September 11, 2001

Dear Jim and contributors,

The Journal of Theoretics being a good example of the high degree of civilization and freedom offered by the USA and opened to everybody in the world, I would like to express you all my sympathy after the gruesome terrorist attack that has been perpetrated yesterday against your country.

Best regards,
Jean-Louis Tane

Dr. Siepmann's response:  Thank you for your thoughts.  It was an unimaginable tragedy.  Hopefully the civilized world will come together to stop such terrorism, no matter where it occurs.  See "September 11th, 2001".

Comments on the Time Equivalence of the Tropical Year & Sidereal Year

The author of Time Equivalence of the Tropical Year and the Sidereal Year (Journal of Theoretics, Vol. 3-No. 3), claims that there is no real difference between the tropical year and the sidereal year, and offers a mathematical proof. However, the last paragraph of that article references a data set that does not support the argument. Apparently, the physics community is correct that the tropical year and the sidereal year differ by about twenty minutes, and the two are not time equivalent.

Theoretically, it is possible the tropical year (the length of time from one vernal equinox to the next) is the same as the sidereal year (the length of time it takes the earth to move 360 degrees around the sun). It is also possible that they differ by a significant amount. For instance, precession could occur.

Thus, it is not possible to prove mathematically that there is no difference. Only observation can show whether there is a difference or not. The author of Time Equivalence of the Tropical Year and the Sidereal Year provided such observations by furnishing a link to a list of observations on the webpage http://www.siriusresearchgroup.com/article1.htm , but the observations are ambiguous. The early observations seem to support his contention, but later ones do not.

Two recent transit times for Sirius are listed as 
1999 05.04. -- 21h16'36.5"
2000 05.04. -- 21h13'41"

These are not actually transit times, in the usual meaning of the word, but are the times that Sirius transited the instrument, which was mounted in a southwesterly direction. Still, we can determine the length of the sidereal year from these measurements, subject to whatever observational error there may be. I will try to calculate the amount of time from one observation of Sirius to the time that Sirius made the same angle with the sun, from the Earth’s point of view. I use the same definitions of Sidereal Year, Tropical Year, and Mean Sidereal Day as defined in the article.

Since there are not an integer number of days in a year, we have to interpolate. The transit time is earlier by about 236 seconds every day (approximately the difference between the number of seconds in a mean solar day, 86400, and in a mean sidereal day, 86164.0905382—according to the definitions.) In other words, had we been looking through the telescope on the night previous to 2000-05.04, that is, 2000-05.03, then we’d expect that the transit would have occurred about 236 seconds later than 21h13'41", or at 21h17'37". We need to calculate the time when it would have been exactly 21h16'36.5", for some observer on the earth.

This is a simple interpolation calculation, but we must remember that the transit times are calendar days, not sidereal days, and there were 366 days between May 4, 1999, and May 4, 2000, because 2000 was a leap year. So, we have the length of the sidereal year as

Sidereal Year Length = 366 - (21h16'36.5" - 21h13'41")/236" days (mean solar)
Sidereal Year Length = 366 - (175.5"/236") days 
Sidereal Year Length = 365.256356 days 
Sidereal Year Length = 31558149 seconds

That’s 20 minutes longer than the tropical year. That is very close to the generally accepted value for the sidereal year.

Such measurements have been done with much more precision and better instruments, and the results are similar. There does not seem to be any doubt that precession occurs, and even the author’s own data supports that.

Respectfully,
R. M. Mentock  <mentock@mindspring.com>

Response from the author:

It was argued that the observations of Sirius are ambiguous. Two transit times were chosen in an attempt to calculate the length of time it takes the Earth to move 360 degrees around the sun (sidereal year). The calculation, however, is based on the false premise that the complete orbit period is being affected by accumulating and variable rotation time differences, as measured on the last transit for instance. 
It is an erroneous belief that time variations relative to the absolute rotation period of the Earth on its axis (mean sidereal day) must translate into a roughly 366-fold time difference (http://www.siriusresearchgroup.com/article3.htm link inactive as of December 2004) for the Earth to move 360 degrees around the sun. 

The rotation of the Earth is not completely predictable. The observations of Sirius have shown that throughout Earth's orbital period the rotation period can be subject to significant daily variations, presumably due to oscillations of the axis of rotation. There is nothing ambiguous about such observations. 
The mean transit time of Sirius, as determined by method of direct transit measurement, does not conform to the model of lunisolar precession: 

1994 06.04. 21h11'50"
2000 05.04. 21h13'41"
(2191 solar days × 86400 s + 111 s) ÷ 2197 transits of Sirius = 86164.0924 seconds 

In practice, the results of long-term transit measurements get applied in order to determine the mean sidereal day of 86164.0905382 seconds. The adjective mean denotes here that periodic and non-periodic variations have been averaged out, the mean rotation being affected only by the apparent daily regression of the stars. Based on the adopted value of 50.26" per tropical year, the extra rotation time relative to the stars is about 9.12 millisecond per day and not 3.34 seconds per day, as one is misled to believe.

The absolute rotation period plus 9.12 ms represents a rotation of 360° 0.1368". The difference of 9.12 ms must be removed to calculate the 360-degree orbit period during which the Earth makes exactly one absolute rotation more relative to inertial space than relative to the sun. 
The mathematical facts are conclusive. Irrelevant of the rate of the apparent annual regression of the stars, it takes the absolute center of the Earth 31,556,925.97474 seconds to move 360 degrees around the sun relative to the inertial point of reference that remains fixed with respect to the orientation of the Earth's axis in space. 

No comments were made on the 1955 IAU action regarding the substitution of the tropical year for 1900.0 for the sidereal year for 1900.0 (http://www.siriusresearchgroup.com/ecomments5.htm link inactive as of December 2004) of 31,556,925.97474 seconds. Apparently, the physics community is correct that the two years are time equivalent. 

Uwe Homann

Government Waste?

Dear Dr. Siepmann:

The following is, in my view, a serious public interest issue. 

Please note the following correspondence [below] between myself and the US-DOE. Basically, it may be construed as the statement of a Government position that a proposed scientific discovery is not worthy of examination by taxpayer-supported scientific establishment until it is published in an "appropriate" journal. Yours is clearly deemed not to be an appropriate journal.

Sincerely yours,
Bibhas R. De

Dear Dr. [X]:

I am seeking your kind attention in forwarding this letter to the appropriate people in your organization.

This matter concerns my paper "THE MISSED PHYSICS OF SOURCE-FREE MAGNETIC FIELD", available at: http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/3-3/bibhas-pub.htm.

The paper has been studied many times at length and depth at Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, which to date has been unable to disprove it. However, they seem to be reluctant to publish a public refutation, preferring to keep the dispute under wraps. This is not a philosophical or subjective issue - the paper is either correct or incorrect. 

Since the matter concerns the very core of the science of magnetically confined fusion, it seems to me that your organization should have an interest in this matter. It seems to me that all parties concerned can benefit by a public assessment of this idea. Therefore I seek the aid of your office in urging Princeton and/or any other organization that you support to publish a refutation.

I am currently writing a tentative "white paper" on the ramification of the new idea.

Thanking you in advance, I am,

Sincerely yours,

Bibhas R. De, Ph. D.

Response from US-DOE:

Subj: RE: MAGNETICALLY CONFINED FUSION - NEW PHYSICS?
Date: 8/8/2001 1:15:32 PM EST
From:  Dr. [X]

Dear Dr. Bibhas:

I would suggest that if you would like to engage the fusion science community in a debate about your ideas, you prepare an article for an appropriate peer-reviewed journal. This is the mechanism normally used to begin such discussions.

Dr. [X]
Office of Fusion Energy Sciences

Dr. Bibhas responds:

Dear Dr. [X]:

Many thanks for your kind response. In reply to my request that your office urge the Magnetically Confined Fusion research community to publish a public refutation of my recent paper, you write:

"I would suggest that if you would like to engage the fusion science community in a debate about your ideas, you prepare an article for an appropriate peer-reviewed journal. This is the mechanism normally used to begin such discussions."

This comment suggests that I have failed to properly set forth the matter for you. I will do so now. This letter can then also serve as a later referral to the Inspector General of DOE, should it come to that.

First, the paper HAS BEEN published in a peer-reviewed journal. It stands documented. One can argue about which journal is better or worse, but this is irrelevant once a scientific idea has been properly documented in the proper language of science.

Second, I have tried unsuccessfully to initiate the debate that you suggest for the past five years, having failed to publish the paper in some 20 "appropriate peer-reviewed journals". They simply would not let the paper 
see the light of day.

Third, the above rejection was based mostly on authoritative assertions that the paper is wrong (without any proof thereof). In other cases, it was deemed not appropriate or urgent for publication. However, they have no problems justifying the time-critical publication of papers on Time Machines and Teleportation when these come from the anointed among them. 

Fourth, upon the publication of the paper by Journal of Theoretics, a very serious and in-depth effort was made to disprove it at Princeton University. This was done because a scientist there became irate with the publication of this paper which he had earlier rejected for another journal. I have however worked closely with them on this, assisting them in their assessment. But this effort has not gone anywhere. They have not shared their calculations with me, will not publish them for everyone to see, and are reluctant to let me quote their failure to disprove the paper. When I mentioned that I was following up further on my idea, they said I was making too big a deal of it.

Fifth, the paper is either correct or incorrect. If correct, it means that this community is deficient at the very core. It may even mean that sustained magnetically confined fusion is a theoretical impossibility.

Sixth, I have contacted a very large number (hundreds) of responsible leaders of the physics community over this. I have sought their help in getting the paper debated. The result was complete silence. After the paper is 
published, the silence continues.

Seventh, this community has recently been reviewed by a high-level panel which has a issued a sternly critical report. The main point seems to be that this community has a tunnel vision, refusing to look at the broader 
relevant issues of physics beyond their own chosen narrow focus. Their present conduct bears out this criticism.

Eighth, if you think that a learned group as whole can do no wrong, I can point you to the standards set in this area by physicists themselves. Recently, they mounted a highly visible attack on the Social Theory community, calling them intellectual impostors. After the publication of that book, there was much self-congratulatory rejoicing over this in the pages of the flagship news journal PHYSICS TODAY.

Ninth, earlier I contacted the OSTP in the Executive Office of the President on what the appropriate equivalent in physics would be for the ORI. I was told that it would be the Inspector General of the relevant funding agency.

For all these reasons and more, I feel that the matter is ready and appropriate for the Government office that oversees the distribution of public funds to this community. But I am not asking much of your office at 
all. It is not at all unusual for funding agencies (FDA, NIH etc) to initiate interest in a controversial issue. In fact, it's a crucial part of their job. This need not be done formally or in an officious manner. All that is 
necessary is for an agency scientist (a grant monitor) to call an appropriate academic, exchange pleasantries, and casually inject something like this: "Hey Ron, what's the deal with this? … I see. Another crackpot paper?… OK, so if it is so patently wrong, it should take much to write up a rebuttal and 
publish it?… Better do this and get done with it." 

Sincerely yours,
Bibhas R. De, Ph. D.

Dr. Siepmann responds:

Your plight is unfortunately not unique. The acceptance of papers by the Journal of Theoretics, is somewhat different in that rather than a paper having to prove a proposition, the Journal of Theoretics will accept papers if they contain no gross significant scientific inaccuracies, flaws in logic, or known falsehoods. This allows theories to be aired rather than hidden. Additionally, the best theorists are not necessarily the best experimentalists and visa versa. It is an uphill battle for a journal such as ours, which has a different concept of what merits publication than all of the other journals. I feel that our policy is the more enlightened and allows for the greatest advancement of Science.