Requiem for Relativity

You may be right, Jim. However Stoat mentioned EPH here so I assume he sees some relevance. And I am hoping he will go into more detail. We can't do it all. You guys can make some valuable contributions, if you will just try.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
<br /> The only way I can think that we end up with layers of nanodiamond, given the absence of a massive great crater,
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Come on back, Stoat. Regarding the massive great crater, this is explained quite well in a book ISBN-10:59143-061-5, THE CYCLE OF COSMIC CATASTROPHES, by Richard Firestone, et. al.

This book describes the evidence for bombardment of earth by a large bolide striking North America around Lake Michigan and/or Hudson's Bay when both were covered by miles of ice, thereby leaving only a shallow crater. Fits quite well with Keller's conjecture.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by MarkVitrone</i>
<br />Fellas, let's take a breath and not hurt each other's feelings - there has been too much hurt recently.

Mark
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I agree Mark. Please keep posting Stoat, I don't want to loose anyone else from our group! John Rickey

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
<br />Hi Joe, this paper on lensing by a brown dwarf should be of interest. arxiv.org/abs/0904.0249
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi Bob!

Thanks for this novel and helpful article!

(April 27, 2009)

I'm the first speaker at the North Central Region Astronomical League (NCRAL) ( ncral.net ) 2009 convention, May 1-2, 2009, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Last year's group photo showed ~60 people.

This year the convention is hosted by the Cedar Rapids, Iowa, astronomy club, the Cedar Amateur Astronomers, www.cedar-astronomers.org . My talk, 35 minutes long, is at 7:30PM CDT in the (apparently large, judging by the building's photo) meeting room of their observatory, halfway between Cedar Rapids & Iowa City (watch out for deer on the highway).

The talks the next day are in a conference room at the Clarion Hotel in Cedar Rapids. Basically, it's amateurs Friday night at the observatory meeting room, and U. of Iowa professors Saturday at the hotel.

Registration begins Friday afternoon at the Clarion. Registration costs $66 and one can register onsite or by mail. It includes a banquet and also some snacks or light meals.

The convention schedule does not appear on the NCRAL website (the NCRAL includes seven states of the U.S. "Upper Midwest"). The NCRAL website has only an abbreviated schedule which omits the four Friday PM speakers, and mentions only the keynote and banquet speakers.

The full schedule, listing my speech, "Evidence for the Location and Properties of Percival Lowells Planet X" appears only (obscurely) on the Cedar Amateur Astronomers website (click on "Events", then "NCRAL 2009 convention"; sometimes that link doesn't work, but if it does, then click on "schedule" on the lower right).

Any interest or publicity that can be generated, I'd appreciate. Some things I might not have time to do myself include:

1. Join and message all astronomy messageboards including Yahoo groups, LinkedIn groups, etc. Please email me privately through this site if you'd like the notice I'm sending. A post from someone other than me, might get past the ALPO messageboard censors.

2. Call the newspaper in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and the TV and radio stations in Cedar Rapids, asking if they've "heard about the discovery of Percival Lowell's Planet X, which is connected with 2012 and will be covered in a talk at that astronomy convention in Cedar Rapids this weekend".

3. Email or phone all acquaintances who might like to attend.


I'll spend about two days just before the meeting, to leaflet the nearby cities and colleges. My slides (~50 Ektachromes) are done.

more information:

Cedar Amateur Astronomers, www.cedar-astronomers.org

NCRAL conference report:

I included two major facts in my talk at the NCRAL conference last night, that I haven't yet posted here.

1. Bauval, and independently later Brophy, have calculated that Orion's belt would have corresponded to the layout of the Great Pyramids, c. 11,000 yr BP (I think Brophy differed from Bauval by about 1000 yr). This depends on what one means by "correspond". If the Pyramids are on the site of older temples originally surveyed by sighting Orion's belt stars over a stick (or kite) and then reflecting EW to resemble the belt more (and maybe also magnified by surveying methods), then the two angles made, are correct for only one position of Earth's pole. This position occurs at 7723 BC (c. 9730 yr BP)(assuming the present period of equinox precession, 25771.5 yr) but only if Earth's obliquity is 27.95 deg. This suggests that Earth's obliquity decreased 4.5 deg, perhaps c. 6300 yr BP. This would give yet another true meaning of the Tortuguero statement, "Barbarossa descends" (i.e., in Declination due to sudden obliquity decrease).

2. The Miller (and Michelson-Morley) non-null results can be explained as a "pseudo-drift", proportional to the cross product of acceleration and velocity. This accounts for not only the main "drift" effect, but also the circular annual variation, and the hitherto unexplained (usually) eastward azimuth. To account quantitatively for these effects, it must be assumed that the solar apex motion has the usually measured direction but only 1/3 the usually measured magnitude. The so-called motion connected with the CMB dipole (or the 100 Mpc "convergence" of galaxies' Hubble flow to that vector) must be omitted from the accounting.

Many of the amateurs present complimented me on my talk (the introductory speaker ended about 3 min late and I was 10-3=7 min late to finish). I had to abbreviate my talk; unabbreviated, it would have been an hour. I didn't notice any of the professors I visited, at the U. of Iowa, Coe, and Cornell, at the talk, though I might have missed them in the crowd of ~ 80. I gathered that none of the professors and other professional astronomers speaking at the hotel today, attended Friday evening.

I visited the Masonic headquarters Friday morning, meeting three high Masonic officials (I am not a Mason), and telling two of them a summary of my talk. Both seemed to understand immediately. They said they would encourage brothers to attend.

When I was canvassing Coe College, as I went to visit the Physical Chemistry professor on the second floor (he was an avid amateur astronomer) I noticed that there was exactly one word neatly written in big red print on the erasable board in the hall. The word was "Illuminatti" (spelled with two t's).

I'm missing the introductory comments, to write this, but will attend all the other talks today. I plan to skip the banquet, to have more time to drive home.

I've mentioned here that color (wavelength response) might be why Barbarossa/Frey are absent from Blue sky surveys, and to some extent from CCD photos. At my talk last night, I mentioned another reason Barbarossa/Frey might be absent from Blue sky surveys and (maybe) from most CCD photos: the luminance might be mostly intermittent. The Red and IR survey plates were exposed an hour or almost that, the Blue only 10 min or a little more. The CCD photos are mostly 2 minute photos, median stacked so that the one of the ten or so, that might record something, is discarded. I also mentioned last night that this intermittent luminance, if briefer than the 30ms timescale of typical atmospheric fluctuations, would automatically give the result obtained by adaptive optics, of a smaller sharper image with more pronounced Eberhard (micro-edge intensification) effect, which generally is seen in the Barbarossa/Frey survey images. Also, I called attention in my slides at the meeting, to two Frey submoons in both 1954 & 1986, three (possible) in 1997, and the possible conjunction with a submoon (explaining the elongation and ~doubled luminance) of Frey in 1987.