Parametric down-conversion in the Solar system

On Jul 10, 10:24*am, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:
Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:
#http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?planet_phys_par

From the table of physical parametres of planets we choose column

Sidereal Orbit Period.

Then (frequency in terms of [1 / (sidereal year)]):

f_Mercury: = 1/0.2408467;
f_Venus: = 1/0.61519726;
f_Earth: = 1/1.0000174;
f_Mars: = 1/1.8808476;
f_Jupiter: = 1/11.862615;
f_Saturn: = 1/29.447498;
f_Uranus: = 1/84.016846;
f_Neptune: = 1/164.79132;

Now we find value of the sum of frequencies for all planets:

f_Sys: =
f_Mercury+f_Venus+f_Earth+f_Mars+f_Jupiter+f_Satur n+f_Uranus+f_Neptune;

f_Sys: = 7.445399207

#http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?constants

From Astrodynamic Constants we find duration of the sidereal year in
days

sidereal_year: = 365.25636; [d]

sidereal_year/f_Sys;

sidereal_year/f_Sys = 49.05799539 days

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

Sun Sidereal rotation period:
(at equator) 25.05 days [1]
(at 16° latitude) 25.38 days [1] *25d 9h 7min 12s [8]
(at poles) 34.4 days [1]

So we have parametric down-conversion in the Solar system:

1. Sun Sidereal rotation period at equator:

* * * * * Sun_Sidereal_rotation_period = 25.05 days

2. The characteristic period of the solar system as a whole:

* * * * * characteristic period = 49.05799539 days

As Wally asked, characteristic how?

And shouldn't you weight these frequencies by mass? *If not, why not? Is the
orbital frequency of Earth as important (in some way not yet defined) as the
orbital frequency of Jupiter? If not, why not? And why are you not taking
the rotation periods of each planet into consideration somehow, if you are
including the rotation period of the Sun?

Finally, the rotation period of the Sun is stated for the equator, but it
varies by latitude. *Why is zero latitude the only value considered? *Surely
some sort of weighted average would be more characteristic?

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

All celestial objects with rotating fluid compositions,including the
Earth display differential rotation but empiricists have organized the
Earth's fluid viscosity to suit a stationary Earth mechanism of
'convection cells' and completely ignored not only the spherical
deviation of the planet across equatorial and polar diameters but
actual visual affirmation of the actual viscosity poring out of ever
crack,volcano and rupture at the Earth's crustal boundaries or
isolated as volcanoes -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xaa8H98Mpn0

The equatorial Earth has a circumference of 24901 miles with an
equatorial speed of 1037.5/15 degrees per hour and turns a full
circumference in 24 hours,the interesting material is the distinction
between the even rotational gradient of the surface crust between
equatorial and polar latitudes and the uneven rotational gradient
(differential rotation) of the fluid interior.

Dead eyes would never get it however this proposal which uses
differential rotation as a common mechanism for planetary spherical
deviation and crustal evolution/motion will eventually be the norm as
it represents the highest probability for more productive studies
where planetary dynamics and terrestrial effects mesh.Most
commentators here will only represent an unfortunate condition that
afflicted humanity for a few centuries,you might even be know the the
'right ascensionist' cult.

On 23 июл, 13:44, OG wrote:
On 23/07/2011 09:25, Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:









On 23 июл, 00:39, Â*wrote:
On 09/07/2011 20:45, Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:

You appear to be claiming a resonance effect in the solar system, yes?

Apart from the fact that the ratio claimed is way off 2:1, there are two
rather obvious questions: -

1 Is it invariant when using planets other than Earth as the 'standard'?
i.e. what is the ratio if you recalculate ALL the figures based on (say)
the Jovian sidereal year and the Jovian sidereal day? Â*Ditto for every
other planet?

In the given problem has no value in what units frequencies for
corresponding heavenly bodies are expressed. In all mathematical
formulas you are obliged to use the same units of measure of
frequencies. Therefore my ratio is an invariant since units of measure
of frequencies are reduced in the given ratio.


I think you are wrong. Feel free to prove you are correct by doing the
calculations.

http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?planet_phys_par

From the table of physical parametres of planets we choose column

Sidereal Orbit Period.

Then (frequency in terms of [1 / (sidereal year)]):

f_Mercury: = 1/0.2408467;
f_Venus: = 1/0.61519726;
f_Earth: = 1/1.0000174;
f_Mars: = 1/1.8808476;
f_Jupiter: = 1/11.862615;
f_Saturn: = 1/29.447498;
f_Uranus: = 1/84.016846;
f_Neptune: = 1/164.79132;

Now we find value of the sum of frequencies for all planets:

f_Sys: = f_Mercury+f_Venus+f_Earth+f_Mars+f_Jupiter+f_Satur n+f_Uranus+f_Neptune;
Frequency in [1/ sidereal_year]:

f_Sys: = 7.445399207 [1/ sidereal_year]

# http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?constants

From Astrodynamic Constants we find duration of the sidereal year in
days

1 [sidereal_year] = 365.25636 [d]

Let's find factor of transformation of sidereal year a day.
For reception of factor of transformation from sidereal years in days
we divide duration of one sidereal year expressed in days into size of
one sidereal year:

K=365.25636/1[d / sidereal_year]= 365.25636 [d / sidereal_year]

Period in [sidereal_year]:

T_Sys = 1/ f_Sys = 1/(7.445399207 [1/ sidereal_year]) = 1/7.445399207
[sidereal_year]

Period in [d]:

T_Sys = K* (1/ f_Sys) = 365.25636 [d / sidereal_year] * 1/7.445399207
[sidereal_year] =
= 365.25636*(1/7.445399207) [(d / sidereal_year)*sidereal_year]
=365.25636/7.445399207[d] =
= 49.05799539 [d]

T_Sys =49.05799539 [d]

Characteristic frequency is the highest frequency of nonlinear
oscillations of considered system
as a whole. The characteristic period is the least period of nonlinear
oscillations of considered system as a whole.


So the ratio claimed is way off 2:1 and units of measure of
frequencies are eliminated!!!

2 In calculating f_Sys, why have you not included the asteroids?

The solar system is nonlinear system of interacting Â*bodies. From the
power point of view, in this system the main bodies are the Sun and
planets. Other bodies can be neglected, since their total mass is
insignificant. Value of mass of a heavenly body defines its energy of
gravitational interaction with other bodies. If value of mass of a
heavenly body is insignificant in relation to other bodies then
influence of this body on other bodies can be neglected in a
considered problem

In terms of the solar system, Mercury's mass is probably insignificant
too: what effect would that have on your hypothesis

In addition, you have the wrong units for the so called
characteristic_period.

I have the right units for characteristic_period.

See commentary above.

You are wrong. You are dividing a time by a frequency, so the units are
time squared.

The Earth's sidereal period has units days (=TIME), and f_Sys has units
1/year (=TIME^-1). Therefore, whatever units sidereal year/f_Sys has, it
isn't "days"; whatever units it has it's basically TIME^2.

So, in summary, it looks very much like just another case of poorly done
numerology.

Whether your opinion has changed now?

Of course not. You were challenged on two points and you ducked the
challenge on both.

On 23 июл, 21:34, oriel36 wrote:
On Jul 10, 10:24Â*am, "Mike Dworetsky"

[snip]
Most
commentators here will only represent an unfortunate condition that
afflicted humanity for a few centuries,you might even be know the the
'right ascensionist' cult.

Please, explain for ignorant what is ' right ascensionist ' cult?

On Jul 23, 8:10Â*pm, Aleksandr Timofeev
wrote:
On 23 июл, 21:34, oriel36 wrote:

On Jul 10, 10:24Â*am, "Mike Dworetsky"

[snip]

Most
commentators here will only represent an unfortunate condition that
afflicted humanity for a few centuries,you might even be know the the
'right ascensionist' cult.

Please, explain for ignorant what is ' right ascensionist ' cult?

Long time since I came across you Aleksandr and hope you are doing
well.

Ra or right ascension is a component part of the equatorial coordinate
system,fundamentally a calendar based convenience which allows people
to predict the day and date when a lunar or solar eclipse will
occur.It would be fine for these purposes however Newton's
'predictive' agenda is loosely based on attempting to use the system
to tie planetary dynamics and solar system structure with experimental
sciences at a human level of the 'Universal law of gravitation' as it
is known to its followers.

The specifics are that the 1461 rotations grouped as 3 years of 365
rotations and 1 year of 366 rotations represent the raw proportion of
1461 rotations for 4 orbital circuits which reduce to 365 1/4 to 1
orbital circuit.Any 'perturbation' of planetary positions owe their
existence to this format as the Right Ascension system naturally views
all observations from the 1461 days and rotations across 4 orbital
periods.The cult version is the way they reason out the proportion of
rotations to orbital circuits by assuming 366 1/4 rotation for 1
orbital circuit expanding out to 1465 over 4 circuits thereby creating
an imbalance between rotations and orbital circuits in conjunction
with days and years.

If people are genuinely concerned that the emergence of computer
modeling can run amok and be destructive,they need only look at the
consequences of trying to model the motions of the Earth using the
calendar system and end up losing cause and effect.The daily rotation
of the Earth can be extracted directly from any temperature legend
with 1461 rotations causing the temperature to rise and fall across 4
years and orbital circuits -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/58?#

Of course ,a 'right ascensionist' cult and the toxic strain of
empiricism inherited from Newton are synonymous ,more or less drawn
from the middle rather than have any defined authority hence it is
impossible to get anything done that is worthwhile or
meaningful.So,how do you keep a topic alive among people who don't
seriously engage in the principles of their own approach and make no
mistake about it Aleksandr,Newton's approach,while looking outwardly
innocuous is catastrophically damaging for everyone.

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
...
On 23 ???, 12:54, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message

...
On 22 ???, 22:02, "Androcles"
wrote:









"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message

...
On Jul 22, 11:51 am, "Androcles" .

2011 wrote:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message

...
On Jul 21, 11:42 pm, "Androcles" .

2011 wrote:
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message

...
On 21 ???, 18:44, "Androcles"

wrote:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message

...

Finally, the rotation period of the Sun is stated for the
equator,
but
it
varies by latitude. Why is zero latitude the only value
considered?
Surely
some sort of weighted average would be more characteristic?

Orbits of planets lie close to an ecliptic plane. The ecliptic
plane
passes through the centre of a plane of equator of the Sun.

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

'The plane of the ecliptic (also known as the ecliptic plane) is
the
plane of the Earth's orbit around the Sun.[1] It is the primary
reference plane when describing the position of bodies in the
Solar
System,[2] with celestial latitude being measured relative to the
ecliptic plane.[3] In the course of a year, the Sun's apparent
path
through the sky lies in this plane. The planetary bodies of our
Solar
System all tend to lie near this plane, since they were formed
from
the Sun's spinning, flattened, protoplanetary disk.[1]'

============================================
"Finally, the rotation period of the Sun is stated for the
equator,
but
it
varies by latitude."

Who does not agree with it?
==============================================
Finally, it has nothing to do with any planets. Finally, any
discussion
of planets afterwards isn't final but a whole new subject. Finally,
there
is no good reason given for the plane of rotation of the Sun to be
aligned
with the ecliptic. And that's final.

I have shown on this fact in the message 1
of this thread.

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

Sun Sidereal rotation period:
(at equator) 25.05 days [1]
(at 16° latitude) 25.38 days [1] 25d 9h 7min 12s [8]
(at poles) 34.4 days [1]

So we have parametric down-conversion in the Solar system:

1. Sun Sidereal rotation period at equator:

Sun_Sidereal_rotation_period = 25.05 days

2. The characteristic period of the solar system as a whole:

characteristic period = 49.05799539 days

================================================== =
Full marks for being able to copy wackypedia. Three cheers for good
old Alek. Hip hip... Hooray! Hip hip... Hooray! Hip hip... Hooray!

Although this statement has nothing at all to do with planets,
wackypedia says Aleksandr Timofeev can't spell his own
name.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Timofeev

Sorry, no cutting corners, the old rules still stand - My name is
Aleksandr Nikolaevich Timofeev
================================================== ===

Awww... I wanted to be cheered for copying wackypedia.
Wackypedia says your name is really spelt "Timofeyev."
As you expect me to trust wackypedia that you like to copy
I have to conclude you can't spell your own name.

What about ' parametric down-conversion in the Solar system'?
================================================== ==
Babble. Russian babble. Russian idiot babble.

Huh, then:

It is necessary for you to study carefully
==================================================
Hahaha, then: It is necessary for you to understand nobody is
interested
in you copying wackypedia, I can read it for myself.
Hahaha, then: It is necessary for you to understand the planets are
NOT
all in the same plane.
Hahaha, then: It is necessary for you to understand the Sun's
equatorial
plane
need not coincide with the plane of any one planet, anymore than the
Earth's equatorial plane doesn't coincide with the Moon's orbital
plane.
Hahaha, then: It is NOT necessary for me to study your
misunderstandings,
it is necessary for you to accept my corrections.

Well, then:

The inclination of orbits of planets to Solar equator does not exceed
7.155 degrees which one is insignificant value.
============================================
Hahahahahaha!
Well, then: Moscow does not exceed 15 degrees from Lithuania which one
is insignificant value. It is necessary for you to accept Russia is
insignificant
country.


It seemed to me that you confuse "longitude" and "latitude".
=================================================
It seems to me that Moscow does not exceed 15 degrees from Lithuania
in longitude.

It is necessary for you to understand you are a ****ing moron. **** off.

*plonk*

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, because you responded to George
Hammond the complete fruit cake, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.

Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.

There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.

This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.

You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
Update: the last clearance was 19/08/10. Some individuals have been
restored to the list.

I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file ****wits like you.

I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and **** off.

On 23/07/2011 18:55, Aleksandr Timofeev wrote:

once again you've done the calculations in terms of Earth's sidereal
year and Earth's sidereral day.

I suggested you try again using the Jovian sidereal day and year.

On 7/23/11 12:15 PM, oriel36 wrote:
The proportion of rotations to 1 orbital circuit of the Earth is 365
1/4 rotations

Bzzzt! 366.242199 rotation!

This correct number has been pointed out to you, Gerald, many
time, and you always seem to forget !

On 7/23/11 12:34 PM, oriel36 wrote:
The equatorial Earth has a circumference of 24901 miles with an
equatorial speed of 1037.5/15 degrees per hour and turns a full
circumference in 24 hours,the interesting material is the distinction
between the even rotational gradient of the surface crust between
equatorial and polar latitudes and the uneven rotational gradient
(differential rotation) of the fluid interior.



Earth angular velocity = 7.2921158553 X 10^-5 Rad/s
which comes out to be 86164.0905 seconds (1 sidereal day) for
a 2π (360°) rotation.

Sample Calculation

http://www.google.com/search?q=360+d...%29+in+seconds

On Jul 23, 11:38*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 7/23/11 12:15 PM, oriel36 wrote:

The proportion of rotations to 1 orbital circuit of the Earth is 365
1/4 *rotations

* *Bzzzt! *366.242199 rotation!

* *This correct number has been pointed out to you, Gerald, many
* *time, and you always seem to forget !

This why I have to deal with a cult instead of reasonable people and
genuine investigators are so hard to find,at least at the moment.

The only fact necessary is that the 1461 days stretching between Mar1
st 2008 until Feb 29th 2012 reflects both 4 years and 4 orbital
circuits with the Feb 29th rotation closing out the near enough 4
orbital circuits as the 1461 st rotation,again,this reduces to 365 1/4
rotations per circuit.Noting that daily and orbital dynamics are
separate more or less explains how it is possible to turn the raw
proportion of rotations per circuit into the familiar calendar format
as 365/366 rotations from the raw value of 365 1/4 rotations.

Anything else comes under forensics * but this assumes an intellectual
standard exists to deal with the matter in an appropriate way and so
far that has not happened even when commonsense should prevail,the
ability to extract the daily rotation of the Earth from a temperature
legend being more or less the foundation for affirming the inviolate
proportion of 1461 rotations correspond to 4 orbital circuits or 365
1/4 rotations to 1 orbital circuit -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/104?

This right ascension cult which attempts to squeeze 1465 rotations
into 4 orbital circuits is exposed as catastrophically destructive
for celestial and terrestrial sciences,the fact that your colleagues
can no longer lean on the space program as a means to maintain and
bolster hideous speculative ideologies which began with Newton's use
of the calendar based prediction convenience of the equatorial
coordinate system may prove favorable for genuine science to make a
return.

* http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=forensic

On Jul 23, 11:40Â*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 7/23/11 12:34 PM, oriel36 wrote:

The equatorial Earth has a circumference of 24901 miles with an
equatorial speed of 1037.5/15 degrees per hour and turns a full
circumference in 24 hours,the interesting material is the distinction
between the even rotational gradient of the surface crust between
equatorial and polar latitudes and the uneven rotational gradient
(differential rotation) of the fluid interior.

Â* Â*Earth angular velocity Â* Â*= 7.2921158553 X 10^-5 Rad/s
Â* Â*which comes out to be 86164.0905 seconds (1 sidereal day) for
Â* Â*a 2Ï€ (360°) rotation.

Â* Â*Sample Calculation

http://www.google.com/search?q=360+d...1158553+*+10%5....

I would be prepared to enact a personal moratorium to facilitate a
forensic investigation into how the expression of basic planetary
facts of geometry and dynamics ended up in an intolerable state even
while recognizing that it means little to the vast majority here who
are simply too involved in a cult to consider the physical
considerations of the true facts as opposed to wayward ideologies
which skip over these things.

Any proposal which uses the rotational gradients between equatorial
and polar latitudes requires the expression of a basic fact that the
equatorial Earth turns at a rate of 15 degrees and 1037.5 miles per
hour whether it is the even rotational gradient of the surface crust
or the uneven rotational gradient (differential rotation) of the fluid
interior.The attraction of meshing planetary spherical deviation
across equatorial and polar diameters with the mechanism for crustal
motion/evolution should provide an enormous incentive to untangle
right ascension from the base daily and orbital dynamics of the Earth
and allow constant daily rotation to exist as a principle derived from
timekeeping averages instead of pinning it to a calendar based
observation of stellar circumpolar motion.

I would think a number of months should be good enough to resolve most
of the issues and put empiricism back on the road to be useful once
again while leaving those entangled in the cult ideology to continue
on the path they feel most comfortable with and I have no objection to
that.But make no mistake about it,a new and fresh wind is blowing
through science and more in touch with the concerns of people who are
curios about their surroundings.