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 » Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:19 am

simonshack wrote: The SIDEREAL period is the time that it takes for a planet to complete a full orbit against the background stars. In the case of Mars, it is 687 days (or more precisely, 686,9). Both the astronomical academia and myself agree with that. However, for some unfathomable reason, what they tell us about the SIDEREAL period of Mars is that it is "impossible to measure directly"!
"We do not have a fixed frame of reference, so it is impossible to measure the sidereal period directly."
http://astro.unl.edu/naap/ssm/modeling2.html
In the heliocentric system the Sun is at rest relative to the fixed stars, so Mars will make one revolution around the Sun when the planet appears at the same position against the fixed stars, but only if Mars is observed directly from the Sun or from other object motionless with respect to the Sun. That is not the case with the Earth, so it's not possible to measure directly the sidereal period of Mars from the Earth.
simonshack wrote: Let's take a look at a classic depiction of the COPERNICAN MODEL - and try to imagine how Mars and Earth could possibly re-align with the same star after 687 days. To be sure, Earth would need 732 days (2 X 366) to return in front of the same star:

Image
This is not correct, Mars is seen from the Earth in the same position against the fixed stars every 15 to 17 years. In the two NEAVE planetarium images you posted Mars is in Leo, but not in the exact same position.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6927
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by simonshack » Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:06 am

agraposo wrote: This is not correct, Mars is seen from the Earth in the same position against the fixed stars every 15 to 17 years. In the two NEAVE planetarium images you posted Mars is in Leo, but not in the exact same position.
Agraposo,

"In the two NEAVE planetarium images you posted Mars is in Leo, but not in the exact same position."

That is some disappointing nitpicking from you. Mars returns in Leo after about 687 days or so - at the same distance from Earth. It's just a simple observational fact.

But let me ask you a clear-cut question:

How can Mars and Earth possibly re-align behind the same constellation after less than 732 days (two Earth revolutions) - in the Copernican system?


I really hope you can illuminate me to this fact - as this question totally baffles me.

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

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by agraposo » Fri Aug 30, 2013 1:09 am

Simon, I don't agree with your statement that Mars and Earth re-align every 687 days in the SSSS model. In your NEAVE screenshots the difference in the position of Mars is 1 hour of right ascension! (roughly 15 degrees). Now I show you another two screenshots (with a difference of 687 days) and you'll see that the difference in the position of Mars is 3 hours of right ascension! (roughly 45 degrees). In my case the difference in Mars position is even bigger, because you have chosen dates when the Sun and Mars are close to conjunction, and I have chosen dates when the Sun and Mars are in opposition (Dec, 29th 2007).
Oppositions of Mars

Dec, 29th 2007
Mars is in Gemini, close to Taurus
Image

Nov, 15th 2009 (after 687 days)
Mars is in Cancer, close to Leo
Image

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

Re: Tycho-SSSSs v3.0

Unread post by agraposo » Fri Aug 30, 2013 1:14 am

simonshack wrote: 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
This picture is from Kepler's Astronomia Nova (1609).

Image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... bservation

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6927
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Tycho-SSSSs v3.0

Unread post by simonshack » Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:32 am

agraposo wrote:
This picture is from Kepler's Astronomia Nova (1609).

Image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... bservation
Well, I was actually going to post that Astronomia Nova diagram. It shows that Kepler misunderstood the 15-year Mars cycle - and its retrograde motions (mere optical illusions).

But that modern, Wikipedia version is not really from Astronomia Nova, is it? It is dated 2003 - 2018.

So, to this day, we have modern astronomers still following Kepler's misunderstanding of Mars's 15-year cycle - and transcribing an optical, 3D optical illusion into a 2-D graphic. That's all there is to it. Yet, it seems that most people have fallen for this 'scientific' stuff - hook, line and sinker. The very purpose of this forum is to - hopefully - put an end to old, worn-out magical illusions sold as truth.

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

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by agraposo » Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:25 pm

More info about Tycho Brahes' death:
Did someone administer the mercury to Brahe? Did Johannes Kepler kill Brahe to get his hands on Brahe’s observations? Owen Gingerich, who is a professor of astronomy at Harvard, does not agree with this theory. He is an expert on Kepler, and he stated that it would not make sense for Kepler to kill Tycho because at the time he died, Tycho was trying to convince the emperor to make Kepler the imperial mathematician. By killing Tycho, Kepler would have ruined that opportunity. However, Kepler did get the job even after Tycho’s death. Did the Danish King Christain IV order Brahe’s poisoning because Brahe had slept with the king’s mother? Did Tycho – who was also an alchemist, accidently ingest mercury during one of his experiments? Or did he suffer a fatal overdose of mercury while self- medicating for his painful kidney ailment? The test results from the 2010 exhumation are expected to contribute to knowledge of his life and perhaps his cause of death – so far those results have not been released to the public (as of December, 2011).
http://chandra.harvard.edu/edu/formal/i ... Kepler.pdf

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

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:52 pm

He is an expert on Kepler, and he stated that it would not make sense for Kepler to kill Tycho because at the time he died, Tycho was trying to convince the emperor to make Kepler the imperial mathematician.
If it's in the record books, then it only proves Kepler may have an alibi that was secured in history for unknown reasons. Accuracy is what we can hope. But mystery is all we have.

(By the way, I am happy to assume you didn't overlook the fact that this document was written and posted by NASA, on a site that boasts the image of a physically improbable "satellite" they claim is orbiting the planet at this very moment.)
http://chandra.harvard.edu/edu/formal/icecore wrote:Operated for NASA by SAO[.] This site was developed with funding from NASA under Contract NAS8-03060.

brianv
Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by brianv » Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:55 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:
He is an expert on Kepler, and he stated that it would not make sense for Kepler to kill Tycho because at the time he died, Tycho was trying to convince the emperor to make Kepler the imperial mathematician.
If it's in the record books, then it only proves Kepler may have an alibi that was secured in history for unknown reasons. Accuracy is what we can hope. But mystery is all we have.
Perhaps we are dealing with a simple analogy? Kepler poisoned Brahe - meaning the body of work work, not the man!

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

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:13 pm

At the very least, that is what Kepler apparently did.

As for this Owen Gingerich fellow, whom NASA tellingly calls an "expert" on Kepler, here is a bit about his esteemed self:
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hsdept/bios/gingerich.html wrote:Professor Gingerich's research interests have ranged from the recomputation of an ancient Babylonian mathematical table to the interpretation of stellar spectra. He is co-author of two successive standard models for the solar atmosphere, the first to take into account rocket and satellite observations of the sun; the second of these papers has received over 700 literature citations.
agroposo has successfully, perhaps unintentionally, made yet another connection between the NASA liars' framing, the general, copy-catty, monkey-see monkey-do idiocy of the science world and the pivotal point of Tycho versus Kepler and what occurred between them. We know NASA's leanings in the debate. Do we intimate why they might have them?

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

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by agraposo » Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:17 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:(By the way, I am happy to assume you didn't overlook the fact that this document was written and posted by NASA, on a site that boasts the image of a physically improbable "satellite" they claim is orbiting the planet at this very moment.)
http://chandra.harvard.edu/edu/formal/icecore wrote:Operated for NASA by SAO[.] This site was developed with funding from NASA under Contract NAS8-03060.
I got the link to the pdf directly from google search. It seems utterly impossible to find independent information!

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6927
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by simonshack » Sat Aug 31, 2013 5:31 pm

*


THE 17-YEAR CYCLE OF MARS


It it is with great joy that I now submit to all forum readers what seems to me as a possible, conclusive model of Mars's orbit - as prefigured by Tycho Brahe. In any case - and as always - it is up to you to evaluate its logic / plausibility for yourself.

The other morning, I woke up realizing that I needed a 17-year cycle (rather than only 15) to properly / comprehensively illustrate a full Mars cycle around the Zodiac. So I started looking around for for some octogonal pattern which would help me construct it graphically. I have to tell you that I almost sprayed my keyboard with a mouthful of caffè latte - as I stumbled into this:

http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2013 ... ction.html

That's right, a 'mysterious' crop circle (July 2013) which reportedly recently appeared (July 2013!) in Hackpen Hill, Wiltshire - UK. My first, instinctive reaction was - Ugh NO, dammit !... let me not get into crop circles, of all things! However, the pattern proved quite handy to help compose what I had in mind, so I happily used it - on a separate Gimp layer - as a geometrical reference template. The result is the below diagram - which illustrates all of Mars's eight oppositions in the course of 17 years.

Image

As you can see, the various figures harmoniously add up to almost exactly 17 years. In this time, Mars performs 8 circles(maybe perfect / maybe not - yet gradually, helically-precessing circles around the Sun'/Earth 'axis') around both Earth and Sun - with no need for ellipses or accelerating/ decelerating orbit velocities. The only "non-harmonious" thing in this model - if you will - would be that Earth (which only rotates on itself) is placed slightly off-center of the circle making up Mars's 8 oppositions (which is when Mars passes closes to Earth in its 778-day cycle).

Here follows a set of simple calculations I have performed for the time lapses (Earth days) observed/ predicted for the 2003 > 2018 Mars oppositions:

Aug28, 2003 > Nov7, 2005 = 802 days
Nov7, 2005 > Dec24, 2007 = 777 days
Dec24, 2007 > Jan29, 2010 = 767 days
Jan29, 2010 > Mar3, 2012 = 764 days
Mar3, 2012 > Apr8, 2014 = 766 days
Apr8, 2014 > May22, 2016 = 775 days
May22, 2016 > Jul27 2018 = 796 days


Average > 778,1 days

Now, the 'universally accepted' Copernican model has, of course, Mars and Earth revolving around the Sun. Here's the absurd Copernican / Keplerian model 'explanation' for some of the above-listed, slightly variable time periods between each Mars opposition:

Image

To be sure, the slight variations of the Mars 778-day cycle (as seen / timed from EARTH) cannot possibly account for Earth's apparent, wildly fluctuating displacements around its orbit - from one blue dot to another! Once again, the Copernican model miserably fails to meet the most elementary standards of geometrical and physical logic. Yet, by twisting, bending, nudging and fudging - Kepler managed to "make it all work" - what with his fancy ellipses and variable orbital speeds...

Here's how my TYCHO/SSSS model can plainly illustrate these slight variations of Mars's 778-day cycle. It is only a question of perspectives, due to Earth being offset from the center of Mars's cyclic opposition points - nothing more complex than that :

Image

This is all for now, folks. More to come! :)

Anyways, I have a feeling those mysterious crop circle artists know a thing or two about the cosmos - that we're not supposed to know. And no - i don't think they're Martians...

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

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by agraposo » Sat Aug 31, 2013 11:06 pm

simonshack wrote: Now, the 'universally accepted' Copernican model has, of course, Mars and Earth revolving around the Sun. Here's the absurd Copernican / Keplerian model 'explanation' for some of the above-listed, slightly variable time periods between each Mars opposition:

Image

To be sure, the slight variations of the Mars 778-day cycle (as seen / timed from EARTH) cannot possibly account for Earth's apparent, wildly fluctuating displacements around its orbit - from one blue dot to another! Once again, the Copernican model miserably fails to meet the most elementary standards of geometrical and physical logic. Yet, by twisting, bending, nudging and fudging - Kepler managed to "make it all work" - what with his fancy ellipses and variable orbital speeds...
Simon, that graphic isn't accurate at all. Here is a more accurate graphic:

Image
http://www.curtrenz.com/mars04.html

You can obtain your own graphics with the help of this Mars orbit simulator:

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

It's logical that the positions between 2003 and 2005 (to the right of the image) are more separated that the positions between 2007 and 2010 (to the left of the image), because in 2003 Mars is close to its perihelion, and thus it goes faster and the Earth needs more days to catch-up with Mars.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6927
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by simonshack » Sun Sep 01, 2013 12:55 am

agraposo wrote: It's logical that the positions between 2003 and 2005 (to the right of the image) are more separated that the positions between 2007 and 2010 (to the left of the image), because in 2003 Mars is close to its perihelion, and thus it goes faster and the Earth needs more days to catch-up with Mars.
It may seem 'logical' to you that the planet's orbital speeds accelerate and decelerate - at such accurate rates as to perennially return to the same exact positions after their given cycles, century after century - their speed variations always perfectly equal and constant. It may also seem logical to you that the planets' orbits are elliptical rather than plain circular. And you are, by any means, free to think so.

See, Agraposo, what sets us apart is that all this doesn't sound intuitively logical / natural to me. As you must admit, the Copernican / Keplerian model is such an abstruse and bewildering one as to make even seasoned astronomers produce senseless / flawed graphics of it. So let me ask you: would you possibly consider that your mind is currently attached to an age-old postulation which has no basis in fact - or, In other words, to a 'scientific dogma'? Are you aware that these postulations ( based on one man's mathematical interpretations of Tycho Brahe's observations) were submitted by one single, highly controversial, madly ambitious and overrated individual named Joannes Keplerus?

Image

If so, why is it so important to you to defend this man's legacy? Are you and Kepler related in any way? :P

Jokes aside, have you any comment to offer on my MARS 17-year cycle diagram - or do you feel it is simply not worthy of any consideration whatsoever? Have you tested it against observational data so as to verify if it may be perhaps a more logical model than the one you have been taught in school? Are all my efforts in vain - just because someone has "established, once and for all" the way the solar system functions - 400 years ago? In any case I would appreciate if you could spend more time specifically commenting/criticizing the new model I am proposing (pointing out its possible flaws or impossibilities)- rather than just linking to websites and graphics supporting the old, 'universally-accepted' Coper-Keplerian model.

Now, before you submit any more screenshots of the NEAVE planetarium (depicting Mars's path BEYOND its humanly observable, close passage from Earth), please let me point out this fact: Mars can only be observed from Earth for a few months at a time, before and after its close approach to Earth and its 'opposition' phase (as we can see it 'retrograding' for a couple of months or so). Under the Copernican model it is, in fact, quite odd that Mars can only be observed from Earth for such short / limited periods of time - given Kepler's proposed geometry (Mars orbiting around Earth in a wide, 'elliptical circle' - with Earth rotating inside in a far smaller 'elliptical circle': Mars SHOULD OBVIOUSLY be visible for much longer periods of time in such a model). In other words, the full Mars path as traced / depicted in planetariums are only mathematically 'deduced' paths - computed using Kepler's postulated laws and equations. The FULL Mars orbit is not something we can see and verify with our own eyes and therefore, it just cannot be taken as incontrovertible fact.

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

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by agraposo » Sun Sep 01, 2013 2:53 am

simonshack wrote: It may seem 'logical' to you that the planet's orbital speeds accelerate and decelerate - at such accurate rates as to perennially return to the same exact positions after their given cycles, century after century - their speed variations always perfectly equal and constant. It may also seem logical to you that the planets' orbits are elliptical rather than plain circular. And you are, by any means, free to think so.
Of course I meant 'logical' assuming Kepler's laws are correct.
simonshack wrote: See, Agraposo, what sets us apart is that all this doesn't sound intuitively logical / natural to me. As you must admit, the Copernican / Keplerian model is such an abstruse one as to make even seasoned astronomers produce senseless / flawed graphics of it. So let me ask you: would you possibly consider that your mind is currently attached to an age-old postulation which has no basis in fact - or, In other words, to a 'scientific dogma'? Are you aware that these postulations ( based on one man's mathematical interpretations of Tycho Brahe's observations) were submitted by one single, highly controversial, madly ambitious and overrated individual named Joannes Keplerus?
Ptolemy, Copernicus, Brahe, their hypotheses included circular orbits and uniform motion. Kepler also started using these hypotheses, but had to abandon them because they dind't predict accurately all the data available (the famous 8' discrepancy in the orbit of Mars). Whether you like it or not, he found that elliptic orbits matched the data observed by Tycho (and even himself). He was convinced that the Sun should be put at the center of the orbits (more or less), because of his physical ideas, expressed in his previous works.
simonshack wrote: Jokes aside, have you any comment to offer on my MARS 17-year cycle diagram - or do you feel it is simply not worthy of any consideration whatsoever? Have you tested it against observational data so as to verify if it may be perhaps a more logical model than the one you have been taught in school? Are all my efforts in vain - just because someone has "established, once and for all " the way the solar system functions - 400 years ago?
You are doing an excellent work, but it has been done by many others during history. Based on diagrams, you're not going to disprove the heliocentric model, as all the hypotheses are equivalent. Let me show you yet another animation, you can play changing the orbits, the centers, but the observed data from the Earth will be the same.

http://science.larouchepac.com/kepler/n ... alence.swf
simonshack wrote: As you can see, the various figures harmoniously add up to almost exactly 17 years. In this time, Mars performs 8 circles(maybe perfect / maybe not - yet gradually, helically-precessing circles around the Sun'/Earth 'axis') around both Earth and Sun - with no need for ellipses or accelerating/ decelerating orbit velocities. The only "non-harmonious" thing in this model - if you will - would be that Earth (which only rotates on itself) is placed slightly off-center of the circle making up Mars's 8 oppositions (which is when Mars passes closes to Earth in its 778-day cycle).
You have just discovered the eccentric. This is an example of what I told you, the work has been already done by others. As you know, the ancient astronomers were mathematicians, and they designed all kind of geometric tricks to explain the observed data, based on the main hypotheses: circular orbits and uniform motion. I'm not going to recall the history of astronomy, anybody can read it if interested, but I'd say in a few words that Copernicus didn't like Ptolemy's equants, Tycho didn't like the heliocentric model, Kepler didn't like the geocentric model, is like a fight among mathematicians!

As I said, Kepler, based on his own ideas (heliocentric model), and trying to keep the main hypotheses (circular orbits and uniform motion), had to abandon them to explain the data collected by Tycho. I don't understand why Kepler is so evil for you, I think he is just a science man.

I have enjoyed the research, and other forum members have another ideas of the universe, may be some of them could be right, and not Kepler? I guess NASA is not going to help us! :)

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6927
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by simonshack » Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:54 pm

agraposo wrote:
You have just discovered the eccentric.

(...)

I don't understand why Kepler is so evil for you, I think he is just a science man.
No, I have not just discovered the eccentric, Agraposo. I have heard of that before, thank you. :rolleyes:
As for Kepler, I have a post entirely dedicated to the man coming up shortly - stay tuned.


For now, I would like to submit you a straightforward question to which I hope you will answer in straightforward fashion. It has to do with Mars's revolution around Earth - and how it is 'explained' by mainstream science. If I am missing something, I beg you to help me out here - so let me get straight to the point:

Here we have an animation from the Larouche website that you linked to. We see that Earth needs more than 2 revolutions (ergo more than 732days) before it catches up and re-aligns with Mars. Right? It seems to me that this is indeed the case :

Image
Source: http://science.larouchepac.com/kepler/n ... syear.html

So how would Mars- according to the NEAVE Planetarium- perfectly realign with LIBRA in only 711 days?

Image

Again, how can we see MARS realign with LIBRA in only 705 days? This question really puzzles me, you know - but I'm eager to learn!

Image



Obviously, either the NEAVE Planetarium has it wrong - or the Larouche animation has it wrong. Both cannot be correct. But the main question is, of course: how can an observer from Earth see Mars realigning in front of the same constellation in less than 732 days? If you can offer an explanation and clear this up for me, I'd be very grateful - quite honestly speaking! On the other hand, if you cannot provide an explanation for it, I'd appreciate if you just say so - and admit that something doesn't add up here. Too bad Kepler isn't here to illuminate us all...


*********
Oh, and btw: that other fancy (yet pretty cool) 'Equivalency'-animation has Tycho's model all wrong - at least as far as I'm interpreting it under my SSSS model : what it actually tries to depict is the optical illusion of Mars's retrograde motion - NOT the real / physical trajectory of its orbit ! In any case, if THAT is what Tycho actually had in mind, I will have to drop the "TYCHO-SSSS" title of this research - and just call it the SSSS. In any case, I maintain that my model is not equivalent to any of the three models in that animation.

Locked