--- In guide-user@yahoogroups.com, Paul Schlyter <pausch@s...> wrote:

> Andis Kaulins wrote:
> > --- In guide-user@yahoogroups.com, Bill J Gray <pluto@p...> wrote:
> >
> >>Hi Larry, all,
> >>
> >> As Denis points out, one can (in theory) go to the Web site

and

> >>dig through the source code (delta_t.cpp, in this case) and see
> >>exactly how Delta-T is computed. As source code goes, this is
> >>(in my humble opinion as its author!) reasonably clear and easy
> >>to understand... _if_ you happen to be a C programmer. It's
> >>probably rather opaque to the rest of the world, I'm afraid.
> >>
> >> Anyway. 'delta_t.cpp' has a table of values for Delta-T from
> >>1618 to 2004, at two-year intervals, and interpolates within
> >>that table. After 2002, it just does a linear extrapolation.
> >>That is, for 1 January 2002, it has Delta-T = 64.30 seconds;
> >>for 1 January 2004, it has Delta-T = 64.57 seconds, i.e.,
> >>Delta-T increased by .17 seconds over those two years. So,
> >>for a given time t (expressed in years),
> >>
> >>Delta-T = 64.57 + (t - 2004) * .17 / 2
> >>
> >> That rate of increase corresponds to 8.5 seconds/century, and
> >>to Delta-T = 64.13 seconds on 1 January 2000. So in the more
> >>conventional system where t_cen = centuries from J2000,
> >>
> >>Delta-T = 64.13 + 8.5 * t_cen
> >>
> >> Usual warning: Delta-T becomes increasingly ill-defined as
> >>you extrapolate it. For example, a decade or so ago, it
> >>looked as if Delta-T was going to keep increasing by about a
> >>second or so each year, requiring a new "leap second" each
> >>December. Then it stopped increasing so briskly, and we've
> >>not had a new leap second since 1999. The above formula is
> >>there simply because Guide has to say _something_ about what
> >>Delta-T is apt to be, even if that something isn't very
> >>meaningful.
> >>
> >>-- Bill
> >
> >
> > One way to understand Delta-T better is to spot the cycles which

may

> > be incorporated within it. One of these may be solar luminosity -
> > which may have a ca. 190-year cycle, as manifested in the delta-T
> > values evidenced between ca. 1700 and ca. 1890.
> >
> > As written at
> >

http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/caves/newsletters/ie7_1/ie7_1.pdf

> > "A Master's thesis on a broken stalagmite in the main cave
> > indicates a temperature cycle of 190 years between ~13,500 and

9,500

> > years ago, most likely a solar luminosity cycle."
> >
> > This in turn may relate to the cycles in sun spots
> > http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspot5.html
> > which in turn are related to geomagnetic activity
> > http://www.sec.noaa.gov/info/SumSept.html.
> >
> > In my opinion, these variations are caused by planetary

perturbations

> > viz. planetary positions varying between perihelion and aphelion.

See

> > http://www.stjarnhimlen.se/comp/tutorial.html
> >
> > If that were true, then primarily responsible for the ca. 190-

year

> > cycle would be Pluto (actually, the orbit here is 248 years as

such),

> > which was at perihelion until 1999, when it was still within
> > Neptune's orbit. See
> > http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast04jan_1.htm
> > Now it is headed back out to be the 9th planet again.
> >
> > Accordingly, if the above theory be true, Delta T should now slow
> > down as it has, stay constant at ca. +65 and then diminish,

rather

> > than increase. Of course even if we were right on this

prediction, we

> > could be wrong, since current theory is that the planets can not
> > exert this kind of influence, but I am not so sure.
>
> If the planets had any noticeable influence on the Earth's

rotation, it

> must be through gravitational forces, right? And what matters here

is

> the tidal forces (which are nothing but the gradient of the

gravitational

> force).
>
> Now, the tidal force is proportional to the mass of the gravitating

body,

> and inversely proportional to the third power of the distance to

the body.

> This is well-known.
>
> You assume Pluto influences Delta-T merely because of a (very)

approximate

> coincidence in the period. Now, the tidal force on the Earth due

to Jupiter

> is some 100 million times stronger than the tidal force on the

Earth due to

> Pluto.
>
> If Pluto noticeably influences the Earth's rotation, how come we

don't see

> a vastly stronger variation on Delta-T due to Jupiter? Such an

influence

> could be expected to have a period of some 12 years, right?
>
> The answer is that even the tidal force from Jupiter upon the Earth

is

> far too weak to have any noticeable influence on the Earth. The

tidal

> force from the Moon (which is quite noticeable) is some 300.000

times

> stronger than the tidal force from Jupiter --- and some 30 trillion
> times stronger than the tidal force from Pluto.
>
>
> I hope these numbers make you realize why planets cannot have this

influence

> on the Earth's rotation. In principle the planets do have an

influence of

> course, but it is far too small to be detectable.
>
>
> > Andis Kaulins
> > The LexiLine Group at Yahoo
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LexiLine/ with a posting relating

to

> > Delta-T at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LexiLine/message/1340
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an empty email to:
> > guide-user-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
> e-mail: pausch@s...
> WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Hi Paul,

I hope you realize that all that I write on this topic is highly
speculative from my point of view, but we may be touching here upon
important matters through that speculation.

I looked at your interesting site at
http://www.stjarnhimlen.se/english.html
and thank you especially for your note concerning the upcoming
annular solar eclipse on October 3, as your write "visible in east
Greenland, Iceland, Europe, Africa except southernmost part and west
Asia inklusive India".

I have found an article at
http://www.omirp.it/www/Gravitational_Waves/GW+Matter/GW_and_Matter.pd
f (URL may not fully wrap)
which perhaps sheds interesting light on the as yet theoretical
gravitational waves and the rate of spin of the Earth.

That is the 20 January 2003 article
"Interaction of Gravitational Waves with Matter"
by Primo Galletti and Aldo Aluigi
where they write about "two Gravitational Waves of high intensity
recorded from 16th to 23rd August 1999 and from 25th to 30th August
1999" which they claim might have had an effect on the rate of spin
of the Earth. They write:

"Due to the impact with the gravitational wave, another two relevant
phenomena are likely to be produced on the Earth:
1. a slowing down of the Earth rotation around its axis...."

and further

"The slowing down of the Earth is very likely only temporary. Later
on and in a longer time, the Earth's rotation speed will increase
again (due to the "cyclonic" effect) restoring the initial value, as
cyclones and anti-cyclones continuously forming accelerate/decelerate
the Earth rotation depending on the heat they receive from the Sun
(it has to be kept in mind that the cyclone momentum is (always)
higher than that of the anti-cyclone)."

Galletti and Aluigi think the gravitational wave came from far outer
space but we think it might be the planets.

The most recent perihelion of Pluto occurred on Sept. 5, 1989 when it
was inside the orbit of Neptune. Pluto crossed Neptune's orbit in
February of 1999. It was in 1999 when we got the alleged
gravitational waves of Galletti and Aluigi
see http://www.space.com/reference/brit/pluto/overview.html
at the same time (August 17 to 18, 1999), as a Grand Cross (90 degree
x 90 degree x 90 degree x 90 degree) of planets
see http://astrology.about.com/od/predictive/l/aa080299.htm for a
graph and also http://www.globalpsychics.com/lp/prophecy/maps.htm.

Could gravitational waves have anything to do with Delta-T?

Gravitational waves are explained at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves
and see generally http://elmer.tapir.caltech.edu/ph237/

Gravitational waves are predicted by Einstein's theories
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/topics/
but have never been observed, according to the New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7139
so we must of course then ask what Galletti and Aluigi were measuring.

We think that the changes in the rate of spin of the Earth, i.e.
Delta-T may prove to be instrumental in proving Einstein's theory.
What else, other than gravitational waves, could affect this rate of
spin of the Earth, so that such gravitational waves must be coming
from somewhere. We just now have to isolate where. I still think the
planets of our solar system in motion are our best bet.

I understand your arguments about mass, but perhaps there are things
that we don't know yet.
.