CORRESPONDENCE WITH DR. JEAN MEEUS REGARDING DR. FRED ESPENAK'S "TRANSITS OF VENUS CATALOG"

May 19, 2004

Dear Dr. Meeus,

It is my understanding that you are an acclaimed authority on celestial calculations, algorithms and computations for astronomers to support their observations.

Dr. Fred Espenak of GSFC/NASA has made reference to your work in a correspondence (see copy below) regarding his predictions of Venus transit dates as listed in his catalog.

Unfortunately, Dr. Espenak was not able to answer some of my main concerns. I am hoping, therefore, that you could help me solve the following problem.

How can the forthcoming transits of Venus occur as predicted, if observations show that over a period of roughly 80,000 years the orbital plane and nodes of Venus migrate forward one complete cycle through the seasons, and the pole or equator of the Earth does not wobble (precess) by approximately 50" relative to the position of the Sun and Venus in the course of a solar year?

Respectfully,

Uwe Homann

_________________________________

May 20, 2004

Dear Sir,

I cannot reply to your many questions. That would require me one or two hours!

You wrote:

"How can the forthcoming transits of Venus occur as predicted, if observations show that over a period of roughly 80,000 years the orbital plane and nodes of Venus migrate forward one complete cycle through the seasons, and the pole or equator of the Earth does not wobble (precess) by approximately 50" relative to the position of the Sun and Venus in the course of a solar year?"

I don't understand the problem. In the calculation of (past and future) Venus transits the several motions you mention (rotation of orbital planes, motion of the nodes of Venus' orbit, etc) HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. These motions are accurately known, so they can be calculated.

So what?

Regards.

Jean Meeus

_____________________________________

May 21, 2004

Dear Mr. Meeus,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my concerns. The problem is as follows:

The "Transits of Venus Catalog" shows that it takes less than 40,000 years for the orbital nodes of Venus to migrate forward one complete cycle through the seasons; i.e. with respect to the equinox. The transit dates are calculated based on the assumption that the equator of the Earth wobbles relative to the position of the Sun, and that it takes about 365.2564 mean solar days for the Earth to move 360 degree around the Sun.

In present-day astronomy, however, the tropical year is defined as the time interval needed for the mean tropical longitude of the Sun to increase by 360 degrees. For example, predictions and observations of solar eclipses (i.e. the rigorous relationship that exists between the synodic, draconic and tropical lunar months) show that the Earth moves indeed 360 degree around the Sun in a tropical year.

http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/evidence/lunarcycle.shtml

Hence, the equinox moves at a rate of about 50" per year relative to inertial space but not relative to the position of the Sun.

The mean synodic period of Venus and Earth based on a tropical year differs from mean synodic time based on a sidereal year corrected for precession.

While calculations seem to support both scenarios, observations may not.

Best Regards,

Uwe

_____________________________________

May 21, 2004

Sir,

I still cannot understand why you see a problem. Fifteen years ago I calculated all transits of Venus between the years -2000 and +4000, with elements needed to calculate the geocentric and topocentric phases. These data were published in my booklet "Transits" (1989), which is still available.

The data were calculated from accurate positions of the planets (Venus and Earth), using the French theory VSOP87. This is an accurate analytical theory. Its results are in perfect agreement with a numerical integration (a completely different method of calculation) and with observation.

So I don't see where there could be a problem. The "migration of Venus' nodes" cited in your mail and the precession (those 50" per year) are automatically included in the VSOP7 theory.

Or would you suggest that the experts in celestial mechanics cannot calculate accurate positions of the planets?

Regards.

Jean Meeus

_____________________________________________

May 23, 2004

Dear Mr. Meeus,

Please, don't get me wrong. I find the subject quite fascinating. No doubt, the computations based on the VSOP87 theory are very accurate and even more elaborate than the analytical theory developed by the great astronomer Simon Newcomb.

When I had examined the 'Venus Transit Catalog', I discovered what I believe to be an "irregularity".

http://www.siriusresearchgroup.com/VT4.htm

I could be mistaken and this matter might not be worthwhile to investigate further. In case I have overlooked something, I would greatly appreciate if you can tell me what other significant factor or parameter was not accounted for.

Thanks again for your time.

Best regards,

Uwe

__________________________________________________

Editor's Note:

The VSOP87 theory seems to account for everything from distance & mass changes in the solar system to changes in the weather on Earth. It "includes precession", because the dynamic equinox is the observed frame of reference. Precession is removed from the observations of stars and quasars, but not from the Sun. Direct observations of planetary position with respect to the sun, ecliptic, equator, equinox, etc. are made in the course of tropical years - this is because it doesn't work any other way. While using Julian Date and the Gregorian calendar system, all times are automatically converted by the computer program to mean sidereal (tropical) time. The theory does NOT employ a roughly twenty minutes longer year for the Earth to go 360-degree around the Sun! If our astronomers were to use such a year in practice then all their predictions and catalogs are worthless.

Astronomers in India already made that mistake during the entire Kali age! For thousands of years they relied on almanacs that used a certain fixed sidereal position. But the equinox is no longer at that position. Enlightened people recognized that mistake, while only a few realized the true reason for it. In daily life, all it took was some bamboo sticks to measure the length of the solar year and observe the movement of the moon and the planets in the sky to make accurate predictions. In fact, the ancient Vedic, Mayan, Babylonian and Egyptian astronomers were free from the illusion of a "longer" sidereal year. Modern astronomers view these basic celestial mechanical phenomena and their relationships in a very complex and complicated way; it seems they no longer (want to) see the Sun because of all the stars.

________________________________________________

May 30, 2004

I cannot go to http.....

Just tell me what you think is the problem.

You are the only person who wrote to me about a "problem" with Venus transit data!

Jean Meeus

__________________________________________

June 1, 2004

Dear Monsieur Meeus,

I did not mean to imply there is anything wrong with your mathematics. The problem is that the “theory” of lunisolar precession does not exactly describe the “observable” of the precession of the equinox relative to the fixed stars and objects within the solar system. Your Venus transit data (the data showing the timed motions of Venus relative to the Earth and the Sun) is a method to reveal the problem, if carefully compared to the theory.

Background: As you must know, the theory of lunisolar precession requires that as the Earth axis is “wobbled” by local forces, and changes the Earth’s orientation to the fixed stars “outside the solar system” by an observable of about 50”p/y, that same change in the axis should be observable relative to objects “within the solar system” including the Sun, Mercury and Venus, etc. All assume this to be true however, it is difficult to measure and prove due to the fact that everything is moving. Thus your calculations have been helpful in proving my point (and one shared by the Binary Research Institute and other capable observers) that the Earth does not wobble relative to local objects within the solar system! I know this is hard to believe and implies precession has a different, non-local cause – but more about that later.

The lunisolar theory posits that as the Earth’s axis wobbles it reorients the Earth relative to all objects causing the equinox to slip about 50”p/y backwards along the ecliptic, meaning the Earth should not only wobble but also slip by about 22,000 miles per tropical year along the Earth’s fixed orbit path around the Sun (losing exactly one orbit relative to inertial space in approximately 25,770 years). Under this theory, if the Earth just wobbled, without slipping along the ecliptic, the seasons would shift through the calendar (which is roughly equal to the tropical year) by about one day every 72 years. We know that this is not happening (other than minor noise due to the fact the calendar year of 365.2500 does not exactly equate to the orbit period of 365.2422).

All is well and good until we run your calculations or until we look at the Earth’s position relative to Venus, the Moon, the Sun, or other “objects” within the solar system, which do not reveal any lunisolar type precession relative to these objects.

What we believe is happening is the Earth goes around the Sun 360 degrees (relative to the Sun) in a tropical year, and as it does so, the entire solar system is curving through space (opposite to this motion) at about 50” p/y producing a change in orientation relative to inertial space that we call “precession”. Thus the sidereal year, which measures 360 degrees relative to the fixed stars, actually represents an orbit of the Earth around the Sun of 360 degrees plus 50” p/y relative to the Sun. Obviously, this is considered almost blasphemous to most astronomers that do not recognize the newly discovered reference frame of a moving solar system, but it is proven by our calculations, and your mathematics, if you will carefully account for all the “theoretical” motions required of the lunisolar theory.

We invite you to take a look at our Venus Transit and Precession analysis at http://www.siriusresearchgroup.com/VTP.htm

and test our assumptions. It may seem a bit confusing until you completely understand all the implications of the additional newly discovered moving reference frame: a solar system that curves through space. You may also want to examine the lunar rotation equations at Binary Research Institute http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/evidence/lunarcycle.shtml to better understand that there are several others that corroborate our findings.

I know you are a very capable mathematician and one of the few people able to grasp the implications of this new model of our solar system, and this is why I write. Please feel free to call if or email if we can provide more background information.

Sincerely,

Uwe Homann

cc: Walter Cruttenden, Binary Research Institute

________________________________________________

© 2004 Sirius Research Group