of the central importance that Mars had to Kepler - ultimately leading to his famous three "laws of planetary motion" and indeed, ultimately leading to the formulation of Newton's even more famous and world-defining "Laws Of Universal Gravitation".

There is no question, of course, that these two men - Kepler and Newton - have been instrumental in defining our universe as we know it - and that questioning / reviewing their work is among the most daunting activities any individual may embark upon today. However, dear reader, all I'm doing here is to submit the results of my personal efforts to help myself understand some intriguing aspects of our universe - and sharing them with you. But let's see now how much exhausting head-scratching that pesky Mars planet caused to Kepler...

Image

and further ...

Image


"An oval path? Perfectly elliptical" ?? See, here's my problem with this elliptical/eccentricity business - and I hope you will carefully consider my following points and (linear) line of reasoning : how on Earth could Kepler, back in the telescope-less 16th century (and with all respect for Tycho Brahe's observational skills) - possibly have detected any sort of non-circular, ellipsoidal motion of ANY planet? This, if Mars is - as we are told - a planet which simply circles around us in a ring, with a minuscule eccentricity (as modern astronomical data has it) of 0,093? To be sure, ALL planets - as listed today - have almost perfectly circular orbits with laughably small / barely detectable ellipsoidal shapes in the range of 0,0-something (Earth>0,0167 - Venus>0,006 - Jupiter>0,048 - Saturn> 0,054 - Uranus> 0,047 - Neptune> 0,008) - with the exception of Mercury, "the crazy planet", whose orbit still isn't more than 0,2 of an ellipse. So what exactly brought Kepler to even consider the elliptic orbit hypothesis in the first place? Did perhaps something in Tycho's observational data suggest it? If so, what? Kepler certainly didn't have much to work on - other than Tycho's annotations of his observations of the night skies, let this be clear!

So let us take a look again at Tycho's solar system model. Try imagining - just imagining - the entire white disk in the below diagram starting to rotate around the Earth's axis, with Mars proceeding at a slower rate than the disk itself. I know, it is a pretty tough mind exercice - but maybe some of you will remember the old Spirograph drawing set?

Image

Now, the problem is that Mars (in Tycho's model - and, I believe, in reality!) completes its own orbit around Earth in about 2years and 2 months - or 2,135 revolutions or - APPROX 780 days. This makes it extra difficult to illustrate Mars's motion in a graphic - and even more so, for any astronomer to observe and understand it from the 'horizontal', co-planar point of view in which we are ALL restricted to view our surrounding planets - from our earthly perspective! If we could look down from the North Star, it would all be a lot easier... The thing is, we would have to stay up there for 15 years - in order to see the full cycle of Mars.


THE 15-YEAR MARS CYCLE

The patient, ancient Maya people evidently had more time on their hands - and were fully aware of the full Mars cycle, which is what one really needs to visualize in order to understand how Mars moves about in the skies. Here is a fascinating article discussing exactly why the Maya knew that each of Mars's seven synodic cycles lasts for 780 days - whereas modern astronomy is still stuck with Kepler's 'inobservable' 686-day cycle :

Ancient Maya documents concerning the movements of Mars
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/4/2107.full.pdf
Concern with the sidereal cycle of Mars
"For Mars, this period is timed by modern astronomy at 686.98 days, and it is not directly observable. However, a sidereal period, in the sense that it is a cycle that tracks the movement of a planet relative to the stars, that is directly observable would measure the interval between two successive passages of a planet by a given longitude."

(This pdf article is obligatory reading if you wish to comment on the present post.)

Fortunately, there are also modern researchers who keep compiling observational data of the long-term motions of Mars. I was lucky enough to find this fine diagram (yes, on Wickedpedia!), which depicts a full 15-year Mars cycle. Better still, the diagram duly mentions that it is "Earth-centered", i.e. it is to be interpreted from a geocentric frame of reference:

Image
CHART OF MARS OPPOSITIONS DATES: http://cseligman.com/text/planets/marsoppositions.htm

The "Mars oppositions" are the moments in time when Mars is closest to Earth - and lined up with the Sun (at the opposed side of Earth). It is also the time when we see Mars 'retrograding' for about 2 months or so - and also the time when Mars reaches its lowest point of its orbit - which is tilted by about 1.5degrees vis-à-vis Earth's orbit.

So I made a few mental, deductive and geometrical calculations - and came up with this diagram (pardon my poor Spyrographic skills - my MARS path is meant to show perfect circles, moving forward in time. As the circles intersect, they create the illusion of MARS's "elliptical" motion - to an earthbound observer!):

Image


As you can see, Mars's orbit would actually be tracing BOTH circles AND very much 'ovoid' ellipses - a bit like a rose pattern (as described by Klemperer)- and lo and behold ! - there is that oval shape that Kepler so desperately tried to wrap his head around ! THE OVAL IS SIMPLY THE NATURAL RESULT OF A HELICAL / PRECESSING CIRCULAR MOTION!

"The whole of 1604 and the beginning of 1605 were devoted to working out the theory of the 'oval', and comparing it with observational data".
http://books.google.it/books?id=dAzVuXq ... on&f=false

My diagram is obviously not to scale, but please know that Mars (as modern astronomy tells us) can be as far as 400million km from and as close as 55million to Earth. As Mars is in opposition it makes a "u-turn" in close proximity to Earth, which may go to explain its "retrograde motion" as we can observe every 780 days or so (On August 27, 2003 - apparently - Mars was as close as it hadn't been since 60.000 years).

The standard explanation for Mars's "retrograde motion" is not much different from my own. Yes, it has to do with perspective - but also with time. As Mars closes up to our rotating Earth, we watch it from our time/space perspective (we measure our Earth's rotation with our clocks) - and Mars will appear to 'stop & reverse' its path against the star background for a couple of months. Here's a very rough graphic visualization of the optical space/time phenomenon:

Image

Now, back to Kepler. Could it possibly be that his idea of Mars's "elliptic" orbit was inspired from some of Tycho Brahe's observations / annotations of sections of Mars's orbit? If so, wouldn't this explain why Kepler calculated a "668" or "687"-day period, as opposed to the ancient Maya people's far more accurate 780 days? To be sure, this 100-day gap is not a question of synodic or sidereal periods: Mars does NOT line up with the same stars after 680 days or so - yet it ALWAYS lines up with the Earth and the Sun every 780 days or so:

Image

So perhaps Kepler wasn't all that smart after all: if he got Mars's orbit wrong, what else did he get wrong? And since Newton derived his Universal Gravitation Laws from Kepler... what else might be wrong with the current understanding of our universe?

****
NEWTON’S LUNAR MASS ERROR http://dioi.org/kn/newtonmoonerror.htm

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Tycho-SSSSs v3.0

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:57 am

simonshack wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote: Though I have tried to follow your latest Mars diagrams, I wasn't quite getting how the 780 day period (or 788 average/mean?) fit into the sidereal orbits, so I snagged Mars' purported sidereal orbit period of 686.98 "days" (I assumed they meant Mars sidereal days which are 1.029 the length of Earth sidereal days, but it turns out they are rather stupidly using Earth solar days) so actually that would mean it takes Mars 686.98 (Earth days) times 1.0027366354007812989617497754288 (ratio of Earth sidereal days within Earth solar days) to reach the number of "sidereal Earth days" for Mars to return to the same "star longitude" (drawn from the Sun to Mars, as measured by the star field).

That number is roughly 688.86.
Hoi,

I fully understand your puzzlement regarding Mars - and its sideral / synodic periods. I will get to this thorny, grey area in a minute - but let me first propose a few amendments to your submitted sidereal period figures. See, the problem with the planet's sidereal period figures (as opposed to the synodic periods which we can precisely observe from Earth) is that they are all approximated calculations as to what we would see/record if we were actually standing on these planets. This is of course not possible and, as you will see, there is a very special problem regarding Mars which, due to its more complex, more-than-one-year-long orbit around Earth - has had all the greatest (European) minds baffled for centuries(yet the ancient Maya people knew better!)

Sun's orbit: 365.242 ESD (Earth Sidereal Days)
Earth's annual rotations: 366.242
This is most important - since we're saying that the Sun (our "OUTER" as opposed to inner 'planet') circles Earth, therefore the one revolution that the Sun makes yearly around Earth will substract one day from the 366 times that we see any given star annually.
Moon's orbit: 27.32166 ESD
(Note: the synodic lunar period is 29.5 days - precisely one day less than the 30.5 average of our earthly months [ 30.5 X 12 = 366 ] - since the Moon is also one of our "OUTER planets").
Mercury's orbit: 87.97 ESD
Venus' orbit: 224.7 ESD
Mars' orbit (ESD) : > well, this is an entirely different matter. Please read on.
Woops, sorry about the Sun/ESD mix-up. Of course I wouldn't purposely build the model with the Sun doing a 366 day-orbit.

Simon, I am wondering how you came up with your figures. After trying to sort out why I was so wrong, I re-did what I did before, which is how I arrived at mine; perhaps it will go some way to explaining why mine disagree with yours — they have the taint of NASA.
:P

NASA gives and I found the following figures for those bodies' sidereal years. (Let's start with Mercury.)
Mercury
Sidereal orbit period (days) 87.969
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/fa ... yfact.html

Now, at first I think you will agree, this seems straight-forward enough. Yet if you notice, what they have done here is ignore the crucial question of what they mean exactly by a "day". Could it mean: Mercury's solar day? Mercury's sidereal day? Earth's sidereal day? In fact, what they decided to go with - without alerting the reader in any obvious way - is Earth's solar day. Which, as we have already been discussing, is a rather imperfect way of determining anything on a cosmic scale. That is, as it directly relates to the cosmos.

Why don't I want to use Earth solar days? Well, when I am building this model, I must use something consistent and related to the largest "grid" we have (besides the mysterious Planck constant) and that is the star field. Despite your understandable protest otherwise, it makes much more sense mathematically for me to calculate everything based on a single accurately calculated constant, such as the observable sidereal day of Earth, rather than use potentially error-prone* calculations such as undoing the constant with a ratio of solar days to determine the movement of the other planets. Think of the Earth Sidereal Days (what I called ESD) as the "second hand" in the clock. Shall we also have parallel "pseudo-second hands" to calculate everything else? This seems to make the problem of measurement even more obscure for the average person than it already is.

How do I know NASA is using Earth Solar Days (what I will call Esold or Esd when I've used it enough, or maybe I should called it E-$old as in Earth "sold" down the river) to determine the planets' local "years"? Because ESA, NASA, Wikipedia and other micro-managed Priests of the Official Oligarchy sites like Space.com and UniverseToday all confirm they are arbitrarily referring to Earth Solar Days to describe these figures.

Hence, although I could allow the SSSSs SWF program to calculate from ESD to make the planets move (more or less) just as accurately, I would prefer to calculate the numbers here in public, so that we can do this important discussion of the numbers, and just plug those directly into the advancement of the planet graphics' 360 rotations.

The next crucial constant (the first being ESD) is using the difference between ESD (sidereal) and Esd (solar) to discover their ratio.

Taking Esd to be 24 hours and ESD to be 23h, 56m, 04.1s, we end up with very nearly a ratio of:
864,000 seconds (Esd) ~to~ 863,764.1 seconds (ESD) or 99.972696759259 259 259 259 259%

Hence, dividing 0.999(etc.) Sidereal Days into NASA's solar day figures (which I assume they more or less helplessly must display accurately or risk being caught in their fibs), we arrive at:

Moon
Sidereal orbit period ([Earth solar] days) 27.3217
Sidereal orbit period (Earth Sidereal Days) 27.329161746824...

Mercury http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/fa ... yfact.html
Sidereal orbit period ([Earth solar] days) 87.969
Sidereal orbit period (Earth Sidereal Days) 87.993...

Venus http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/fa ... sfact.html
Sidereal orbit period ([Earth solar] days) 224.701
Sidereal orbit period (Earth Sidereal Days) 224.76236741...

Mars http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/fa ... sfact.html
Sidereal orbit period ([Earth solar] days) 686.980
Sidereal orbit period (Earth Sidereal Days) 687.167619...


Now please don't be upset with me. I've read the PNAS document regarding the Mayan calendar's calculations and I don't think my little ESD-based numbers disagree with the 780-"day" period of yours, only that the former is for building this "cosmic clock" and the latter one is for observation of Mars' synodic/spirographic behavior. You can actually see Mars performing this spirograph movement in my program conceptually accurately (if not proportionally, since we haven't determined distances for anything) and I am a little proud that using pure math we have arrived at the same "(moving) picture". Check it out, again, Simon! (Note: I will update this model with the better figures you've helped me re-calculate, after this weekend.)

----

*and Flash is known in particular for being a buggy program, especially since Adobe bought and dissected it, and even now sometimes with numbers of 10 or fewer digits; still, it's the only thing I know besides HTML5 that can communicate as quickly and elegantly about these complex models.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by simonshack » Fri Aug 09, 2013 3:03 pm

*

Hoi !!! :o :)

I just NEED to show you immediately what just dawned upon me as I sipped my morning coffee ...

I don't know about you, but if we are on the right track here, this solar system of ours (and Tycho's!) looks to me as the most stunningly beautiful piece of high-precision, harmoniously-balanced clockwork one could possibly imagine ! Good Heavens almighty - this is a breathtaking work of art by Mother Nature which would make Da Vinci cringe with awe and envy !

Image

Consider these observations of the above diagram - one by one :

EARTH is the main 'pivot' around which the system revolves. Mother Earth is counter-balanced on the other side of the SUN by her 'sister planet' VENUS - thus named due to her close likeness to our planet (82% of Earth's size and 72% of Earth's maximum distance from the SUN).

MERCURY, the 'crazy planet' (due to its odd, 'erratic' orbit trajectories) would be to the Sun the equivalent of what the MOON is to Earth: to be sure, also the MOON exhibits odd, 'capricious' trajectories. In fact, the Moon and Mercury could plausibly also be called 'sister planets' - due to their fairly similar sizes (respective diameters > 3476km versus 4878km) - and even their rocky surfaces are notoriously similar.

VENUS, as already mentioned, is quite similar to Earth in size and has the most stable, circular and 'reliable' trajectory of all our planets, thus acting as an ideal, balancing 'counter-weight' to the firm, calm and placidly rotating Earth. Note also that VENUS rotates clockwise - as opposed to her sister EARTH : what a perfect pair!

THE SUN would, of course, be the ideal barycenter of the whole system - as it clearly rotates around Earth (which is quite simply proven by the indisputable fact that we see the Sun 365 days a year - versus the 366 times that we see the stars!). In fact, in this model, the SUN's position is pretty much dead center in the "Moon-EARTH-SUN-VENUS-Mercury" axis.

MARS, with its 15-year cycle spent spinning in 'spirographic circles' around the system, acts like a slow, 'gyrostatic pendulum' of sorts - gradually gyrating the whole system across space and the years. How ironic that this planet - which seems to provide a unifying universal balance as it sweeps around this cosmic 'clockwork' - has been named after the Roman God of War!

In any case, modern astronomy certainly agrees with the Sun being the barycenter of the solar system, as I confirmed / double-checked for myself today. Here is an interesting diagram that I found - and what do you know? I soon found two equidistant points ("1963" and "1978"), tangential to the sun, which may well represent two 'cardinal points' of this rotational, spirograph-like pattern of the solar system's motion over the ages. Could this go to support my above suggestion regarding MARS's role in the system ? :

Image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar ... center.svg

Barycentric coordinates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycentri ... tronomy%29


***********
Just an annotation - regarding MERCURY's 'intriguing flower petal shape' path over (a very, very long) time:

"What is perhaps even more intriguing is Mercury's advancing perihelion. What this means is that Mercury's orbit around the Sun is not really a stationary ellipse but a flower petal shape. The orbital path itself rotates gradually over time, as shown in this diagram."
Image

"It takes over 12 million orbits to make one whole "flower," or about 3 million years."
"Mercury looks much like the moon does."
http://sciexplorer.blogspot.it/2011/04/mercury.html
And here's about the precession(s) of MOON's orbit around Earth:
"Why does the Moon’s orbital plane precess? Frankly, I’m not a physicist, so I can’t tell you. However, I think it is likely a consequence of the fact that the orbital plane lies between two theoretically stable orbital planes: the Earth’s equatorial plane at the local scale and the Ecliptic plane of the Solar System as a whole."
Image
http://ottawa-rasc.ca/wiki/index.php?ti ... _mechanics

******
Hey, regarding the refinement of your gorgeous SSSS Flash animation - let's just get in touch on Skype soon, Hoi! :)

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by simonshack » Sat Aug 10, 2013 10:42 pm

*


DOES THE SSSS RESPECT MARS?


Just in case you were wondering whether the Tycho-SSSS model / 'clockwork' respects the empirical observations of Mars's motions in the skies:

Here are the plottings of three recent years of the passage of MARS (2003 / 2005 / 2010) recorded by astronomers - as it drifted by the Earth at so-called "opposition" (with the Earth positioned on a straight line between Mars and the Sun). To be sure, this occurs on average approx every 780 days - (NOT every 687 days as of Kepler) and in those occasions, we can see Mars reversing direction ("retrograding") for about 2 months or so. In 2003, 2005 and 2010, the following background constellations could be seen as Mars performed its retrograde motion: Aquarius, Aries and Cancer :

Image


So, does my 'funny' Spirograph path of MARS respect / match up with those empirical observations? Indeed it does : :)

Image


Surely just a coincidence, huh? Well, I'm certainly satisfied that my novel MARS path holds up to the test of empirical observation.

If you care to know, I have now almost made my mind up about Kepler. He was either a 'bad guy' who tried to rip Tycho Brahe's lifelong research for his own profit and fame - or the poor fellow suffered severe cognitive trauma throughout his thankless task of making sense of Tycho's annotations of his Mars observations which included BOTH circular AND elliptical/oval paths. However, let me make it clear that I do not dismiss his (or Newton's) theories wholesale. This matter is much more complex than that - and I have no pretense to 'debunk' those great minds' efforts - or all of their laws and claims. All I'm doing here is questioning the precise geometry of our solar system, using the available observational data of yesteryear and modern times.

****

A little trivia:

:lol: :lol: :lol: ...just bumped into this Urban Dictionary definition of "SSSS":
"Secondary Screening Security Selectee at Airports. It means you have to go through extensive security because of pre-determined criteria.
I was SSSSed today because I bought a one-way ticket. Now I have to go through extra security."
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SSSS

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by simonshack » Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:15 pm

*

A question to Agraposo (and to anyone who is following the SSSS line of reasoning) :

Image

I hope that my question is formulated in the clearest way possible. If not, let me know what you think needs clarifying.


*****

As a little side note: why am I even doing this? Has this anything to do with this forum's main purpose, i.e. to expose the shameless lies fed to the public through the mainsream media propaganda machine? Is there also a sinister conspiracy behind the astronomical science as taught in our schools ever since our childhood? Not necessarily. However, that particular science may also be flawed due to a vast number of reasons - which has nothing to do with any sinister conspiracy. We all need to recognize that nobody's perfect on this planet - not even Newton and Einstein. If we all stop researching our universe - just because someone before us (400 years ago, in fact) have established that Earth revolves around the Sun - we might as well throw our brains in the toilet. Who needs a brain - if everything around us has already been explained?

The thing is, our modern society has rejected the data of ancient, empirical / observational researchers of the skies such as Ptolemy or Tycho Brahe, or even the ancient Maya people, due to modern institutions such as NASA - who have hijacked the scientific / astronomical field and turned it into a joke - and a money-making business.

Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by Heiwa » Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:45 pm

simonshack wrote: I hope that my question is formulated in the clearest way possible. If not, let me know what you think needs clarifying.
The question! How can the Earth revolve on the same plane as the Sun? What do you mean! Pls clarify.
Re Sun appearing to decline in our skyline at any rate at any season I suggest (and I can prove it) that it it is due to our Earth rotating around itself once every 24 hrs, while orbiting the Sun once evey year. :blink:

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by simonshack » Mon Aug 12, 2013 11:07 pm

Heiwa wrote: Re Sun appearing to decline in our skyline at any rate at any season I suggest (and I can prove it) that it it is due to our Earth rotating around itself once every 24 hrs, while orbiting the Sun once evey year. :blink:
Heiwa,

Do you even understand the question? My question is: how can the Sun's elevation in our skies appear to dramatically decline between August and October (from a Northern Hemisphere perspective)? If the Sun's ecliptic is on the same plane of Earth (which maintains a steady 23,5* inclination to the Sun) why would we see the Sun declining dramatically between August and October?

Please just answer this question - if you can.

Locked