Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!uwmcsd1!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!markh
From: markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins)
Newsgroups: sci.misc
Subject: Re: Plantes & actions (was Re: Omni-Americans)
Message-ID: <5331@uwmcsd1.UUCP>
Date: 23 Mar 88 05:02:22 GMT
References: <5017@uwmcsd1.UUCP> <2790@gryphon.CTS.COM> <1221@uop.edu> <1077@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> <465@flatline.UUCP> <133@aplcomm.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@uwmcsd1.UUCP
Reply-To: markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins)
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Lines: 113
Keywords: Fourier analysis.
Summary: You HAD to ask ...


                   In article <133@aplcomm.UUCP>:
	  jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (James W. Meritt) writes:

>                  In article <465@flatline.UUCP>:
>           erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) writes:

>>                 In article <1077@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>:
>>        lindsay@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) writes:

>>>                 In article <5143@uwmcsd1.UUCP>:
>>>    markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes:

<REFERRING TO THE POSSIBLE CONNECTION BETWEEN SEASONAL MATING CYCLES AND
 THE PERSONALITY INHERITED AT THE TIME OF CONCEPTION>:
>>>>
>>>> And yet, despite the fact that this shows there to be nothing inherently
>>>> absurd about Astrology, many scientists will scoff just at the very idea.

<BLUFFING>:
>>> The idea that planets influence you is subject to calculation, and hence can
>>> be proved (and has been proved) absurd.

<CALLING ON BLUFF>:
>>Ok, first off, who's "proved" this, and how have they proved it?
>>It seems to me that since:
>>

<CALLING ON CALL OF THE BLUFF>:
>How about you?  I provide some assumptions, you do the calculations
>and that way we may both be satisfied?

<I HOPE THIS DOES NOT EXHAUST YOUR STACK LIMIT ... 7 ISN"T IT?>

<LAYING OUT THE CARDS>:
Time to step in here.  You want actual calculations?  Well, you'll get them.
You may not like the verdict however.  
>
>Known influences: gravity & electromagnetic
>Test case for gravity:
>test object 1 - closest planet: venus
>test object 2 - biggest planet: jupiter
>(ineligable:	sun:	you said PLANET
>		moon:	ibid
>		earth:	nolo contendre on that, piedro!
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh, you'd be suprised! At the right frequencies Jupiter predominates over
the Earth.

>test object 3 - empire state building

Let's put the moon in the calculations anyway for comparison.

GRAVITATIONAL EFFECTS:
To really do this justice, we should be taking Fourier components of the
gravity fields involved.  What you'll find will suprise you.

1 nano-G = 1 billionth of the acceleration of gravity 
	   (1000-million)th for European readers.

EMPIRE STATE BUILDING:             JUPITER:
1.17 millionth of a nano-G         20 nano-G (DC)
(DC component)                     AC components exist with a fundamental
No appreciable AC components.      frequency of .917 cycles per year.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^      Only the first several harmonics are
				   appreciable.

To calculate the AC components for Jupiter, find the Fourier series of
                                                     -1
        20.9 nano-G * [ 1 + .371 * cos (2 PI t / T) ]
where
			    T = 1.08 years ( = 1/.917)

I believe they are Legendre polynomials evaluated at .371 multiplied by 20.9.

I am assuming that the Empire State Building is a million (metic) tons and
about 1500 miles from where I sit (Milwaukee).

The DC components alone: Jupiter's is about 20 MILLION times larger.
You'd have to get within SEEING distance of the building for the gravity
fields to be the same.  Further, the Empire State building is not in orbit
so it does not have any appreciable frequency components other than DC.

The MOON:
36000 nano-G (DC).
AC components exist with a fundamental frequency of 12.5 cycles per year.

I've ignored the effects of the Earth's rotation here.  However, there are
harmonics with the fundamental requency of 1 cycle per day (thereabouts) that
cause tidal actions on the Earth.

Clearly, we are talking about response to low frequencies.  The real question
to ask is whether or not the fields of Jupiter and the Moon are drowned out
by the noise around the Earth.  The calculations involving the Empire State
Building answer that question fairly well.  NO.

... and this is the real issue here : the signal-to-noise ratio.

>Test case for EM radiation:
>test object 1 - noisest EM planet: jupiter
>test object 2 - WTOP FM 105 on your dial, Washington DC
>test object 3 - doctor (ir emitter, 98.6, range < 1 meter)
>
>Look up transmitting power, look up distance. rank.

Turn on your radio for that. It is a measuring instrument, after all.
A calculator, by the way, transmits in the FM band (at least the old ones do).

A historical note : Astrology and Astronomy did not become fully distinguished
until the end of the Middle Ages.  Up to that time, both had been studied under
the topic of "Astronomy", which was one of the four major fields in the
Quadrivium.  Now guess where the word "Trivia" came from?  (A meta-Trivia
question.)