Jupiter and the Eye of Horus

[gentleman-farmer]

On graduation with an engineering degree I hired in as a design engineer on the Apollo moon project by a subcontractor who suppled parts on the first stage launch engines and the various modules

 

I became fascinated with the overall project and the scientific experiments that were planned. Of primary interest was the plan to place laser reflecting stations on the moon

 

I was not part of those projects but in the mid 1990's I decided to establish the relationship between earth's rotation and the moon's orbit - so I could better understand the program. I started out by reading everything on the subject - including any by NASA. Their bulletins are available in the library system

 

Then I obtained the primary "length-of-day" data from R. S. Gross, that was available in a series titled

A Combination of Earth Orientation Measurements: SPACE94, COMB94, and POLE94, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California. The Data was on 3.5 inch floppy disks.

 

Next I went to the

United States Geological Survey, National Earthquake Information Center, and obtained earthquake data titled "Epic Retrieval Software for the Global Hypocenter Data Base," CD-ROM

 

Then I plotted "length-of-day" vs earthquake and found that all earthquakes change the "length-of-day." It would have been more apparent on the NASA graph but they had to reproduce it on 7 x 10 and the resolution was lost - it takes a data base to store and retrieve. Graphs are fine but they lack resolution

gf

/

Edited July 22, 2010 by gentleman-farmer

[swansont]

 

NASA has also published the day length change per century, and of course they are not prone to error under these circumstances.

 

http://eclipse.gsfc....p/rotation.html

 

Actually they are. Their units are wrong — the slowing of the length of a day is akin to an acceleration. It should be 2.3 milliseconds per day per century. Once you slow the earth, it will accumulate a phase difference with respect to an atomic clock, even if no further slowing occurs, i.e. if a clock runs slow and loses a second per day, it will lose 365 seconds a year in perpetuity. Since the slowing is happening continually, the rate of phase accumulation is getting larger. Their included link uses the right units in saying increase in the length of the day by about 0.002 seconds per day per century.

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/deltaT.html

 

This is the reason we add leap seconds. We currently add them at a rate of no more than one per year. 2.3 ms/day corresponds to .84 seconds a year, and then one must take into account other effects; there are a number of them that speed us up, and those actually dominated a few years back when we had no leap seconds added for several years in a row. The "dry spell" actually caused a problem for us at work — a loss of institutional memory on how to update certain older pieces of equipment, no experience in updating the newest ones and some missing documentation. It made the addition of the subsequent leap second somewhat stressful for those involved (Thank goodness I'm not in operations)

 

You can see here that the LOD actually tended down sharply in the mid/late 90's and occasionally became negative in the early part of this century.

 

http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/earth-orientation/eo-info/faq/what-is-ut1-utc

 

 

However, this still doesn't change the fact that g-f's evidence doesn't come anywhere close to supporting his claim.

 

On graduation with an engineering degree I hired in as a design engineer on the Apollo moon project by a subcontractor who suppled parts on the first stage launch engines and the various modules

 

I became fascinated with the overall project and the scientific experiments that were planned. Of primary interest was the plan to place laser reflecting stations on the moon

 

I was not part of those projects but in the mid 1990's I decided to establish the relationship between earth's rotation and the moon's orbit - so I could better understand the program. I started out by reading everything on the subject - including any by NASA. Their bulletins are available in the library system

 

Then I obtained the primary "length-of-day" data from R. S. Gross, that was available in a series titled

 

Next I went to the

 

Then I plotted "length-of-day" vs earthquake and found that all earthquakes change the "length-of-day." It would have been more apparent on the NASA graph but they had to reproduce it on 7 x 10 and the resolution was lost - it takes a data base to store and retrieve. Graphs are fine but they lack resolution

gf

/

 

That's all well and good, but does nothing to support your contention that a change in rotation of the earth appears as a recession of the moon, absent a physical interaction between them. Conservation of angular momentum is not magic, it's physics. The earth can change its rate of rotation independently by redistributing mass, in which case its angular momentum will not change.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Actually they are. Their units are wrong — the slowing of the length of a day is akin to an acceleration.

I was imitating g-f when he cited his NASA source. I'm not entirely surprised at the unit error, anyway, since that's a bit funky.

[Ophiolite]

gf,

please, with a simple yes, or no, tell me if I have understood you correctly. You define occult texts as texts which have been manipulated to promote the beliefs and interpretations of those persons engaged in the manipulation.

 

That is what I take from your somewhat garbled earlier responses to my request for a definition. If that is what you mean it would have saved us both a lot of trouble it you had said it on the first time of asking.

 

On the topic of the moon, let me summarise the objections several her ehave.

 

1. The change in day length as a consequence of earthquakes is small, smaller than you claim by an order of magnitude or more.

2. (I'm not sure it has been explicitly mentioned, but that change could be an increase, or a decrease. The skater can move her arms out as well as in.)

3. The transfer of angular momentum between the Earth and the moon is through the mechanism of tides. It occurs slowly and essentially continuously.

4. There is no mechanism (nore any need) to transfer angular momentum changes resulting from earthquakes to the moon.

 

In summary, your understanding of the influence of terrestrial earthquakes on the moon is badly flawed. No, that's not strong enough. It is completely, irredeemably wrong. I do hope you will acknowledge this.

[gentleman-farmer]

Ophiolite - perhaps on your say so NASA should give up on the lunar laser ranging program

 

and Wikipedia should take down their Angular momentum page

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

 

The conservation of angular momentum in Earth–Moon system results in the transfer of angular momentum from Earth to Moon

 

I have plotted it personably - and I have given you the source of the data -

 

 

 

 

eq)

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And you have in no way demonstrated that the transfer of angular momentum is due to earthquakes. In fact, the sentence you quote ends by disagreeing with you:

 

The conservation of angular momentum in Earth–Moon system results in the transfer of angular momentum from Earth to Moon (due to tidal torque the Moon exerts on the Earth).

 

Tides.

[Klaynos]

And again we see cherry picking the evidence, wonderful.

[gentleman-farmer]

NASA scientists studying the Indonesian earthquake of Dec. 26, 2004, have calculated that it slightly changed our planet's shape, shaved almost 3 microseconds from the length of the day, and shifted the North Pole by centimeters.

 

Dr. Benjamin Fong Chao of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center and Dr. Richard Gross of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory said all earthquakes have some effect on Earth's rotation. It's just that the effects are, usually, barely noticeable.

 

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/10jan_earthquake/

 

gf) Now multiply one million earthquakes per year times (all earthquakes have some effect on Earth's rotation) and we are nearing the justification point for spending millions (perhaps billions) on the Lunar Laser Ranging program

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Or maybe the Lunar Laser Ranging program is necessary because of tides?

 

What's wrong with tides as an explanation?

[gentleman-farmer]

NASA scientists studying the Indonesian earthquake of Dec. 26, 2004, have calculated that it slightly changed our planet's shape, shaved almost 3 microseconds from the length of the day, and shifted the North Pole by centimeters.

 

Dr. Benjamin Fong Chao of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center and Dr. Richard Gross of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory said all earthquakes have some effect on Earth's rotation. It's just that the effects are, usually, barely noticeable.

 

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/10jan_earthquake/

 

Now multiply one million earthquakes per year times (all earthquakes have some effect on Earth's rotation) and we are nearing the justification point for spending millions (perhaps billions) on the Lunar Laser Ranging program

 

Tides are but one cause for the change of rotation earthquake is another - perhaps some day other causes will be observed - in which case we'll add them to our data base of knowledge

 

The conservation of angular momentum in Earth–Moon system results in the transfer of angular momentum from Earth to Moon (due by example, my emphases) to tidal torque the Moon exerts on the Earth). This in turn results in the slowing down of the rotation rate of Earth (at about 42 nsec/day), and in gradual increase of the radius of Moon's orbit (at ~4.5 cm/year rate).

[insane_alien]

 

gf) Now multiply one million earthquakes per year times (all earthquakes have some effect on Earth's rotation) and we are nearing the justification point for spending millions (perhaps billions) on the Lunar Laser Ranging program

 

you make the mistake of assuming all earthquakes change the rotation in the same way(hint: they don't, some speed it up, some do nothing at all) and that each earthquake has roughly the same magnitude of effect(hint: they don't, but a general rule would be that the bigger the earthquake the bigger the effect).

 

There are very few large earthquakes each year, the millions of earthquakes figure comes from minor tremors that can only be detected by instruments sensitive enough to pick up buildings being demolished at a fair distance.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Now multiply one million earthquakes per year times (all earthquakes have some effect on Earth's rotation) and we are nearing the justification point for spending millions (perhaps billions) on the Lunar Laser Ranging program

 

Tides are but one cause for the change of rotation earthquake is another - perhaps some day other causes will be observed - in which case we'll add them to our data base of knowledge

Change of rotation [math]\neq[/math] change in moon's orbit. You have still not substantiated the claim that the Moon is affected in the slightest by earthquakes.

 

Hint: one cannot change the moon's orbit without applying a force. In the case of tides, the force applied is gravity, and it results from water sloshing about on Earth. What's the force on the Moon from an earthquake? Earthquakes don't move billions of gallons of water around the planet. Earthquakes slightly shift some mass around on the Earth, but they can shift it in, out, up, down, or whatever direction they want. So you'd also have to demonstrate that earthquakes all have the same kind of effect.

[gentleman-farmer]

When I first became interested in angular momentum in the Earth–Moon system I studied both modern and ancient literature. The first time we encounter mention of angular momentum in the Earth–Moon system (from what I could find) dates to 350 B.C., it reads this way

 

paraphrasing

I saw the hidden and the visible path of the moon, and she accomplishes the course of her path in that place by day and by night - the one holding a position opposite to the other - and it's stately orbit, and how it does not leave that orbit .. and it adds nothing to it .. nor takes anything from it .. and it keeps faith .. in accordance with the oath by which it is bound

 

gf)

/

[insane_alien]

that mentions angular momentum only by twisting the meaning of the words to fit a modern context rather than the ancient context in twhich they were made.

 

don't take things out of context because then the meaning can be misinterpreted. and you ARE misinterpreting the meaning of that quote. i suspect deliberately.

[swansont]

NASA scientists studying the Indonesian earthquake of Dec. 26, 2004, have calculated that it slightly changed our planet's shape, shaved almost 3 microseconds from the length of the day, and shifted the North Pole by centimeters.

 

 

 

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/10jan_earthquake/

 

gf) Now multiply one million earthquakes per year times (all earthquakes have some effect on Earth's rotation) and we are nearing the justification point for spending millions (perhaps billions) on the Lunar Laser Ranging program

 

There is nothing in your link that implies that the moon is affected in any way. You have proposed no way that an earthquake here can exert a torque on the moon.

 

Further, it took an earthquake of magnitude >8 to change the rotation rate by microseconds; the one in the article was the "fourth largest 'quake in one hundred years." The vast majority of your one million earthquakes are much, much smaller.

[Klaynos]

Also, the rictor scale is logarithmic.

[gentleman-farmer]

I still know some engineers at NASA and on occasion I'll call, or they'll call me and we'll discuss items of mutual interest. The last time we spoke I asked this question

 

Knowing that the moon orbits at an incline of about 5 degrees relative to the ecliptic, and suspecting that not all exchanges of angular momentum are smooth or complete - what would happen if there was a very large earthquake and the exchange was both large and abrupt?

 

Could the moon overshoot the exchange point and find itself hunting for equilibrium?

 

If that happened what affects would you expect?

 

His answer was

(we've thought about that often) but have no answers

[insane_alien]

anecdotes are not evidence.

 

please provide some evidence.

[gentleman-farmer]

The account of Sothis (a.k.a., Sirius), Orion, heliacal rising, heliacal setting - and the laying down of a celestial grid as told in the Pyramid Texts is an absolutely fascinating study

 

Hopefully JohnB is familiar with it so we can discuss the methodology the Ancients used in the telling

 

I can't say that this solar boat is the metaphoric style - but one such was used

 

 

gf

/

[insane_alien]

all very well, but its dodging some very good questions posed by others as well as myself.

[gentleman-farmer]

insane_alien

all very well, but its dodging some very good questions posed by others as well as myself.

 

gf) Questions have been answered over and over - and over - perhaps reading some of them is in order

 

In the mean time The account of Sothis (a.k.a., Sirius), Orion, heliacal rising, heliacal setting - and the laying down of a celestial grid as told in the Pyramid Texts is an absolutely fascinating study

 

Hopefully JohnB is familiar with it so we can discuss the methodology the Ancients used in the telling

 

P.S. Perhaps we can bring our intellect into play and recognize that if one factor that slows the earth and causes an exchange with the moon shows that any factor that slows the earth will cause an exchange with the moon. After all isn't that the philosophy we put into affect when we solve problems at the end of the chapter using the principles and mathematical solutions?

 

gf

Edited July 22, 2010 by gentleman-farmer

[insane_alien]

oh i have read every post in this thread, but still you have just ingored a good deal of questions and even more you have not answered sufficiently by giving either an irrelevant 'answer' or showing you don't really understand the principles of basic physics.

[gentleman-farmer]

insane_alien

you don't really understand the principles of basic physics.

 

gf) I taught college physics for almost 30 years - the first day students entered my class we'd go over the entire book so they knew how everything relates (one thing to another). But there were always those that asked, "Why should I have to take this class - I'll never use it.

 

I'd respond "You don't," come up during break and I'll fill out a Drop and Add card. It happened my class was a requisite so no one ever dropped it. But at the same time my roster (and class room) were always full - and students tried to transfer into my class

 

I was working on a project dealing with solar orbital forces at the time and we'd always take time to discuss the major principles - then we'd relate our discussions to principles within the chapters

 

solar orbital forces are very complex and the mathematics are a nightmare

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What sort of research did you do at this university?

[gentleman-farmer]

Cap'n Wha

t sort of research did you do at this university?

 

gf) I taught at a college and worked on the project (with the help of a math professor) at a major university. It dealt with determining the magnitude of solar orbital forces and the bending moments caused thereby

 

The most difficult part was structuring the cross- section of the earth - this was because solar gravitational forces act along the plane of the ecliptic and no work had been done along these lines that we knew of. Our initial outline looked like this