MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
The AEL Goes AudioVisual (Astrophysics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Brian Ambrose



View user's profile
Reply with quote

It does deny precession as the effect of a torque on the axis of a spinning body, doesn't it?

I don't think so, not in principle anyway. I think any confusion may be in the use of the word precession to refer to both actual gyroscopic precession, and what appears to be precession due to earth's movement around the binary companion (which for anyone else who wants to check it out, is nicely illustrated in the graphics on the site).

The author seems to accept that gyroscopic precession of the Earth does exist (quoted below), but in a much reduced magnitude (although maybe not - see the quotation below which I've highlighted in bold). He also notes the anomalous effect (given that the Sun and Moon's mass don't change) that precession is, according to measurements, at present accelerating (due to our position on the elliptical path of the solar system's orbit). I don't see any evidence that the author intends that torque from the binary companion somehow cancels lunisolar torque (nor would that seem likely given the much smaller forces exerted by a far away binary).

Here's a quote from another part of the site:

...we accept modest lunisolar forces but have found fundamental flaws in the current explanation of precession, whereas a binary model seems to solve many of the long-standing problems in solar system formation theory. For example: it has been found that the earth does not precess relative to objects within the solar system (like the Moon or Perseids comet debris) but does precess relative to fixed stars outside the solar system. This is very hard to explain if precession is caused by anything other than a binary motion. (my italics)

and

Other non-traditional scientists are also coming to similar conclusions. The Homann's of Canada have been saying for several years that current lunisolar precession theory does not work, and they make compelling arguments that any rotation of the earth (as lunisolar theory requires) does not show up in time and motion equivalency measurements" etc...
The full document is very interesting, including some historical and mythological information: http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/bri/research/papers/AboutPrecession.pdf

Also

...Newton's equations never did match observed precession rates. Consequently, the equations were substantially revised by Jean-le-Rond D'Alembert who added factors for torque and inertia, but even this effort proved a poor predictor of precession rates. Since then precession calculations have been continually modified and now include many factors beyond the original 'lunisolar forces', including the gravitational effect of the inner and outer planets, tidal influences, effects of the 300 largest asteroids, and even a possible elliptical movement of the Earth's soft core.

But as is apparent the calculations have become more of a 'plug' whereby inputs are gradually added or modified to fit the observation rather than being predictive or resting on solid theory. Recently, an Italian scientist, Carlo Santagata completed a treatise examining Newton's and D'Alembert's work and subsequent equations. He finds numerous problems and shows that not only do current lunisolar equations fail to account for relativistic factors, but he concludes there must be another completely different explanation for the phenomenon we call precession.

And Eugen Negut, a French Canadian mathematician provides an insightful argument that precession cannot display the dynamics of a spinning top because it has no 'supporting point' in space. He makes a strong case that the axis could not 'wobble' without a supporting point and that there must be another cause.

Also, two German Canadian scientists, Karl Heinz Homman and Uwe Homann have produced some compelling time equivalency and related equations to show that the time required to complete lunisolar precession mechanics do not fit the observed motions of the Earth.

And here at the Binary Research Institute we have found that lunar rotation equations do not support lunisolar theory, that precession is accelerating and acts more like a body that follows Kepler's laws. Also, there are at least half a dozen circumstantial arguments indicating precession is a result of something other than local forces. In summary, a number of independent groups, all studying the same problem of lunisolar mechanics have concluded that precession is most likely caused by something other than a local wobbling of the Earth."
http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/bri/research/papers/ComparisonPaper.pdf
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Can someone explain to me how you would go about distinguishing the "precession" of a gyroscope that is caused by an external force (eg the Sun having a binary) and an internal force (eg a massive tsunami throwing the weight of the earth about)?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Any self-respecting Applied Epistemologist who read Brian's last post would have to conclude that Precession, not merely its cause but its actual existence, is now Open Season.
Send private message
Brian Ambrose



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Any self-respecting Applied Epistemologist who read Brian's last post would have to conclude that Precession, not merely its cause but its actual existence, is now Open Season

Correct. But not quite. The cause of the effect which we observe which is (however unfortunately) generically called precession is now open season. That there is a 25,000 year rotation of the constellations is not disputed by anyone (present company excepted).
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Can someone explain to me how you would go about distinguishing the "precession" of a gyroscope that is caused by an external force (eg the Sun having a binary) and an internal force (eg a massive tsunami throwing the weight of the earth about)?

It's pretty much the definition of 'internal' that the equal-and-opposite-reaction is internal, too. Tsunamis and stuff could jostle things about in all directions, leaving the centre where it is: like those guys on SkyLab trying their darnedest and failing to move from the spot.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I disagree with Brian most trenchantly. Nothing he has said even remotely suggests that the 25,000 figure is anything more than (and I have my doubts it even reaches) a vague extrapolation of a slightly non-straight line observed over, at most, a coupla hundred years.

And we don't know whether it's caused internally or externally.

Good. Now tell me what we know about "precessions" for any other body.
Send private message
Brian Ambrose



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Nothing he has said even remotely suggests that the 25,000 figure is anything more than (and I have my doubts it even reaches) a vague extrapolation of a slightly non-straight line observed over, at most, a coupla hundred years.

That's a fair comment, seeing's as you've studiously avoided looking at either the historical or the astronomical evidence that a Great Year exists, and I'm far too lazy to post it all up here for you to ignore. However, as evidence is not your top priority, I would have sugggested that you might like to consider, from first principles, what the observed effect of a 'slightly non-straight line' might be (or what that even means, it baffles me), and then consider whether astronomers might have the ability to spot the difference between this and what the expected observation of gyroscopic precession would be.

But don't bother (not that I expect you to). I've already come to the conclusion that, whether there is gyroscopic precession, or some sort of mysterious unscientific slightly-non-straight-line-harperite-precession, it's pretty irrelevant. I think I can prove that gyroscopic precession cannot be the cause of the observations which we call the Great Year, and will shortly be presenting a devastating case against orthodoxy about this at the other place.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I look forward to that. Meanwhile, can you (or anyone else) tell me about the Precession being inflicted on our neighbours in the Solar System. Obviously, we can observe this as easily as we can our own so the whole matter (both whether it exists and whether it is externally induced) should be settled by this.
Send private message
Brian Ambrose



View user's profile
Reply with quote

It's a good question. I dunno about gyroscopic precession being observed in other planets, but I can tell you that every object in the solar system observes a Great Year just like we do (we're all on the merry-go-round together).
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Can you be more specific? I thought The Great Year was the same as the Precession of the Equinoxes was the same as gyroscopic precession. And if you say the other bodies have it then they must have "been observed" surely?

Of course somebody ought to clear up the minor technical question about whether, if all the bodies are being "precessed" by some external force, they should all be precessing at the same rate.
Send private message
Brian Ambrose



View user's profile
Reply with quote

I have obviously not made it clear enough. For the purposes of this discussion, there is no gyroscopic precession of the Earth. The whole solar system is on a merry-go-round. As we look out at the funfair it rotates around us. This illusion is caused, not by you rotating on your seat once, which is also quite plausible, but by the merry-go-round going round once.

The term precession is extremely unfortunate because, as you say, it identifies the observed effect and the theoretical cause as one and the same thing. It would be much clearer if we could always use the term Great Year to denote the observation, and gyroscopic precession to identify the theoretical cause.
Send private message
EndlesslyRocking



View user's profile
Reply with quote

admin wrote:
The first is about how we presently but erroneously look at the Solar System and is by Mick Harper
http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-8941010334953165322&hl=nl

The other is the (final) truth about the Bimini Road and is by Ishmaelhttp://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=461964088691248615&hl=nl

Are they gone? I was going to watch them again, but it says this:

Deze video is mogelijk niet beschikbaar.
Wanneer deze video net is geŁpload, wordt deze wellicht nog verwerkt.
Wanneer dit uw video is, kunt u de status ervan controleren.
Ga naar onze startpagina voor meer video's
.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You can watch a shortened version of the space one here
http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=1096312162121654043

By the by, now that my various schemes for mass media exposure have come to nought, I intend to make a final version, print fifty copies and then send them off to Astronomy Departmental Libraries. It's the only way I can think of to 'publish' it as a theory.

Anybody who wants a copy or has an idea about where copies should be sent (I don't know whether the five British 'copyright libraries' accept DVD's) should contact me privately.
Send private message
EndlesslyRocking



View user's profile
Reply with quote

How does polar shift supposedly occur? Does the degree of axial tilt remained fixed, and the earth moves? Or does the earth stay fixed, and the degree of axial tilt changes? If either occurred, the poles would be in new places, wouldn't they?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

As you know, Applied Epistemologists can only proceed by observed facts (o.n.o.) so we take as our text the last time the Pole shifted. Which was during the Indian Ocean tsunami.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Jump to:  
Page 4 of 9

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group