Posts Tagged ‘planetary theory’

Jodrell Bank radio telescope, Cheshire (UK) [credit: Mike Peel / Wikipedia]

Jodrell Bank radio telescope, Cheshire (UK)
[credit: Mike Peel / Wikipedia]


This is a new (to us) angle on certain lines of enquiry re. planetary theory in Talkshop blog posts.

John H. Nelson’s theory of propagation: Is there anything to it? – By David Dalton, K9WQ

In March 1951, John H. Nelson, an engineer for the RCA Communications Co. in New York, published an article in RCA Review describing a theory for predicting shortwave radio propagation over the North Atlantic. Nelson developed the theory by comparing planetary positions relative to the sun with logs of propagation conditions maintained at RCA’s receiving station at Riverhead, Long Island.

The article said that certain configurations of the six inner planets correlated with degraded propagation conditions. Nelson was not dogmatic about his theory. Rather, in the article and in a follow-up article published in May 1952, he encouraged further study [see footnote]. Nelson believed that his theory was about 85 percent accurate in its predictions.

(more…)

The model is ~99.78% accurate

The model is ~99.78% accurate


The model is in the diagram, so here’s the explanation.
Divide the orbit period of Venus by that of Mercury:
0.61519726 years / 0.2408467 years = 2.554310522

To get to whole numbers, round the result up to 2.56 then:
2.56 x 5 = 12.8
12.8 x 5 = 64
64 / 25 = 2.56

64 = 8² and 25 = 5²
Therefore the approximate ratio of Mercury:Venus orbit periods is 8²:5².
The number of conjunctions in the period is the difference in orbit numbers:
8² – 5² = 64 – 25 = 39 = 13 x 3

Phi link: 2,3,5,8, and 13 are all Fibonacci numbers.

2.554310522 / 2.56 = 0.99777755~ so the accuracy of the model is around 99.78%.

An even more accurate model would be:
626 Venus = 1599 Mercury.
1599 / 626 = 2.554313 i.e. almost the same as 2.554310522 = the true ratio.

Note that 1600 / 625 = 2.56 which is the same as 8² / 5².
So there’s one more Venus (626) and one less Mercury orbit (1599) in reality, every 385.11 years, compared to our model.

Footnote:
1600 = 8² x 5²
625 = 5² x 5²
(The common 5² is redundant in the ratio, leaving 8²:5²)

Back in 1987, Robert M Wilson of NASA’s Space Science Laboratory in Huntsville published this paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research. It’s important to our solar-planetary theory because it shows that the Sun is bi-modal in terms of its solar cycle lengths. They cluster around  periods of a little over ten and a little under twelve years. These periods correlate to the periods of Jupiter-Earth-Venus syzygy cycles and Jupiter’s orbital period respectively. Leif Svalgaard vehemently denied this correlation when I pointed it out to him a few years ago.

rob-wilson-bimodal-sun

The same correlation was noted by independent researcher Timo Niroma in 1989, who conducted his own survey and analysis of solar cycle lengths. He produced this simple ascii-art graphic to present his results.

(more…)

Cruithne's orbit of the Sun   [credit: GravitySimulator.com]

Cruithne’s orbit of the Sun
[credit: GravitySimulator.com]

‘One day, Cruithne could be a practice site for landing humans on asteroids’ says a report at phys.org . Why so?

‘Cruithne has an orbit that stretches from the orbit of Mercury to beyond the orbit of Mars. But remarkably, Cruithne’s period is almost exactly the same as Earth’s. This sets the table for some interesting orbital interactions.’ – quoting GravitySimulator.com.

Phys.org takes up the story:
We all know and love the moon. We’re so assured that we only have one that we don’t even give it a specific name. It is the brightest object in the night sky, and amateur astronomers take great delight in mapping its craters and seas. To date, it is the only other heavenly body with human footprints.

What you might not know is that the moon is not the Earth’s only natural satellite. As recently as 1997, we discovered that another body, 3753 Cruithne, is what’s called a quasi-orbital satellite of Earth. This simply means that Cruithne doesn’t loop around the Earth in a nice ellipse in the same way as the moon, or indeed the artificial satellites we loft into orbit. Instead, Cruithne scuttles around the inner solar system in what’s called a “horseshoe” orbit.

(more…)

Congratulations! to Nicola Scafetta and Richard C Willson on the publication of their new paper: Planetary harmonics in the historical Hungarian aurora record (1523–1960). This is another excellent paper, published in Planetary and Space Science. Grabbitquick before I take it offline. Scafetta always makes papers available later if you miss this one. The Hungarian record goes back to a very early date and this makes the paper especially interesting to those of us eager to see more validation of the solar planetary theory, which is rapidly becoming the best show in town for matching paleo records. Geoff Sharp will be particularly pleased to see the strength of these Uranus-Neptune synodic correlations with solar activity levels.

scafetta2013afig3

(more…)

University of Montreal physicist Paul Charbonneau has written a short review of the Abreu et al paper published by ‘Astronomy and Astrophysics’, and featured on the talkshop last October. This is a good step forward for the hypothesis we have been working on here for the last three years, with important contributions from published scientists including Ian Wilson, Nicola Scafetta P.A. Semi and many other contributors. Although Abreu et al were not the first in modern times to publish in this area, the prominence they have achieved through publication of a review piece by Paul Charbonneau in Nature is helping to turn the spotlight onto an idea whose time has come. Hopefully the authors with prior publications in this exciting  area of investigation will now receive more of the recognition they deserve for their pioneering work in the field, bravely withstanding the unscientific criticism and ridicule of certain members of the mainstream solar physics community. As Charbonneau observes at the end of his article:

To sum up, what we have here is a fit to observations unmatched by any other exploratory framework, buttressed by a conjectural explanatory scenario that is testable at least at some level. It may all turn out to be wrong in the end, but this is definitely not Astrology. This is science.

nature-abreu

(more…)