Paleoclimatology has traditionally tried to explain what caused the ice ages and the (most) accepted theory is that they were triggered by insolation changes caused by variations of the Earth’s orbit. There are three cycles: precession, obliquity and eccentricity, but these three cycles interact and produce some more cycles, like eccentricity cycles amplitude modulate precession cycles. These are called the Milankovitch cycles and there is an old problem of what cycle causes the about 100,000 year long ice ages in the time from about 800,000 years ago up to today. This problem is the 100 kyr problem. It is not the only problem in the Milankovitch cycle theory, but the most known. So, I had to look at it and wrote a small paper, here
I noticed some issues in this field. The eccentricity cycles should amplitude modulate the precession cycle of 21,000 years, but I do not see correct frequencies. If you amplitude modulate a carrier frequency fc=1/21000 yr by some frequency f, then you see fc+f and fc-f frequencies in the frequency spectrum (i.e., taking the Fourier transform of the signals). I should know this as I was lecturing this kind of stuff for many years. There are two precession cycles that are visible in ice core samples: 23,000 years and 19,000 years. They are around 21,000 years, as they should, but the frequency f comes to be a cycle of the period 189,000 years and there is no such eccentricity cycle. So, I think there is a serious error in the field in calculation of eccentricity cycles.
There is an even more serious error: people seem to think that the orbits of planets would be perfect ellipses if big planets Jupiter and Saturn would not disturb them and cause eccentricity changes and orbital precession (apsidal precession, turning of the orbit around the sun). This is not the case. The only stable elliptic orbit is a circle. No other ellipse but the circle has energy conserved. I do this calculation in the paper. Because energy is not conserved, the orbit is not closed and in long time it will approach the circle. Before it does, you see orbital precession and eccentricity cycles, but they get weaker in time.
I will not try to submit this paper, I do not think any of these fields are willing to accept papers that find serious errors in basic stuff of the field.
12 Comments
Hello, as you yourself already mentioned “The only stable elliptic orbit is a circle. No other ellipse but the circle has energy conserved”. Why every “real”(net tax payer funded) scientist still only tries to forcefully fit the true observed millennial long facts about celestial movements through long, complex(unnatural) equations to current solar system model/theory, which when critically thinking cannot be true if observations doesn’t support it naturally, logically without above mentioned constant “fixes”? There is other solar system presented in cluesforum.info – TYCHOS as I already wrote in other reply(not yet published) with e.g. natural circular orbits and which also perfectly explains all the current big problems between recorded observations and current theories, e.g.”precession of the equinoxes”. As a common man with critical thinking ability and common sense still left in this crazy brainwashed covid sheeple world , at least I find this solar system theory to be superior to current one, which just doesn’t work. Hopefully some of you “real” scientist out there are still humble and truthful/moral enough to really consider new theories if old ones are proofed constantly to be wrong(doesn’t support observations w/o pages long equations – and also those have to be revised every now and then..) -as it was someday in real science(vs. todays totalitarian/communist state/big corp. sponsored political science) where nothing was “divine truth” but everything was open for critics and healthy debate.
I am not finished with planetary motions and will look at the issues you pointed to, in some time.
Great – let’s wait what you as a university professional have to say about this “new” Tycho Brahe reworked solar system model!
I just got mobile Internet activated and have again access.
I will look at your model more carefully and when I have studied
it I will respond. The first impression is the following. You
can select the origin so that the earth is at rest or moves
along any chosen orbit, but the result is that the center of
gravity of our solar system will make a movement that is not
along a straight line, assuming that the solar system stays
together because of Newtonian gravitation force.
If the center of the mass does not move on a straight line,
some force acts on it, i.e.,there is acceleration if the orbit
of the center of the mass is curved, as it will be
if you set the earth to be at rest of moving slowly
around a small orbit and the sun circulating the earth.
Gravitation from the center of our galaxy (or other galaxies)
is too weak to create so curved orbit. Therefore you have
to reject the theory that the gravitation force is the one
holding the solar system together. Gravitation can be
measured on the earth very precisely and it seems to be
the Newtonian gravitation force. The first determination
of the gravitational constant was made by Cavendish in
1798 and it shows that between two masses there is an
attraction force that within experimental precision is the
Newtonian gravitation force. Therefore gravitation
must be acting also between the sun and the planets since
they are large masses. Cavendish’s experiment also determined
the mass of the Earth. It follows that the center of the mass
of the solar system does not have a strongly curved orbit and
it follows that the earth is circulating the center of the mass
of the solar system. The only thing that remains to be checked is
where the center of the mass is. If the sun is much more massive
than the Earth, then the center of the mass of the solar system
is very close to the sun. If this is the case, then the conclusion
that the earth circulates the sun and not vice verse. The only
possibility that the sun circulates the Earth is that the Earth is
more massive than the sun. From Newton’s gravitation law we can solve
the round time of the Earth, which is one year (regardless of if the
sun circulates the Earth or vice verse, this circulation takes one
year). From this formula we can conclude that if the Earth is
heavier than the sun, then the radius of the circle is at least
100 times smaller than currently believed (1.5*10^11 meters). It
would imply that the sun is not much further from the Earth than
the Moon, which may contradict our observations as humans have
sent rockets even to Mars (200 million km away). I will read your
theory and respond better later.
Hello, not my theory for sure;) but the only one which seems sensible. As I also wrote in other comment – in this model our solar system is mars-sun binary system(as 85% of our visible stars) and earth is at or near its (bary)center. Below quotes from the forum -but yes best that you look for yourself and maybe even challenge the author of this model and fellow forum members in that cluesforum site.
Quote from forum -“This model does not go into the physics. It is a geometrical model. But binary stars are posing grave problems for Newton’s laws of gravity and this model does not use Kepler’s laws of planetary motion which incorporates elliptic orbits and planets moving at variable speeds. All planets and the Sun instead move in true circles at constant speeds.”
And here about physics and gravity as some commenter wondered about it too as you:
Question – “what is that invisible but physical center which Earth (in fact, the whole system) orbits around?”
Answer: -“The thing is, you will have to extend this very same, fundamental question to the vast majority of our visible stars (about 85% of them – and counting, since observational astronomers keep discovering new ‘double-stars’ (binary systems) at an ever-increasing rate, thanks to modern Adaptive Optics technologies).
The below animation (to be found at the Binary Research Institute’s website ) shows what would be a classic / ultra-common binary system.
Please disregard the highly-elliptical shapes of the orbits in this animation, a ‘graphic malpractice’ which is, unfortunately, a legacy of Kepler’s orbital “Laws”. (Incidentally, note that we can see how & why our meteor showers might occur at regular intervals all over the world).
So the question becomes: why would our own star, the Sun, be located in the middle of our system – whereas 85%+ of our visible stars revolve around each other (and around an empty, “random locality”, as you call it) – as illustrated above? Why has even the very idea that “something big (i.e. the largest body) MUST lie in the middle of our system” been imprinted so deeply in our minds?
And here some theory about possible physics -Quote:
“A reasonable hypothesis regarding celestial motions is that electrochemical reactions in planets and stars are generating pressure mediations in the aether, aka magnetism, and this is what is causing their motions. And circular orbits (with an offset barycenter) can be demonstrated experimentally as opposed to elliptical orbits”
I will look into this, but first with you. Some questions:
1) Do you agree that Newtonian gravitation is the force
keeping the solar system together?
2) Do you agree that Newtonian gravitation has been verified
on the Earth with several experiments and seems to hold?
3) Do you agree that when considering what is circulating
what, we should use a coordinate system where the barycenter
is fixed, since in Newtonian mechanics on the Earth, if no
force acts on a mass, it is at rest or moves with a constant
speed along a straight line?
If you accept these, then the barycenter of the solar system
is the point around which both the sun and the Earth are
circulating with orbits that are nearly circular but a bit
disturbed by the other masses (and seem very closely elliptic,
but with small eccentricity). We have to assume the barycenter
is at rest (there is weak gravitational pull from
‘the center of the galaxy and even from other galaxies, so the
solar system also moves along a nearly circular orbit, but this
is a so week force that we can ignore it when looking at the
solar system).
If you accept this, then the only way the sun can circulate the
Earth is that the barycenter is close to the Earth, as you said.
If the sun has the mass 2*10^30 kg, then it is much more massive
than the Earth or Mars, or even Jupiter and all planets together,
as they make about 10^28 kg together. If this is the case, the
barycenter must be close to the sun, except for the possibility
you point at: that there would be some other invisible mass in
our solar system. I cannot rule this last possibility out directly.
But I think that assuming that the sun has a mass that is much
smaller than 2*10^30 kg will fairly easily lead into contradictions.
Assuming a smaller mass to the sun does lead to smaller orbits of
all planets that circulate it (or that the sun circulates), as the
round time is T=(2pi/sqr(Gm_sun))(1+m_planet/m_sun)r^(3/2) assuming
that the orbit is a circle. So, we have measured the round time T
for all planets, for the Earth it is one year. We know the mass of
the Earth from ground-based experiments. Thus, decreasing the mass
of the sun m_sun directly decreases the radius of the orbit circle r.
But I agree that if there is some other mass, or the ether field would
in some way play a role of mass, then the situation may change.
Good, there you have people who are more at your level in this – I’m just trying to “find the truth” of many things including also this now when world is turned completely crazy. Nothing too scientific to offer myself to your questions, just that I’m ready to believe logical theories which can be firmly backed by experiments and observations.
So for 1. No
2. Yep, on earth at least seems to be working perfectly
3. In space with celestial movements I don’t believe in Newtons ideas. And as this new geometrical solar model with long history in its core seems to back the actual real observations perfectly contrarily to current model, probably the physics behind it is also something different – something which works also in space.
OK, as you do not think that Newtonian gravitation is the force
that keeps the solar system together, there is not much I can
add, since that is the basis of all calculations I could make.
It is perfectly possible that the space would be totally different
from what we think. The sun could be a small bright disc that is
glued to the semisphere that ancient people believed was there,
and stars could be holes in this semisphere. Kalevala e.g. has
this concept of the space. But as it is, many countries have sent
rocketsto Mars since 1960s and NASA claims to have landed there
and sent lots of pictures, which look like they landed on a planet,
not a twin star of a binary star system. A star only differs from
a planet by being so massive that nuclear reactions because of
gravitation pressure are possible. If Mars is a planet and has
the size as claimed and the mass as claimed, it circulates the
sun (or more precisely, the center of the
mass of the solar system, very close to the sun). Then it is not
a binary star system. The normal model where all planets circulate
the sun and moons circulate planets is equivalent with the concept
that the sun circulates the Earth and other planets circulate the
sun. That gives all observations correctly: it is only moving the coordinate system to be centered in the Earth, but it is not the
logical way of selecting coordinates as the center of the mass is
not at rest but in circulating motion, while there should be no
force to give this motion. I will a bit later look at the web page
to see what this model is, but what are the merits of this model?
Why is it the only one that makes sense?
And how do you calculate anything from this model. Calculations
of planet positions from the normal solar centric model do give
very good predictions.
Here again text straight from this tychos book, which explains these merits and how it resolves open, inexplicable questions in current astronomy:
“A series of longstanding (yet to this day still unsettled) riddles of astronomy are shown to be effectively resolved by the core principles of the TYCHOS model. Age-old yet extant questions such as the “failed Michelson-Morley experiments”; James Bradley’s “aberration of light”; the “anomalous precession of Mercury’s perihelion”; the curious 8-shaped analemma (and our need for the “Equation of Time”); why only Mercury and Venus have no moons; why both Mars and the Sun exhibit 79-year cycles; why Earth’s rotation appears to decelerate and its equinoctial precession to accelerate; why our main asteroid belt is located between Mars and Jupiter (and why it even exists) — all find sensible and forthright answers when assessed within the TYCHOS paradigm (and its 1-mph-motion of Earth). Most significantly perhaps, the currently inexplicable so-called negative stellar parallax (exhibited by a good 25% of our stars) as well as the baffling amount of stars registering zero parallax (nearly 50%!) can be shown to be natural corollaries of the TYCHOS’ geometry. In other words, the mysterious existence of three types of stellar parallaxes (positive, negative and zero) is to be fully expected in the TYCHOS model.
Conversely, it is demonstrated that the Copernican-Keplerian model of our solar system cannot possibly represent the physical reality of our cosmos – as it violates some of the most elementary laws of perspective ruling the optical and spatial domain of our human perceptions. Various examples are provided illustrating the inherent absurdity of the current, widely-accepted heliocentric geometry, such as the observed absence of parallax between two relatively proximate bodies (e.g. Earth & Mars – or Earth & our Moon) and the distant stars – as they both supposedly according to Copernican theory, move laterally by several million kilometers. On the other hand, such apparent aberrations of relative longitudinal perspectives – as well as other incongruities related to seasonal planetary latitudes (i.e celestial declinations) – are shown to be wholly coherent with the geometric configuration, celestial kinematics and relative orbital velocities propounded by the TYCHOS model. In the light of this, the TYCHOS emerges as more than just another alternative interpretation of the vast body of documented astronomical observations of our neighboring cosmos; it is today the only existing model of our solar system consistent with empirical experience and the most consolidated realities of our physical world. “
Thanks. That is a lot of claims, but I will look at it. So far
I see no problem with the heliocentric model and Newtonian
mechanics applied to the solar system. It has been verified
that masses have attraction as in Newton’s gravitation by
Cavendish-type experiments. We have satellites: they stay up
because of gravitation and the speed and radius agree fully
with Newton’s gravitation law. So does the speed of Moon and
its radius. Furthermore, tides are explained by Moon’s
gravitation. It follows logically that as planets and the sun
have mass, there is attraction between then and it is as in
Newton’s gravitation law. We get the round times and positions
very precisely from Newtonian mechanics, so I conclude that it
is correct. As for some of the things the text mentions:
Michelson-Morley experiment established that light moves in
a medium that does not have own velocity to any direction.
Einstein misunderstood this experiment and formulated the Special
Relativity theory, but the simple explanation to this experiment
is that light moves in space and there is a preferred coordinate
system: the coordinates where the initial point of the Big Bang
does not move. Light moves on this space with a finite speed, This
is easiest explained by the space being discrete in some sense
and there is the discrete maximum speed (unit space/unit time).
The speed of light does not sum to any sender speed: when a sender
gives a light signal, this light does not retain any speed of the
sender. You have a similar situation in an airport, there are these
conveyor belts where you can walk, but you can step aside and start
running. Your running speed is not any faster if you were walking on
the belt or not, as it is your maximal running speed. I need no
TYCHOS to explain Michelson-Morley. I also do not need TYCHOS to
explain the precession of Mercury. I wrote a paper on it, see the
ResearchGate. As for the problems with the origin of the solar
system, i have an old book that discusses many of them: ed.
Dietrich Mohlmann, Heinz Stiller, Origin and evolution of planetary
and satellite systems (satellite here means moons). I doubt
TYCHOS has anything to give me. I have my own theory and it is
expressed in mathematical formulae. Relativity, both Special
and General, are wrong, Newton is mostly correct. I will at
some point look at this TYCHOS, but what I so far looked was
not promising. I can say it now when you told that it is not
your theory. TYCHOS seems wrong to me.
That is good then, you could maybe help those forum members and readers to see what is wrong with that model and give your own theory so people could have a good debat over what could be the closest to truth theory/model about our solar system, which explains all obsevations in simple and logical way.
I will see the site, but I am far more pessimistic than you
in the possibilities of having a good debate and that anyone
would see what is wrong in their model. People just are not
like that. I checked the author of the TYCHOS model. He uses
the pseudoname Simon Shack and his real name is Simon Hytten.
He has no papers on physics in the web, or anything scientific.
I am open-minded, but I strongly doubt his theory is correct.
Best wishes, Jorma