An oddity in the data.

Haiku

Jedi
Year to year data suggests that the sun’s arc across the sky has changed, that’s odd?

Define data. Spreadsheets of recorded data from a Pyrheliometer tracking the sun across the sky, from August 14, 2010 and August 15, 2009.

Actual data: zenith angle, azimuth angle, date

102.7, 60.8, 8/15/2009

102.7, 61.1, 8/14/2009 (calculated)

102.3, 60.7, 8/15/2010 (calculated)

102.3, 60.4, 8/14/2010

102.3, 60.0, 8/13/2010

Welcome all to another session, this one is about some findings that I have come across and others that I have just noticed leading up to this session.

The sun’s arc across the sky seems to have changed and is changing as I present.

When I was young, I noticed this change happening, not really understanding what was being seen. The sun rising and setting location year to year is changing ever so slightly. At this age, it was the first weekend after school let out, ended up with me in a tent camping out in the cow pasture. (We only had one milk cow.) Waking up in the morning year after year I saw that the time of the year had not changed but the sunrise was changing. It crested the hill in a slightly different place each year.

Now today I am looking at some information received from a previous Quality employee, from the company that I work for, and I came across some baseline information for our Solar testing lab. It included information on the Pyrheliometer tracking of the sun. The data timelines were limited, about seven to ten days from coinciding years, 2009 and 2010, that were of a similar date of the year. In fact, they were only one day apart in their respecting year to each other.

What am I trying to accomplish here? Yes, that is a question that I have also. I am trying to quantify that the sun track across the sky is constantly changing. Then I am curious to speculate on what would cause this effect.

In comparing these two days, I would have expected that the azimuth angle and zenith angle would be very similar. You know the world as we know it spins around a fixed axis with a floating magnetic pole arrangement. If this was true then the sun position year to year would not change (some minor variability would be allowed), it would be as fixed as the axis that we spin upon, wouldn’t it? That is not what I found in the data. In fact, I found a significant drift between this year of time, a full 0.4° zenith angle.

Excuse me, first came to mind. Variability of maybe a tenth of a degree would have been acceptable, our axis has been stated to wobble. But this is four times that variance that would be acceptable, to me. I rechecked my findings, I went day to day seeing small variance in these representing a typical day to day changes. I show the in the actual data, the only item that changed day to day was the azimuth angle as it was going into fall on the northern hemisphere.

I am still digging through data files that this quality man had, I may find more dates of data near these that I can use. August was where I found the others that I used. I have found others from later years, but not from the same month.

We got this data when the company that I work for wanted to become a solar company back in the boom years for it. We setup a solar testing laboratory with several multi-panel installations. We tested all kinds of solar equipment including a few of their own design. But part of this testing, which was done in a vacant field, was the collection of solar data. We had several pyrometers and a Pyrheliometer. The Pyrheliometer focused on looking directly at the sun, collecting intensity and physical location, amongst other data. The Pyrheliometer, an EKO Sun Tracker, was fixed to a physical structure that allowed it to fully turn to track the sun. The lab operated from 2006 through 2015, all equipment was functional during most of this time.

Beyond the data, I have been reading Worlds in Collision by Immanuel Velikovsky. An amazing book for me. Still working on digesting these thoughts. The effort to release this book was well appreciated. It is probably the reason that I am presenting this subject today. Many thoughts here are a reflection of this book and so many other reading efforts.

Back to the subject of the difference in the data, what could have caused this deviation? The device did not change, I setup the initial deployment of the device, placement, mounting and server connections. I validated local connectivity and that data was properly collected. Every time I was in the lab, I would try to shake the unit on the mount, it was a solid as a rock. Then I would check to make sure that the date was being collected, not really looking at what the data was. I checked logs that we had, no one noted any software or configuration changes. I went looking for the computer that was in the lab, not to be found, it may have been recycled, it was an old system running WinNT.

I fear that there is no more raw data for me to look through, I will continue to look. And I still have a dilemma. How to account for the deviation.

The simplest way to explain what I am seeing is that the point where this equipment was, on the face of this spherical planet, in 2009 was in a different position for 2010. If I had to estimate how far the movement was, I would say ten to fifteen miles of movement to produce this effect, maybe more.

Now gradual movement could have been happening over the year, we would only notice the harder movements, which I see that we do. There was a recent note in the news of a shudder in the rotation of the planet. To me, this deviation would be pretty darn incredible, you know.

That is the real data of this session. The rest of this session, I will be speculating on possible reasons for this deviation.

I am still working to rationalize the cause of what I am seeing in this data. You see, this is the effect of some undefined cause. Was there a truly a slip in the crustal surface of this planet or is there some other cause?

It is possible that I am associating an element in this deviation improperly. There are items that I am referencing, knowledge that was taught to me, or brainwashed into me. I may be using one of these axiom’s improperly or should not be using it at all.

This is where I start reviewing the design dumb questions. Why is it this way? What is the reason for this? What are the factors/variables? Identify the constant(s)? You know, the basic questions that may help define the issue, or the deviation as in this situation. What am I taking for granted?

I need to review what I know about this planet, it holds one or more belief’s that are wrong.

We live on the third rock from the sun. Well not a rock exactly, it is a molten planet with a paper-thin hard crust that is considered semi-stable. This surface is where we live. The planet spins around its axis at a 23.5° angle to the ecliptic plane. The axis is a in a constant location. The planet also has a magnetic axis that is in constant flux, currently over the North Sea headed towards Russia. The ice builds up over the northern and southern poles due to lack of substantial sun to warm the areas. This effect should produce ice around the fixed poles, covering up to the 80° meridian.

Wait, this ice buildup is not accurate. We do not see ice buildup like this. Take it right now, the ice buildup is more centered to this axis, but in 1984 it was heavily offset. In 1984 it was more centered over the open sea, touching Russia and Alaska, but not touching Europe. @

1570917339529.png

I might even state that the center of the ice is possibly not following the rigid structure of this planet. This is just an observation for now.

Back to the facts. The surface of this world is constantly spinning around the fixed axis. The surface of this planet is fixed to the axis, it does not wander.

Hold on a moment here. This whole statement could have multiple false clauses. Yes, the axis, as pre-defined by a predecessor long ago, is in a constant position and the surface follows completely. Then why is the ice buildup in the artic not following this axis? Understanding that this constant position assists greatly in finding your true location on the spherical surface if it is fixed.

So, I am having difficulty with an unquestionable axiom, the predefined north and south pole locations, thus creating this axis of rotation, is that true? If my data is accurate, which I believe is true, then there was a physical shift in crust movement of this planet.

If there was a crust shift, then this axiom is in error.

Now the task changes, multiple variables exist. Axis fixed or floating? Surface fixed or floating? If the axis was floating and the surface fixed, that would not explain the data. If the axis of our planet is fixed, this would mean that our surface is floating. According to the data, the latter is accurate.

If the data is correct, then the surface of this planet is following another axis that is not this pre-defined fixed axis. What ever this axis is, it is moving or presented as moving across a fixed surface. The only thing that I can think of is the magnetic north wander, that is happening now, this moves constantly throughout the year.

Let me get this straight. I am speculating that the axis of this planet is a constant, defined by the magnetic poles. That would make the surface that is in constant flux. This truly explains the data that I have. Now, can I verify this, validate it with some physical evidence?

The north pole is a difficult item to hide data on. It is a very highly monitored source throughout the world. Tracking information for the North Pole wander is well documented for these years. I am using a map that I found on the internet.

I am here, W123°12'54", N39°16'12", roughly. I took my position and translated it to this path for these years. This theory gave me a qualifying value of change happened. Here is an image of the finding. @

1570917327136.png

Essentially, my location on this sphere we call earth moved quite similar to the magnetic north pole wander. I am now more south on the sphere than I was before. And continuing to move in that direction, if this data is correct. And this would mean that all of the world is drifting the same in relation to this point. Not very noticeable on a year to year basis to the ordinary person. They would not notice such a small change. Might even explain why whales beach themselves, the ground is drifting in the way of known paths.

I need more, what about the ice caps. If you notice the ice caps in the 1984 image. The mass seems to be centered near where the magnetic north pole was at that time. in the 2016 image, the center of the ice mass is closer to the defined north pole, to the magnetic north pole location at that time.

What about ice caps in history? I remember, from my reading assignments, the statements of ice caps during the last mini ice age were located over North America and southern Africa. If I follow this theory, then the north and south poles were located here at that time. Meaning that the drift had shifted the crust to this location, during this time.

I find artic ice caps look to follow magnetic north pole location, possibly indicating that this is the true top of the planet, defining one end of our fixed axis of rotation. I speculate that the crust is floating and drifting around this axis. If this is so then there is some outside force involved in controlling this drifting action. A higher density soul is involved here.

There are many speculations in these words, but that is normal in my writings, a lot of ‘IF’s”. The deviation that I found may be in error, this is not the raw data, it has been washed and cleaned up a bit. The files that I have are reports to management, bar graphs and charts, and one large sheet of data points. I am hunting down the data computer still. The IT department removes the hard drive, scraps the chassis, tosses the hard drive in a bin. When the bin is full, the drives are destroyed by a service. I found the bin, at least a hundred drives, no record of what they were used for. A needle in a haystack. I need to find the raw data to continue any more here, it might contain the raw data that I am looking for.

This is the end of this session, I hope that I was at least entertaining for you all. Keep your spirits up, we are all entering the hardest times in this 3D reality. Don’t panic, Haiku …
 

mrtn

Jedi Master
I would think that due to leap years and other time adjustments the time between the same date/time in two consecutive years will not be exactly one orbit of earth around the sun. Did you account for that?
 
Top Bottom