Requiem for Relativity

Preliminary report:

Paleotsunamis haven't been completely cataloged, but western Australia was hit by two, in approx. 6220 & 6250 BP (these were the biggest to hit W. Australia in the last 10Kyr, until one or more bigger ones did hit it c. 1500 AD). One of these might have been the one that hit New South Wales also, ~6500 BP, sweeping maybe 10km inland in a delta region.

An ice core from 19840ft in the Peruvian Andes, showed that the fourth biggest dust increase in the last 10Kyr, occurred 6300 BP (the graph implies accuracy only to the nearest century). Though this dust increase was only the fourth biggest, it lasted 400yr, vs. 100-200 yr for the three that had higher maxima. This same ice core purports to show, by 18-Oxygen levels, that the maximum temperature in the last 10Kyr occurred 6400-6500 BP, though the rise and fall were gradual. The article says that the modern El Nino pattern began c. 5000 BP. By the "magnetic susceptibility" test, the fastest qualitative change in loess formation in China in Holocene times apparently was ~6020 BP as I convert the 14-C date.

Sea level at the South China coast has fluctuated, but the largest rate of change in Holocene times, was the decline between ~6350 - ~6050 BP (investigator's dates, not mine). The oldest beach sediment found at the Syrian coast is 6430 +/- 130 BP.

A big forest fire occurred in Italy 6150 +/- 190 BP (I used a chart of Blaauw's to convert the author's 14-C dates). Also there was massive sedimentation at about this time and also the time of onset of the Younger Drayas; those were the two main times.

All this seems to be evidence that the Younger Dryas event (12680 BP according to the German limnology) had a little brother event at 6340 BP. This indicates another such event soon, maybe in 2012.

Complete Report on Geological Cycle Ending 2012

I predict for 2012, an Earth change which recurs every 6341.5yr (this seems to be Barbarossa's anomalistic period; Barbarossa's sidereal period, from the four sky surveys, is 6340.0yr). It will be the biggest Earth change in recorded history. The acute phase will last ~1000yr.

Last time it happened, it revolutionized society. The proto-Indo-European language started in the 5th millenium BC, indicating a population bottleneck. The great agricultural civilizations started, or restarted, in the 4th millenium BC. They were obsessed with astronomy.

The penultimate time it happened, coincides with Plato's (Critias-Solon-Egyptian) date (~11500 BP) for the destruction of Atlantis (a history which mingles the relatively recent story of the Thera eruption and tsunami and Hellenic conquest of Minoan civilization, with the older story of a large continent beyond the Atlantic and a destroyed ocean-crossing civilization in that general direction); and better with the medium Edgar Cayce's date ("10500 BC" = 12511 BP in 2012) for the final destruction of Atlantis, which followed a partial destruction 7500yr earlier, according to Cayce's "psychic reading". The Earth change caused the well-documented "Younger Dryas" (named for a tundra wildflower then growing in Scandinavia) said by most experts to begin ~12900BP, but the most precise onset time, a sudden climate change in Germany determined by limnology, from varves, is 12683 BP ( = 6341.5 * 2 )(A Brauer et al, Nature Geoscience 1:520+, 2008). (I express time "BP" = Julian years before 2012, which will be our "present" soon enough.) Published archaeology studies say that all the big animals in N. America, larger than the bison, became extinct during the ensuing 1300yr "YD" period, which resembled a relapse of the Ice Age. Their extinction is said to have happened in < 200yr, possibly instantly. The reason for their extinction is unknown; they throve during the previous Ice Age and were well adapted to those conditions. Furthermore southwestern N. America then had a temperate wet climate. Yet the "Clovis point" culture, technologically if not racially similar to a W. European culture at that time, became extinct in N. America during the YD period, though perhaps evolving into the "Folsom" culture. Lacking firearms or railroads, the Clovis people hardly could have hunted the big game to extinction in < 200yr; the Amerindians did not exterminate the bison, moose or bear despite millenia of sometimes wasteful hunting. There is "...no evidence at Monticchio [lake in Italy] of a Younger Dryas-like oscillation during the penultimate deglaciation" (Brauer A et al, Proc. of the Natl. Acad. of Sciences of the U.S.A. 104:450+, 2007).

Below, I'll present evidence that drastic Earth change also happened 6341.5 BP, though it differed from the Younger Dryas. At the end of this article, I'll average the available dates and see how close I come.

Paleotsunamis haven't been completely cataloged, but western Australia was hit by (?!) two, in 6231+/-53 & 6261+/-55 BP (Scheffers, Earth & Planetary Sci. Letters 270:137+, 2008)(I assume Scheffers follows the usual practice of giving 95%, i.e. +/- 2-sigma intervals). These were the biggest to hit W. Australia in the last 7Kyr, until one or more bigger ones did hit it c. 1500 AD. One of these might have been the one that hit New South Wales also, "~6500 BP" (Bryant & Nott, Natural Hazards 24:231+, 2001; accepted in final form 2000), sweeping maybe 10km inland in a delta region; though some tsunamis could be matched to comet strata, here there is "no information about the cause or origin" (Dominey-Howes, Marine Geology 239:99+, 2001; Sec. 3.1.1). Scheffers lists ten W. Australian paleotsunamis between 0 & 5000BC (his series' start; see Fig. 9) but these are clustered into only eight centuries (Table 1). Dominey-Howes' older list has only two for all of Australia in the same interval. The chance that any of the 50 centuries involved would have a tsunami from each list, is a priori about 8*2/50 = 32%. Only one century has a tsunami from each list; they affected opposite coasts of Australia but their best-estimate dates may differ insignificantly, only 18yr.

[Detailed calculation of tsunami chronology: Scheffers corrects his radiocarbon dates for the two (?) tsunamis in W. Australia, to ***4220 +/-53 BC & ***4250 +/-55 BC (not BP) where I've assumed that in Table 1 he followed the usual practice of listing the +/-2*sigma interval. Scheffers calibrated his dates from 14-C to calendar, including an ave. 395yr reservoir correction.

[Bryant's New S. Wales figure is problematic. Bryant included the mandatory, for marine samples, 13C/12C correction, but did not calibrate, nor make the reservoir correction, which he said was 450yr for his locale. Bryant also cautions, "Because older material can be incorporated into a deposit, the ages may not represent the actual age..." (Sec. 4). He based his date on a histogram of eight samples (Fig. 10); I'll use the youngest of these, whose uncalibrated value is 5700 +/-(100/sqrt(3)) (histogram error). By analogy with Scheffers' calibration & reservoir correction for his similar 14-C dates, this becomes 4190 BC +/-78 (sum of independent, histogram and Scheffers' errors). I must add 55 for the differing reservoir corrections, and 8 for the different dates of the papers, getting now ***4253 BC.

[ The mean of the three dates, weighted by 1/variance, is 4238 BC = 6249 BP. The uncertainty (one sigma) is approx. 38 yr, summing the independent errors within and between terms. This puts 6341.5 BP at 2.4 sigma, and the alternative period, the presumed Barbarossa tropical year 6281yr, at 0.8 sigma. ]

This shows that the Pacific and Indian Oceans had rare simultaneous large tsunamis c. 6300 BP. There is much more evidence than this, of sweeping Earth changes at this time.

An ice core from 19840ft on the highest peak in the Peruvian Andes, showed that the fourth biggest dust increase in the last 10Kyr, occurred 6317 BP (the graph implies accuracy only to the nearest century)(LG Thompson et al, Science 269:46+, 1995). Though this dust increase was only the fourth biggest, it lasted 400yr, vs. 100-200 yr for the three that had higher maxima. Though the biggest eruptions were at other times, volcanic eruptions were abnormally frequent worldwide then. By the "magnetic susceptibility" parameter, the fastest qualitative change in loess in China in Holocene times occurred 6029 BP as I convert the 14-C date using Blaauw's chart (see below) and correct for the date of the article (Y He et al, Quaternary Res. 61:52+, 2004, rec'd 2002; Fig. 3).

By far the most frequent depositor of tephra on Kamchatka during the Holocene has been Mt. Avachinsky. Avachinsky's biggest eruption during the Holocene was ~6286 BP, ~4 cu. km (Quaternary Research 59:36+, 2003).

The American analog of Avachinsky, is Glacier Peak, Washington state. Though the 6th millenium BC Mt. Mazama eruption was much bigger (est. 50 cu. km.), Glacier Peak has erupted often during the Holocene; its biggest eruption, or rather series of eruptions, during the Holocene, was the "Dusty Creek Assemblage" "5100-5500 BP"; even bigger eruptions occurred "11250 BP" & earlier (Beget, Quaternary Research 21:304+, 1984; Table 1). These anachronistic 14-C dates must be corrected as 14-C dates now are; Beget gives "6900 BP" for Mt. Mazama though the dating I find in recent journals, is 7600 +/- 100 BP. The correction from 14-C to calendar date, at least back to 4500 BP is, to within about +/-30yr error, the same as multiplication by 9/8 (Blaauw et al, J. Quaternary Sci. 19:177+, 2004; "wiggle match" chart). So the Dusty Creek Assemblage occurred 5815-6215 BP, by extending Blaauw's correction. This roughly matches both the start and end of the Andean ice core dust dates 5917-6317 BP (see above). (With Blaauw's correction, though extrapolation of it might not be accurate, the earlier big eruption of Glacier Peak becomes 12684 BP, only a year different from Brauer's starting date for the Younger Dryas. However, the volume of even this Glacier Peak eruption, apparently was less than Mt. Mazama, and Mazama was only twice, Krakatoa's 1883 eruption of 21 cu km. So it seems that volcanic eruptions either worked as a team to change climate, or eruptions were symptoms not causes.)

This same Andean ice core purports to show, by 18-Oxygen levels, that the maximum temperature in the last 10Kyr occurred 6417-6517 BP, though the rise and fall were small and gradual. (The article says that the modern El Nino pattern began c. 5017 BP.) Cave calcite from NE Iowa confirms the temperature change by showing that near this time, 18-Oxygen & 13-Carbon simultaneously underwent their fastest rate of change (Dorale et al, Science 258:1626+, 1992), changing rapidly for 300 & 100 yr, resp.; the Uranium-Thorium date is 500yr younger, but this could be due to an absence of correction, for the 234-U to 238-U ratio.

Sea level at the South China coast has fluctuated, but the fastest rate of change there in Holocene times, was the decline between ~6360 - ~6060 BP (investigator's dates, read from his chart)(He, op. cit., Fig. 4). The oldest beach stratum found at the Syrian coast is 6432 +/-58 BP (Sanlaville et al, J. of Coastal Research 13:385+, 1997, Table 1; I assume the investigator reports 2*sigma range, which I convert as always to 1*sigma). The ocean highstand at Australia, an especially inactive continent, was 6284 BP (Eisenhauer, Earth & Planetary Sci. Letters 114:529+, 1993). On p. 545 Eisenhauer says, "...the apparent sea-level rise at Barbados [West Indies] after about 6000 BP is probably...due to spatial changegs in the Earth's geoid...".

From 12Kyr to 6Kyr ago the Ice Age glaciers receded and the sea rose quickly. This stopped 6Kyr ago. Since then, Australia and (more or less) Asia slowly have risen relative to the ocean, and America slowly sunk. Something is being adjusted.

A big forest fire occurred in Italy 6148 +/-100 BP (again I used Blaauw's 9/8 rule to convert the investigator's 14-C dates). There were two episodes of massive sedimentation at the site: one at about this time, and one at 13247 +/-95 BP, near the onset of the Younger Dryas (Giraudi & Frezzotti, Quaternary International 25:81+, 1995).

Last but not least, anomalous geologic activity apparently occurred at Cape Liptrap, on the passive Australian coast, 6275 +/-54BP (my calibration, following Blaauw, of the investigator's 14-C date)(Sarah M. Flanagan, "Low Lying, Late Quaternary, Marine Terraces of Cape Liptrap, Australia", Smith College undergraduate research, 2003 or later, online at keckgeology.org; Conclusions). Though possibly contradicted by a subsequent refereed publication (Gardner T et al, Quaternary Sci. Reviews 28:39+, 2009), Flanagan found that part of the terrace was buckled upward by 1m. Gardner dated the same terrace (another part of it?) 5988 +/-53 BP (Gardner's calibration; Table 1) and said this terrace "has not been displaced" (Gardner, sec. 4.3). Maybe Flanagan not only didn't calibrate, but didn't apply the "reservoir correction", typically 420 yr for Australian beaches. On the other hand, maybe Flanagan not only found buckling Gardner missed, but also found that the buckling occurred on the older part of the terrace only.

All this seems to be evidence that the Younger Dryas event (12683 BP according to German limnology) had a little brother event at ~6341.5 (6281 ?) BP. This indicates another such event soon: in 2012.

Hellenic astronomers knew how to measure the precession of the equinoxes. Alexander the Great established contact with India; the Romans continued the contact by sea (there still is a colony of Indian boatbuilders in Arabia). According to the figure given on Wikipedia, 12th cent. AD Indian astronomers knew the equinox precession accurately enough to predict a solstice to the day, a millenium in the future. Likely either, a somewhat more accurate measurement by Hellenic astronomers survived in Indian literature though lost to Europe, or Indian astronomers improved on the Hellenic measurement by lengthening the interval of observation.

Aided by Hellenic or Indian knowledge, Mayan astronomers could have set their "long count" to end on a solstice. The start date of the long count is an obvious reference to the Old Kingdom of Egypt.

More problematic, is how the makers of the Mayan calendar, would know Barbarossa's orbital period. Maybe not the orbital period, but the two latest disaster dates, were among Atlantean knowledge now lost. Alternatively maybe Barbarossa brightened at about the time of the latest disaster (4330 BC if the 6341.5yr period applies to Dec. 2012; 4270 BC if Scaliger's 6281yr tropical Barbarossa period applies instead) and astronomers with Keplerian knowledge estimated the period from the angular speed and acceleration.


(Addendum the following day, March 29, 2009)

My dates and uncertainties herein differ slightly from the authors', because I:

1. When necessary, "calibrated" 14-C yrs to calendar yrs, slightly extrapolating the linear relationship from Blaauw's chart.

2. Added a few years for the difference between the authors' Present and 2012 Present.

3. Sometimes read dates from graphs, judging the uncertainty myself; or used the uncertainty that seemed to be implied by the graph, sometimes in conjunction with other data.

4. Converted the usual +/-2sigma (95% confidence) range to +/-1sigma.

5. When I had to do the calibration, I multiplied the uncertainty by the same factor as in #1, and added to it (Pythagorean addition) the approximate 1sigma uncertainty on Blaauw's graph, i.e. +/-30yr.

The results of this careful work, are these eleven dates:

1. Bicoastal non-cometary Australian paleo-megatsunami: 6249+/-38 BP
2. 400 yrs of dust begins, Peruvian Andes ice core: 6317+/-29
3. Mt. Avachinsky's biggest eruption in Holocene: 6286+/-34
4. Glacier Peak's 400yr Dusty Creek tephra begins: 6215+-/44
5. Fastest change, magnetic suscept., Chinese loess: 6029+/-44
6. Slow worldwide cooling begins, Andean ice core: 6417+/-29
7. Fastest change, S. China sea level (dropped 300yr): 6360+/-29
8. Oldest Syrian beach deposit: 6432+/-58
9. Australian sea level's slow drop starts: 6284+/-29
10. ? Anomalous buckling, Cape Liptrap, Australia: 6275+/-54
11. Italy: fire & main Holocene sediment: 6148+/-100

The simple arithmetic average of these dates is 6274 BP (counting from 2012) with standard error of the mean, +/- 35 (as always, 1 sigma). Weighted by the reciprocal of sigma squared (textbook method) the weighted mean is 6299 with standard error +/- 32.

These eleven dates are normally distributed (I used the formulas in Snedecor, Statistical Methods, 5th ed., secs. 8.5 & 8.6, pp. 199-203; interpolation in Table 2.7.1, p. 46). The kurtosis is equivalent to t(infinity) = 0.633, p=53%, 2-tailed; i.e. 53% of normally distributed sets of 11 numbers will have more kurtosis than these. The skewness is equivalent to t(infinity) = -1.103, p=28%, 2-tailed; i.e. 28% of normally distributed sets of 11, are more skew. Discarding the Chinese loess date, doesn't help, because then the skewness becomes about equally big but positive.

So, these 11 dates are about as normally distributed as I can expect by random chance. Likely all of them report one and the same phenomenon. They are not a mixture, of dates reporting the primary event, and dates reporting subsequent processes.

(email sent March 31, 2009)

Dear Sir:

It seems you didn't even read the first sentence of my email. I didn't ask to visit Mr. Gore. I asked to visit one or two scientists who advise him.

Sincerely,
Joseph C. Keller, M. D.

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:03:24 -0500
Subject: Re: New Climate Change Information: Request Interview with Experts
From: info@carthagegroup.com
To: josephkeller100@hotmail.com


Dear Joseph,
Thank you for your kind request. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's schedule is extremely overbooked and we're unable to offer any availability. With Mr. Gore's travel and work schedule booked fully throughout the year, it's very difficult to decline invitations such as yours, but it's an unfortunate inevitability of the growing influence of the climate crisis message and the demand on Mr. Gore's time. We do apologize, but thanks for your interest.

Bill Huskey
Office of The Honorable Al Gore and Mrs. Tipper Gore
2100 West End Avenue
Suite 620
Nashville, TN 37203
615-327-2227

On 3/20/09 2:01 PM, "Joseph Keller" <josephkeller100@hotmail.com> wrote:

To: Vice President Albert Gore (ret.), Scheduling Requests, info@carthagegroup.com

cc: editor, "Atlantis Rising"; also posted to messageboard, www.metaresearch.org <http://www.metaresearch.org&gt; (Dr. Tom Van Flandern, founder); & interested members of Lowell family

Re: Scheduling Request

Dear sirs:

I wish to schedule one or two of Mr. Gore's scientific advisors to come to my house to visit with me about global warming. ...

How to Look for Frey

The three known detections of Frey this year, all show the same elongation, of a ringed planet. The best way to confirm the existence of the Barbarossa/Frey system, for anyone who has access to a big telescope, is to extrapolate Frey's geocentric coordinates quadratically:

Frey detection, midpoint 05:16 UT Feb. 16, 2009:
RA 11:26:59.0 Decl -9:18:47.5

Frey detection, midpoint 01:26 UT Feb. 23, 2009:
RA 11:26:53.7 Decl -9:18:43

Frey detection, midpoint 05:23 UT March 6, 2009:
RA 11:26:44.7 Decl -9:18:30

The biggest apparent motion is Earth parallax, next biggest is Frey's binary orbit around Barbarossa, least but still considerable is Barbarossa's solar orbit. Extrapolation encompasses all these, and will be useful during the few remaining weeks Frey may, in the northern hemisphere, be seen on the meridian during astronomical darkness.

On the philanthropist's March 6 photo, the Frey image at the expected extrapolated position, was significant at t=2.62, p&lt;1% 1-tailed. Yesterday by the same method (brightest 3x3 1.7" pixel bloc vs. surrounding 16 pixels) I found that on the philanthropist's Feb. 16 photo, Frey's image is significant at t=2.61. The 2/16 photo was a 200+ minute Red filter exposure, the 3/6 photo 25 min Clear. The philanthropist told me that the astronomer told him that the two exposures were equivalent for his camera [assuming yellow light?]. Wratten 25 sometimes is used for astronomical Red; it requires 3 f stops in sunlight; 25 * 2^3 = 200. I think Frey is a reddish object, but if the CCD camera's red sensitivity is poor, the two exposures indeed might be almost equivalent.

Preliminary report:

Beware "errors" (disinformation, sabotage) in the April 2, 1998 Nature article. The diagrams show that the Nabta stones mark an object rising and setting 9deg N of the EW line. This is what Barbarossa would do soon after 2012AD - 6340 (one orbital period) = 4329 BC. It agrees precisely with Barbarossa's rising and setting ~200 yr after that date, when it would be at its most southern ecliptic latitude.

Full report: Nabta stones recorded Barbarossa outburst


Abstract. Despite suspiciously numerous publication or editorial errors in the 2 April 1998 Nature article by Malville et al, it appears that the Nabta megaliths (three collinear central megaliths, and outer Alignment V) recorded the rising and setting azimuths of Barbarossa approx. one Barbarossa orbit ago. Barbarossa might have periodic gravitationally powered infall brightening, resembling white dwarf nova cataclysmic binary variables of SU UMa type, but with longer period. Alternatively, Barbarossa might have brightened via an unknown force related to its effect on Earth at that time.


1. Gravitational infall brightening. How much gravitational infall would be needed to make Barbarossa as bright as a 100W bulb one km away? Let's assume Barbarossa is the size of Earth with 6000x Earth's mass. Earth's escape velocity is 11km/sec, so Barbarossa's would be 850km/sec. One kg per sec infall would give .5*(850*1000)^2 = 3.6*10^11 watts. If that's converted to visible light at the same efficiency as a 100W bulb, then we have 3.6 billion 100W bulbs at 200 AU distance, as bright as

3.6*10^9/(214*1.496*10^^2 = 3.5/10^12 100W bulbs @ 1km

If the mass of Luna gradually fell in, it could give Barbarossa that 100W bulb @ 1 km brightness, for

7.4*10^22 * 3.5/10^12 sec = 8000yr

If the mass of Barbarossa fell in (i.e. Barbarossa formed this way, and it's ongoing) that brightness could last 4 billion yr (really somewhat less at first, because at first the central mass would be less) which is the time since the beginning of the solar system. Maybe the infall is episodic, lasting, say, 400 yr per 6000yr orbit. Then when it's bright, it would be 15 100W bulbs @ 1 km, and at 1690 lumen per bulb, that's 0.002 lumen/m^2 (0.002 lux). Overhead full moonlight is ~1 lux. So during 400yr cataclysmic outbursts Barbarossa would be 6.7 mags dimmer than the overhead full moon, i.e. mag -12.6+6.7= -6.

More conservatively, if Barbarossa is only 0.01 solar mass (3000 Earth mass) and the infall occurs during 1000yr of the 6000yr orbit, the power would be (1/2)^2/2.5 as much, i.e. mag -3.5; if the present infall is 1% that, it's still mag +1.5, which is impressive enough for a nova, especially if chaotically fluctuating or flashing.

Alternatively, an unknown intermittent physical interaction between Barbarossa and the known solar system might cause geological change on Earth and brighten Barbarossa. Barbarossa's orbital energy is however ~1/400^2 its gravitational self-energy, thus insufficient to illuminate it for much of the previous 4 billion yr.


2. The Mayan God Bolon. The Mayan name "Bolon" resembles Latin "bolus" and Indo-European words of similar meaning like English "ball". The region of Barbarossa's light emission (not Barbarossa itself) might have been big enough ( &gt;1 arcminute) to be discerned as a ball, hence the name. Associations of Mayan Gods or incarnations whose names include the word "Bolon", apparently include war, creation, "innumerable generations", lightening, and nine branches or colleagues (moons?).


3. Barbarossa's solar orbit and rising azimuth. My computer program, based on the four sky survey positions for Barbarossa & Frey, predicts the Dec. 21, 2012 winter solstice position (to this accuracy, the same as the 12h UT position) of the Barbarossa/Frey center of mass, as

RA 11:27:46.95 Decl -9:22:53.1

These are "barycentric" (i.e. known solar system barycenter excluding Barbarossa; at Barbarossa's distance, same as heliocentric +/- 1", so I'll say "heliocentric" when I mean "barycentric" to avoid confusion with the Sun-Barbarossa barycenter) J2000.0 coordinates. The geocentric position at that time is ~1/4 deg E of this, and generally is within 1/4 deg, mainly E or W, of the heliocentric position. Barbarossa itself is always within ~1 arcminute of the c.o.m.

Suppose Barbarossa brightens at this (Dec. 21, 2012) point of its solar orbit. The heliocentric Declination of this point, in the celestial coordinates of the equinox of date, one period (=6340.0 yr) before Dec. 21, 2012, is ("rigorous" formula, Astronomical Almanac 2005, p. B18) +12.09633 deg.

To arcminute accuracy, the azimuth effect of Earth's oblateness is negligible for low Declinations, because it is higher-order. To see this: stretch the z-axis by a factor 1+1/297, find the "stretch azimuth" for the "stretch Declination" using the perfectly spherical Earth, then shrink the z-axis by the same factor. The lowest-order error occurs because tan(theta) is not exactly proportional to theta, so the error is &lt; 1/297 * 0.33*theta^3.

So, using the half-angle oblique spherical triangle formulas in the CRC Math Tables, the azimuth of rising (neglecting atmospheric refraction), for the Barbarossa/Frey center of mass, is 13.11 deg N of E. The spherical triangle is formed by Earth's N pole, the Nabta site 22deg30'29.7"N 30deg43'31.2"E (Malville et al, Nature 392:488+, 1998), and the sub-Barbarossa point 90deg from the Nabta site.

About 290 yr after 2012, Barbarossa reaches its most negative ecliptic latitude. Making first order corrections, the Declination, for equinox of date, of that point of the orbit, when previously attained (Earth's summer solstice aligned with Barbarossa then), would have been +12.10 - 1.13 (i.e. ecliptic latitude change) - 1.78 (i.e. net motion along southward-tending ecliptic) = +9.19. The corresponding azimuth of rising is 9.96 deg N of E.


4. Summary of evidence for Barbarossa's effect on Earth's climate. Not only the Mayan calendar, but also the dates of various geological changes associated with the Younger Dryas (two Barbarossa periods ago, c. 12600yr BP) and with the climate reversal of one Barbarossa period ago, c. 6300yr BP (which entailed the onset of the El Nino ocean current), suggest that Barbarossa will again interact with Earth beginning c. 2012 AD. The climatological harmonic frequencies I've found in the literature, are the same as the frequencies arising from the interaction of Earth's precession and Barbarossa's period (see my earlier posts to Dr. Van Flandern's messageboard at www.metaresearch.org ).

According to Poisson's theorem (proved by Tisserand, it was the culmination of conjectures by Laplace and Lagrange) orbital period is approximately conserved when the other orbital elements are randomly perturbed. Meteor swarms with Barbarossa's period (e.g. Barbarossa's "Trojan asteroids" at the leading and trailing Lagrange points) would tend to maintain that same period even when perturbed into very elliptical sungrazing orbits. One especially big swarm might enter the inner Solar System every 6340yr (Barbarossa's sidereal period). This matches evidence of meteor strikes at the beginning of the younger Dryas (carbon layer of forest fires, nanodiamonds, iridium; see last night's "NOVA" episode on PBS) and also the ambiguous evidence of meteor strikes c. 6300 BP: Australian tsunamis, 400yr of increased atmospheric dust, increased activity by some frequently erupting volcanoes, and global tectonic readjustment evidenced by receding shores at Australia and perhaps Asia, with continued rising sea level, relative to the landmass, at Barbados.

Alternatively, the meteor strikes might be a minor or coincidental component. The main process might be a fundamental new physical force. Unlike the Sun's other big satellites, Barbarossa lies outside the "Kuiper Belt dropoff" at ~52.6 AU; at this distance, Pioneer 10's radio signal underwent a still-unexplained alteration. Apparent millisecond pulsar radial accelerations cluster near +H*c, the Hubble parameter times the speed of light. My most accurate estimate so far, says that Barbarossa's radial acceleration relative to the Sun, will equal -2*H*c, just a week before Dec. 21, 2012. (Barbarossa passed the outgoing latus rectum of its orbit in 2003).


5. Likely sequence of events at Nabta c. 6340 BP ("Present" defined as 2012). I gather that Nabta's construction has been dated at 6500-6000 calendar yr BP, by artifacts similar to those so dated at other sites. Some hearth charcoal (see Malville, Nature letter, 1998; p. 488) had 14-C date 5500 +/- 80 BP (where I've converted the presumed 2sigma given by Malville, to 1sigma format). By a slight extrapolation of Blaauw's chart (see previous posts) I convert this to (5500*9/8+(2012-1998)) +/- sqrt((80*9/^2+30^2) = 6202 +/- 95 (1sigma) BP relative to 2012.

If Barbarossa brightened (from its present Red mag +19) at 6340 BP, there would be some human response lag. Some geological phenomena persisted 400 yr, so Barbarossa might have remained visible at least until its greatest negative ecliptic latitude, 6340-290=6050 BP; as mentioned above, the azimuth of rising then was 9.96 N of E.


6. Publication and editorial errors in Nature article. There are so many crucial errors in the Nature letter as published, that sabotage or disinformation must be suspected. Nabta's longitude is given as W, not E.

The prominent horizontal & vertical distance scales on Fig. 1, imply a vert::horiz scale ratio of 5.86::1, according to which the slope of Alignments I, II, & III, as drawn, is 64deg N of E, not the ~26deg N of E ( = summer solstice sunrise azimuth) stated in the text and by other articles, investigators and groups. Assuming that the horiz & vert scales really are the same, then the slope as drawn is 19.51deg N of E (by ruler from the page of an original copy of the journal). The slope of Alignment V as drawn on Fig. 1, is -6.97deg (i.e. 6.97deg S of E). If the original map submitted by Malville was accurate, then the likeliest explanation is that it was compressed only slightly, vertically, in publication in Nature (changing ~26deg to 19.51deg), and that the printed scale is erroneous.

The text on p. 489 (last line) gives the azimuth of Alignment V as "126", i.e. 36 S of E, by inference but not by name. If the printed scale is believed, then the line drawn is indeed at azimuth 35.62 S of E; but if the printed scale is believed, then Alignments I-III aren't 26 N of E, they're instead 26 E of N.


7. The true azimuths of Nabta. Several other articles, mostly subsequent, have been published, mostly by Malville's group but also by at least one other group. I've been unable to see anything but abstracts of these, because they are in journals not on the shelf here nor even available online through the rather extensive services to which Iowa State Univ. subscribes. Many of these journal articles or other publications are not indexed by "Web of Science" (online Science Citation Index). So, I must find the true azimuths entirely from Malville's 1998 Letter to Nature.

Malville states that the azimuths of Alignments I-III are 24.3, 25 & 28; presumably this is N of E, because Malville (p. 490) gives the refraction-corrected summer solstice sunrise as 63.2 E of N = 26.8 N of E. The mean of Alignments I-III is 25.77 +/-1.13 Std Error of Mean, but the slope in Fig. 1 is 19.51. So, the slope of Alignment V, -6.97 on Fig. 1, probably really is -arctan(tan(6.97)*tan(25.77)/tan(19.51)) = -9.46 (i.e. 9.46 S of E).

Neglecting refraction, the summer solstice sunrise is 25.57 N of E by my calculation from spherical trigonometry (I used Earth obliquity 23.50, which is thought to be the mean of the main Milankovitch cycle according to Wittmann as cited in the "Axis Tilt" article in Wikipedia; Wittmann's sinusoid gives 23.48 for 6340 BP, but the IAU polynomial cited gives the probably inaccurate 24.13). So, Alignments I-III match the true solstice sunrise even better than they match Malville's estimated apparent solstice sunrise.

I find no definite error in Fig. 3b. On the page I measure 24deg N of E, not the text's 28deg (90 minus 62; see p. 490), but lacking any axis, on this small diagram, the difference could arise from my ruler error. This is a fourth azimuth at the summer solstice sunrise ( = winter solstice sunset). On Fig. 3b, I measure the three collinear stones just N of the center, as azimuth 8.40 N of E. Correcting this for possible vertical scale compression, gives arctan(tan(8.40)*tan(28)/tan(24)) = 10.00 N of E. I found copies of Fig. 3b on two websites; the monitor frame aided accurate measurement, and I got 7.58 and 9.84. Averaging all three of these measurements and then applying the vertical scale correction, gives 10.25deg +/-0.79 SEM.

This is confirmation, independent of Alignment V, of Barbarossa's rising azimuth (range during relevant time period, 13.11 to 9.96deg N of E, neglecting refraction). The setting azimuth is the same angle but N of W, i. e. S of E, and is given by Alignment V, 9.46deg S of E.