# Deconstructing the History of Heliocentrism and Modern Physics



## dreamtime (Jun 12, 2021)

This thread is exclusvely for deconstructing the mainstream model of astrophysics, including quantum physics, which is the foundation for the heliocentric model. There seems to be a lot of data indicating that humans always believed in the stationary earth, and only during the last hundreds years did the PTB manage to replace it with the belief in the exact opposite.

Questions for further research:


When did people start to believe in heliocentrism
Who was involved in promoting heliocentrism
Nature of the evidence of widespread historical belief in a stationary earth
cosmology in myths and religions supporting a stationary earth
Evidence showing that modern physics was solely created to support the heliocentric lie, to destroy our connecton to the truth, our own history, and creator

This thread is not for promoting a new belief system about the exact shape of the earth.

Previously, I wrote the following, which could offer a good start at thinking about ways to destroy the heliocentric paradigm:

130 years ago the Michelson and Morley experiment implied that the earth does not move, because in that time it was generally accepted that the aether exist. From that the PTB managed to twist the results, saying the experiment proves that if the earth is in motion, then the aether does not exist.

Einstein was called to the stage and managed to create an insane and absurd theoretical model that explained everything away that Michelson and Morley implied: Light-speed was now a constant, and the aether did not exist anymore. With light-speed as a constant, the michelson and morley experiment suddenly did not mean that the earth is stationary, but that the aether did not exist.

Without Einstein, there would have been no practical way of explaining the stationary earth away. He basically saved mainstream physics.

Einstein's gibberish theory came with the high price that everything since then in physics is utter bullshit, and it is so complicated even on the theoretical level that it doesn't even make sense to the people who come up with the models.

The NASA lies play into all of this to keep the fantasy alive.

Most of our true history is already lost, but if somehow enough people start to see through the fables of modern physics and NASA, it could lead to a mass realization of us not living on a convex globe. From that an entirely new way of interpreting history could start, with questioning the concepts of evolution/genetics, materialism, atheism, religion and other aspects the PTB have installed during the last 200 years.

It isn't likely that people wake up in regards to physics, but I think it's the most plausible catalyst for change, as history itself is too abstract to matter for people, and physics at least is the foundation for the entire space saga, and I am not sure the PTB will manage to keep up the lie for ongoing generations, even with the availability of CGI.


----------



## Gladius (Jun 12, 2021)

Thanks for this @dreamtime 
We need a place to discuss this apart from the FE theory.
I have some historical findings in regards to heliocentrism and when did people start to embrace it. Is this the thread for it, or do we keep it scientific on this one?


----------



## dreamtime (Jun 12, 2021)

Gladius said:


> I have some historical findings in regards to heliocentrism and when did people start to embrace it. Is this the thread for it, or do we keep it scientific on this one?



That's exactly what I had in mind for this thread.


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 12, 2021)

The heliocentric model was adopted after Kepler took over Tycho Brahe's work. Tycho Brahe was a proponent of the geocentric model and he was one of the leading scientists at the time and had done years of observations that he had kept to himself.
Tycho Brahe was poisoned, which is how Kepler allegedly got control of his data and research. Kepler took this research and reframed it in the context of the heliocentric model, which was then popularized. Anoher possibility is that Kepler simply made up the data and credited it to Tycho Brahe, who "had kept it hidden from everyone".

Reading Tycho Brahes work might be a good start.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jun 12, 2021)

"_Nor is it necessary that these hypotheses should be true, nor indeed even probable, but it is sufficient if they merely produce calculations which agree with the observations... And let no one expect from astronomy, as far as hypotheses are concerned, anything certain, since it cannot produce any such thing, in case if he seizes on things constructed for another other purpose as true, he departs from this discipline more foolish than he came to it. The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena, and not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood._" (Nicolaus Copernicus 'To the Reader on the Hypotheses In this Work', Unsigned preface by Andreas Osiander to Copernicus: On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres (1543), trans. A. M. Duncan, 1976)



dreamtime said:


> Who was involved in promoting heliocentrism



Imo, the Jesuits were in it up to their necks. Copernicus was a Jesuit.

"_300 years before Quantum Mechanics, Sir Isaac Newton came up with Classical Mechanics which describes very basic action and reaction. Newton’s entire work in Physics and Calculus was taken wholesale from the Vedas and Kerala book of Calculus. It was simply taken from the Vedas where it was originally used for calculating rates of change in Astronomy and Astrology for many thousands of years before Newton._" (I wrote that down about 8 years ago and don't remember where I found it, sorry.)

Great idea to try and discuss this subject without the emotionally contentious FE.


----------



## Joemcgee (Jun 12, 2021)

I've been up in this neck of the woods recently, I'll try to distill some general findings over several posts, the table of contents if you will, will be as follows 
-1500s- John Dee, The platonic atomists and the cuboctahedron
-1700- Boskovichs theory of natural philosophy: The tomb Tesla Carried
-1800s - Maxwells Publishers, and Heavisides Naivety: The fall of the "Heretic Quaternion"
-Early 1900s - Einstein as the genius' midwit: a great synthesizer that lacked nerve
-1930s - Gauge Cope: The truncation of Electromagnetism, and the original sin of Yang-Mills
-1950s - The return of the magnetic Vector potential: Bohm - Aharonov and the primacy of the potentials

Current Era
-Reconsidering the Ponyting Vector with the A field: valid solutions where the E and B field is 0
-Longditudinal waves of charge density: and the fabric of spacetime

-Did the Jesuits discover this through Sumerian Tablets?
-1000 years of forged history in a new context: Parallel universes' and shared state from the mother timeline


Joemcgee said:


> -1500s- John Dee, The platonic atomists and the cuboctahedron


Much on this forum has been written of Elizabethan Polymath John Dee Search results for query: john dee What I would like to add of note is a study is his work called the Monas Hieroglyphica - Wikipedia An Alchemical work written cryptically so as to hide its knowledge from the inquisition.  In the analysis performed here http://newporttowermuseum.com/resou...as-Hieroglyphica-with-regards-to-Geometry.pdf Equates the sacred meaning of the book to a simple shape, the Cuboctahedron - Wikipedia.  Furthermore This shape was added in the first english translation of Euclid Elements (by John Dee) as the 15th and 16th volumes.  Parts of the book that were censored in the 18th and 19th century's successively.  To this day only the first 13 volumes are mentioned. What was so important than, about this shape?

Coinciding with Dee and his network, was the analysis of the closest packing of spheres, Close-packing of equal spheres - Wikipedia .  Given that the physical interpretion of the universe was that matter was made up of indivisible atoms.  It remains an interesting postulate that John Dee, who judged that the closest packing of many atoms forms a cuboctahedron, that the Earth itself would become such a shape.  Could this be the significance behind the Monas hieroglyphica and the truncation of Euclids Elements? Was the Flat earth theory of antiquity Cuboctahedral Earth? I rest this case


Joemcgee said:


> -1700- Boskovichs theory of natural philosophy: The tomb Tesla Carried






Roger Joseph Boscovich - Wikipedia (Yes a Jesuit) physics textbook A theory of natural philosophy : Boscovich, Ruggero Giuseppe, 1711-1787 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive A Theory of Natural Philosophy is the tomb Tesla is reading in this photograph.  As another anonymous poster once mentioned, photographs in this era were quite the ordeal, and as such everything was planned.  Before the age of the internet, when knowledge was at ones fingertips, one had to be very choose of what books to lug around, and for Nikola Tesla, the inventor essentially of modernity, this was it.

Boscovich is seldom taught in schools today.  They teach Newton, and Leibniz, but for some reason the theory that presents itself as between the two is neglected.  As spelled out in detail in (PDF) ROGER BOSCOVICH - THE FOUNDER OF MODERN SCIENCE 



> In 1758 Roger Boscovich (1711-1787) published his monumental work "A Theory of natural philosophy reduced to a one unique law of forces that exist in nature". The Theory has had a major impact on Boscovich's contemporaries and resulted in many followers in the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th century. Today it is no longer present in the curricula of schools and colleges. Apart from the few individuals, our contemporaries, even highly educated people, know almost nothing about Boscovich. His life, scientific activity and philosophical views, as well as his influence on contemporaries and followers are dealt in this monograph*. His Theory is actually the very first quantum theory*. He was the first one to draw the orbitals by which a particle moves around particles located in a center and explain that by transition from one orbital to another a particle either gains or loses a certain amount (quantum) of energy



To retrace and find the error that has left physics stranded for the past 50 years, deriving ones foundations from Boscovich is a great start!


Joemcgee said:


> -1800s - Maxwells Publishers, and Heavisides Naivety: The fall of the "Heretic Quaternion"


Dimensional Analysis :: Maxwell's Units could describe it better than I ever could.  



> i.e. the result of a Wick-rotation (by π/2) into an orthogonal imaginary dimension having units of length. They exist, like time, in another dimension, but we can't directly see them, nor move around in them. They're invisible to us, like the electromagnetic and gravitational "potentials" whereby Nature mysteriously stores energy in spacetime itself.
> 
> Imaginary Dimensions​"The peculiarity of our space is that of its three dimensions, none is before or after another. As is x, so is y, and so is z. If you have 4 dimensions, this becomes a puzzle. For first, if three of them are in our space, then which three? Also, if we lived in space of m dimensions, but were only capable of thinking n of them, then first, which n? Second, if so, things would happen requiring the rest to explain them, and so we should either be stultified or made wiser. I am quite sure that the kind of continuity [spacetime] which has four dimensions all co-equal, is not to be discovered by merely generalising Cartesian space equations. ... it was Jacob Steiner who considered the final cause of space to be the suggestion of new forms of continuity." — James Clerk Maxwell, in correspondence with C.J. Monro, Esq., 15 Mar 1871
> 
> Maxwell's informal conversations with other mathematical physicists on the question of detecting additional dimensions clearly reveals he was trying to comprehend the orthogonal dimensionality of electric and magnetic "lines of force". His keen interest in understanding and utilising _imaginary dimensions_ was also evident, for example: "I am getting converted to Quaternions, and have put some in my book [_A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 1873_], in a heretical form..." — James Clerk Maxwell, correspondence with Prof. Lewis Campbell, 19 Oct 1872.





> Unfortunately, very few physicists understood Maxwell's unconventional quaternion notation, which split their real and imaginary components. His publisher urged him to simplify the math, so he spent years revising his masterwork. Even that considerable simplification wasn't enough for the "Maxwellians", notably Oliver Heaviside, who reformulated Maxwell's field equations in terms of energy flux and electromagnetic forces. In the process, Heaviside naively eliminated the electric and magnetic potentials, which he considered "mystical" and "metaphysical". Fortunately, these potentials were eventually rescued from oblivion by Richard Feyman in his theory of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).
> 
> Maxwell's unorthodox approach to quaternion calculus suggests that he'd intuitively grasped the notion of three orthogonal imaginary dimensions, superimposed on three orthogonal real dimensions. Nevertheless, he struggled to understand the means by which potential energy is stored in electromagnetic and gravitational force-fields, and how energy can impose stress into empty space itself, creating a magnetic tension, an electrical potential, or a gravitational field.





Joemcgee said:


> Early 1900s - Einstein as the genius' midwit: a great synthesizer that lacked nerve


Furthermore on the above website pointing to Maxwells electromagnetism 


> In his theory of Special Relativity (1905), Albert Einstein multiplied clock time by the speed of light (c) and the square root of minus one, the imaginary unit √-1, to construct an "imaginary time" dimension with units of length. In the ground-breaking _"Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"_ paper of 1905, Einstein explicitly defined the fourth spacetime dimension as √-1∙_c∙t_, or _ict_. This invention was necessitated by the phenomena of relativistic length contraction and time dilation, where a particle moving at a velocity close to the speed of light experiences time flowing at a slower rate, and distances shortening in the line of motion, as measured by an observer in an "inertial frame of reference", i.e. at rest. Einstein postulated "The Principle of Invariant Light Speed", meaning that light always travels at the same speed, _c_, irrespective of the relative motion of the light source and observer.
> 
> By 1907, however, Hermann Minkowski (his former mathematics tutor) had convinced Einstein that the √-1 imaginary unit was superfluous to his abstracted "geometrical four-dimensional spacetime manifold", subsequently known as Minkowski space. Instead of being a mathematically-imaginary dimension, time became a "pseudo-real" dimension in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity of 1915. Subsequently, Einstein only referred sporadically to the imaginary aspect of time, seemingly uncomfortable with an "imaginary quantity" that wasn't ponderable, material, and empirically measurable. He much preferred clocks, rulers, and trains.
> Following Einstein's earlier instincts, the other two requisite dimensions of length may be defined along additional imaginary axes, via further multiplication by √-1. The quaternion calculus, which fascinated Maxwell, readily defines the requisite complex spacetime dimensions as _Ζ = r(x,y,z) + iτ + jʀ + kλ_. This quaternion notation encapsulates five dimensions of length (two of which are imaginary), plus an imaginary dimension of local (proper) time.
> ...





Joemcgee said:


> -1930s - Gauge Cope: The truncation of Electromagnetism, and the original sin of Yang-Mills


Throughout science, the distinction between identity, equality and approximation is clearly distinguished and defined.  However, in the case of electromagnetism, often preached as one of the settled sciences, we receive a mathematical artefact that presents itself as an identity, that prescribes a set of equalities to traverse an approximation- this artefact is called Gauge Invariance. https://arxiv.org/vc/hep-ph/papers/0012/0012061v4.pdf The process in essence, involves truncating part of the electromagnetism equations (for example such as assuming the divergence of the magnetic vector potential is zero)

 
in the name of simplifying the mathematics.  Any sort of self reflexive relationship, or the ability tease out small order effects with carefully considered resonance amplification, will not be found in the maths.  

Yang-Mills theory Yang–Mills theory - Wikipedia. "the basis of our understanding of the Standard Model of particle physics".  Inherits from Gauge-Theory directly, and extends itself as a generalisation of the technique, falling into the same pitfalls that Maxwell and Einstein had before them when rubbing up against the concept of imaginary dimensions



> In a private correspondence, Wolfgang Pauli formulated in 1953 a six-dimensional theory of Einstein's field equations of general relativity, extending the five-dimensional theory of Kaluza, Klein, Fock and others to a higher-dimensional internal space.[1] However, there is no evidence that Pauli developed the Lagrangian of a gauge field or the quantization of it. Because Pauli found that his theory "leads to some rather unphysical shadow particles", he refrained from publishing his results formally.[1] Although Pauli did not publish his six-dimensional theory, he gave two talks about it in Zürich.[2] Recent research shows that an extended Kaluza–Klein theory is in general not equivalent to Yang–Mills theory, as the former contains additional terms.[3] Chen Ning Yang long considered the idea of non-abelian gauge theories. Only after meeting Robert Mills did he introduce the junior scientist to the idea and lay the key hypothesis that Mills would use to assist in creating a new theory. This eventually became the Yang-Mills Theory, as Mills himself discussed,
> 
> 
> 
> > "During the academic year 1953-1954, Yang was a visitor to Brookhaven National Laboratory...I was at Brookhaven also...and was assigned to the same office as Yang. Yang, who has demonstrated on a number of occasions his generosity to physicists beginning their careers, told me about his idea of generalizing gauge invariance and we discussed it at some length...I was able to contribute something to the discussions, especially with regard to the quantization procedures, and to a small degree in working out the formalism; however, the key ideas were Yang's."[4]


Hence why I call this the original sin of yang-mills, to start on the tenets of gauge theory, a truncation of the mathematics just in the name of simplicity, may get closer to the truth, but it shoulders the burden of not considering the whole system.

Thankfully, especially in the wake of optical phase conjugation, efforts to make electrodynamics gauge free can be found in (PDF) Implications of Gauge-Free Extended Electrodynamics and
(PDF) Electrodynamics with the Scalar Field

If science wants to dig itself out the mathematical garb they've blinded themselves with, re examining gauge theory is another good area of questioning


Joemcgee said:


> -1950s - The return of the magnetic Vector potential: Bohm - Aharonov and the primacy of the potentials


As one may recall from a highschool physics course, sometimes the key to solving a problem is to break it up into parts.  Like shooting a cannon of a hill, one breaks it down into a horizontal component and a vertical component. It is similar in the field theories that describe in electro magnetism, where one breaks it down into the sum of an irrotational (curl-free) vector field and a solenoidal (divergence-free) vector field.  For the jargon heads, this is called Helmholtz Decomposition.  Many physics courses even today, when applying this technique to the Magnetic (B) Field, tell us that the Magnetic Vector Potential, or A-field that spits out of this process is simply a mathematical garb, with no physical significance.  Well, much to their chagrin, the Aharonov–Bohm effect - Wikipedia blows this notion out of the water, where the A field superscedes the B field as the most physical or real thing.  Given this advent, the truncation of the A field through gauge theory is not benign, but neglecting a major part of the story of electromagnetism


Joemcgee said:


> Reconsidering the Ponyting Vector with the A field: valid solutions where the E and B field is 0





As illustrated in this SCALAR WAVES | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov) document, the physical, non-zero significance for something called the Poynting's theorem - Wikipedia which describes the conservation of energy for the electro magnetic field.  Normally we can expect that in regions where the Electric and Magnetic Field is 0, that the total energy flow is 0 as well.  However, with these tools, we can see a special case where E=0, B=0 and the curl of the magnetic vector potential is also 0.  This opens up some new combinations of waves that rely on densitys of the scalar potential and magnetic vector potential


Joemcgee said:


> Longditudinal waves of charge density: and the fabric of spacetime


The idea of waves of charge density is a fascinating meditation in the context of relativity and the conception of space itself.  As gravity is usually denoted in terms of mass, since mass and energy is equivalent through the approximation E ~= mc^2, its just as valid to represent gravity as related to energy density.  Objects of incredible charge like Magnetars, bend the fabric of space time through their electomagnetic fields.  Indeed, when considering the relativistic interpretations of the phenomenon of magnetism, magnetism actually doesn't even exist, Its actually an electric force observed from a different frame of reference 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0&ab_channel=VeritasiumVeritasium_
 where space inside the wire is warped to a degree that it looks like a force is happening.  You read that right, we are now talking about using charge density to warp the fabric of spacetime!




While one cannot travel faster than the speed of light, one can shorten the distance between to points with resonating waves of charge density!

While spacetime is very rigid https://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/stiffness.pdf it is not perfectly so, thus the analogy 



_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WffR6HrEqTA&ab_channel=EdUniPhysicsAstroEdUniPhysicsAstro_


of doing this, just with charge density wave generators, to create specifically Victor Schaubergers Implosion


----------



## Gladius (Jun 12, 2021)

My contribution here comes from an angle that I've worked, something which I stumbled upon and led to a research that combined historicity of Heliocentrism with ancient chronology issues. It's another rabbit hole for which I have material for a unique thread but let's see.
Every piece I found led me to open a new layer. So if you read it all, I hope you'd keep up with my line of thought because the subject is multi-layered.

It first started when I was wondering about the meaning of a certain known Old Testament phrase.
_*"From India to Kush"*_

Book of Esther* 1:1: "*_This is what happened during the time of *Xerxes*, the Xerxes who ruled over 127 provinces stretching from *India to Cush*: 2 At that time King Xerxes reigned from his royal throne in the citadel of *Susa*"_

The book tells the tales of the Jews in the Persian kingdom, under Xerxes' rule (Ahasuerus) The book isn't claimed to represent a specific Xerxes, but the narrative places it in the *Achaemenid Empire of circa 480 B.C.*

What does this verse mean? Well, the modern narrative tells us that the empire simply stretched from India to Kush (east Africa), and that's it.
In the Hebrew Bible, the verse goes like:
וַיְהִי, בִּימֵי אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ:  הוּא אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, הַמֹּלֵךְ מֵהֹדּוּ וְעַד-כּוּשׁ--שֶׁבַע וְעֶשְׂרִים וּמֵאָה, מְדִינָה.
"He is Ahashverosh (_Ahasuerus_), who rules rules from Hodu and until Kush"

My personal research convinced me we certainly do not know the actual locations of biblical places. Hodu=India, and Kush=Ethiopia,
are but early modern interpretations that should be taken with caution.

Before we continue on the verse's meaning, let's jump briefly to Heliocentrism.

We have encountered evidence or hypothesis in regards to how and when was the modern heliocentric model pushed, and who are the characters behind it. We're generally told that the model came to life by the late 1400's, followed by persecution, and becoming somewhat accepted only by the 1700's. We're in doubt, of course, but let's 'roll'. roll

In the circle of* Judaism*, the heliocentric controversy continued way longer, it is told. Disputes continued there into the *19th *century.

The Talmud, a claimed to be 4th century creation (midages, imo), declares all 'Greek wisdom' to be dangerous, and includes 'earth-shape science'. The first Jew to mention the heliocentric model is the famous Rabbi,
Maharal of Prague (1593), who labels it unreliable. (He is known for creating 'The Golem', and possibly an alchemist.) Despite being in contact with *Tycho Brahe*, he dismissed the heliocentric model. 

We have then a renowned, *progressive *Rabbi, who by the 16th-17th century still does not accept the new model.
Normally, we are expecting this to be this way. Right?

Back to *'India to Kush'.*
Just as our world history and literature was 'hijacked', the world of Judaism had the same fate. Perhaps to have some understanding of OT verses, one must dig into the old manuscripts of the many Rabbis of early times.
Those Rabbis discuss the meaning of the verse for many centuries. Most of such writings exist only in the Hebrew or Aramaic language, and finding translations is quite rare. I took the work to translate a few.

The common thing for all the discussions, is that they do not try to identify the locations - they're actually certain of them.
In fact, the only subject for them is: Do they represent the *whole of the world.*
The Rabbis simply explain us that India to Kush means "ruled the whole world"?
And why so? Because India and Kush are next to one another (?), if a man was to walk in a straight line from India - he'd up end in Kush, means he went *all around the world. 

What do Jewish sources say?*
I have multiple interesting sources, it's a long one - you might skip mid-way.

*1) *
In the Talmud we see a dispute of 2 opinions:
Babylonian Talmud, Megilah scroll, 11, Page 1:
חד אמר: הודו בסוף העולם וכוש בסוף העולם, 
וחד אמר: הודו וכוש גבי הדדי הוו קיימי (זו לצד זו עומדות), כשם שמלך על הודו וכוש - כך מלך מסוף העולם ועד סופו. 

Rough translation:
"One said: India is at the world's end, and Kush at its other end.
And the other said: India and Kush stand on each other's sides, and as he ruled over India and Kush, so he reigned over the world from end to end".


*2)* Rabbi Shlomo Alkabetz, (*1500-1576*), a most renowned Rabbi who lived in the *Ottoman Empire, *wrote in his book 'Manot haLevi' about this question. He quotes the Talmud's writing and elaborates:

'יש לתמוה מה להם לחלוק על זה ומה לשקר במקום עדים. יחקרו וידעו! (כלומר הרי הערים הללו נמצאות לפנינו. איך אפשר לחלוק בדבר שבמציאות. אפשר ללכת למקום ולבדוק). וכן במחלוקת תפסח ועזה. 
והאמת כי לא נחלקו, על זה אבל דעת שניהם שהם בהדי הדדי, אבל במשמעות איך כלל כל העולם בהם, הם חולקים. חד אמר כשם שמלך על הודו ועל כוש כך מלך על כל העולם, וחד אמר הודו בסוף, כי דבר ידוע כי הארץ כדורית  ואין סוף לכדור כי אם במקום אשר יתחיל ממנו' עכ"ל. ​My translation:

"We can wonder, why should they dispute over it, and lie. They can research - and know! meaning, those cities exist right before us. How can you dispute that which is in reality? You can go to the place itself and check it. And so about the dispute of *Tifsach-Azza**:
And even though they did not dispute that, one, and are of the same opinion, but the meaning of how the world is, they do dispute. One said that since he ruled over India and Kush, he therefore ruled the whole world. The other said, India is at its end,
*and it is a known thing that the earth is spherical* ("ballish"), *and there is no end for the ball, but in the place of where it begins*"

This quote had raised many serious questions for me, that relate to both earth-model, and to other subjects discussed in S.H.


So, how come a conservative and 'traditional' Rabbi such as Alkabetz, who lived in Ottoman Greece & Israel, could've express such things in the 1500's? We know that the heliocentric model comes from the "west", and was considered heresy and 'fringe' in those times. Not only the Jews completely dismissed it in those days, we're talking about the Ottoman ones, who are even less exposed to such ideas. (allegedly)


_Tifsach-Azza_: The Bible says of King Solomon who ruled from 'Tifsach to Azza'. The Talmud interpenetrates and compares this to "India to Kush", and explains it is but the same metaphor to mean: ruled the whole world.  (Megilah 11:1)
If in our days, nobody can safely assume the locations mentioned in the stories (India, Kush, Tifsach, Azza, Susan..), how come the 16th cen. Rabbi speaks of their existence with such confidence, as if their location is of *common knowledge*, and anyone can go visit them and verify the verse's meaning?

His description is strongly referring to the "globe", unlike other Jewish sources that speak of a 'circular' Earth. He seems to be fully aware of the globe theories, and even accepts them as an undisputed reality.
Has this Rabbi actually live in 16th century? Or like so many other characters, he's is an early-modern person that was pushed back in time? It seems the phantom time methods we know so well, reach to characters of all areas.


*3)* Saadia Gaon, (892-942 A.D) named "RSG", is a prominent Rabbi from Egypt, and one of the most honored in Judaism.
He wrote interpretations for many biblical books, among them the book of Esther. The commentary is written in old Hebrew and Aramaic, and I had to use modern translations to understand it. It depicts an interesting perspective of old geography.
My translation of selected parts:

- "the one who rules from India to Kush... our motive to look into this is, that we found both India and Kush to be on the South side. India is by the East on that line _(as in latitude/longtitude_), and Kush is next to the West. Our conclusion is: If this king did not rule but only that certain line, then this town wasn't even under his rule, even Susa itself (_the capital_) which is one of the seven provinces of Alahuaz (_a Persian region I couldn't identify_), was neither under his rule, for this is the 'first Climate', and Susa belongs in the 'second Climate'.
And by this calculation, even the People of Israel weren't under his rule. And since those calculations are *impossible ... ... *we should say that 'from India to Kush' means 'from sunrise to sunset'. Since the whole of the settled world is seven climates (from east to west), the first climate is the longest of them east-west, *due to the earth being round, *the climate lines gradually 'shrink'.  The book of Esther wrote of his kingdom only in latitude, and not in longtitude, and said 'India to Kush' by the longest of climates, the first line, which is from Sin to Chabash (_China to Ethiopia_) .... .... and when they say 'Tifsach' to 'Azza', ... they mean the north and south edge of the land. ... ... And so the book speaks only of the kingdom's east-west, and did not include its north-south, shall we say, from *Hur to Samagog*". (_spelled SMGOG_)


I find RSG less decisive about the model, and it might be confusing. However, if to connect the idea of a 'continuity' of Xerxes' kingdom, with the commentary of RSG, we can understand that he reigns from the east end, China, to the west end, Ethiopia (back then, west Africa). The north-south edges, Hur and Samagog, are locations which I cannot identify. Samagog, however, rings a bell with Gog/Magog, which on previous SH threads were placed in the areas of Siberia-Tartaria.

I have found an old commentary (by Rabbi Isaac Abarbanel) of the book of Ezekiel, about the chapter that speaks
of the famous _"Rosh, Gog, Tuval and Meschech"._


The word 'SMGOG' is mentioned there, in *relation to the cities and lands of Gog*. But to be able to fully read and analyze such old Hebrew texts (and fonts), one must be trained by the jewish orthodox schools, which I am not.
However, he did confirm to us - SMGOG is related to GOG.
We know from previous SH research that Gog/Magog is related with the far north.
We realize that the commenter, a famous Rabbi born in 1437, was aware of SMGOG.
RSG, from the previous quote, was *also *aware of its location.


*4)* Another perspective is given to us by Jerusalem-born rabbinical scholar,* David Azulay*, in the *1788 *book 'Dvarim Ahadim'.
He explains the connection with the holiday of Purim, which commemorates the story in the Book of Esther - The story of the (failed) plot to destroy the Jewish people of Xerxes' kingdom.
It says:
_"As the people of Israel were in *Sfard *(Spain) and *Afrika*, which were not under Xerxes rule, we are *all *obliged to perform the holiday of Purim, even the Israelis who were not under his rule. Because, if the plot against the Jews would've succeeded, the same would've been done to Israelis under the rule of all the other kings"._

A possible indication here, that the kingdom of Xerxes in fact influenced or partially dictated the policies of all the other kingdoms.

* * * *​
This multi-layered angle really made a lot of questions for me:


Who is Xerxes? and which kingdom does he really represent? We have many clones of such character, starting with Xerxes I. He seems to have affected every part of the world.
When did the globe actually emerge into mainstream? If Jews are said to be the latest to accept the theory, how come they engage with it prior to the 'progressives'' acceptance, and some even before the theory existed?
Is this 'phantom' time issue with old Jewish scholars leads to us to assume all such Jewish literature to be of a later time? Was the Talmud actually written closer towards the 13th century? We have events of Talmud Burning in Europe (dedicated Hebrew wiki) starting from *1242*, and repeating into the 1700's. Perhaps the Talmud was *NEW *then, and created controversy.
Are locations unknown to us were very clearly known to Jewish scholars? Gog, Hur, Tifsach, Azza, Susa, Hodu, Kush, are locations still in dispute today.
*What's wrong with Jewish chronology?*
This would be a good chance to introduce the Jewish concept of "The Missing Years".
An old issue of the* 165 year gap* between the Jewish and Modern chronologies. It is disputed to this day.
The subject itself could have its own thread, and I recommend any chronology researcher to look into it,
but let's use it now for this current post: On its Hebrew wiki page you will find a claim about it, made by a Dr. Haim Hefetz,
a PhD religion-history researcher (in a religious institute), where he says:
_"The Greek historians were not correct in their details, creating two contradicting versions, which forced historians 
to *add seven kings to the Persian Kingdom*, when they in fact represent the *same person*, by different stories"_

We actually see here _a _'mainstream' point of view which coincides with our SH narrative, where duplications are a key to explain missing years or phantom time._ Quite rare, I believe._

As I started the post with *Xerxes-Ahasuerus*, let's finish with him too.
Does the Talmud tell us who he is? Yes, and again, evidence of duplication! I roughly translated from Aramaic:
Babylonian Talmud, Rosh hashana, page 3-AB:
"_He is Cyrus, he is Artahashstra, he is Darius, all are called as one. ... ... and by the decreed order of king of Persia Cyrus and Darius and Artahashstra, released the Jews... ... ... He is Darius, called Cyrus the First, and he is also Artahashstra."
Artaxerxes_


*Medieval art *often depicts Ahasuerus as a *European king*, in western/slavic clothing. There are numerous depictions of scenes from the book.
In some cases, he's depicted as a Turban-wearing king, reminding of the 'Tartarian' style. His name's etymology is said to mean "king of kings", or "king of all". (Ahasue*rus *possibly connected to 'Rus')




_Ahasuerus, King of Persia, showing his treasure to Mordecai, uncle of his wife Esther, by Claude Vignon (1593-1670)_
Notice the *cross *on the King's head.

*

*
_Esther before Ahasuerus, 1478-1480. Artist: Lippi, Filippino _
A very white and hellenic type of scene.​
I hope this was contributive, even if not entirely about heliocentrism.
I wanted to show you how my 'shape of earth' questions collided with my 'stolen-history' questions


----------



## fabiorem (Jun 13, 2021)

Gladius said:


> When did the globe actually emerge into mainstream? If Jews are said to be the latest to accept the theory, how come they engage with it prior to the 'progressives'' acceptance, and some even before the theory existed?



It was always mainstream. This is from the middle ages:





What was not mainstream was the heliocentric model. The model was always this one above, a geocentric one. Notice some of these models shows a "ring of fire" around Earth, so they knew about the magnetosphere as well.
The stars in the firmament are actually holes in a black sphere, and outside there is only light. Hence why people who have near death experiences talks about a light.
Here is the classical figure of the wise man going outside of the universe, a allegory for a finite model:





It was always like that, in every tradition.
Heliocentrism only appeared in the 13th or 14th century, probably derived from the sun cult.
Flat Earth model have nothing to do with it. In fact, FE only appeared in the 19th century, through the so-called "zetetic astronomy".


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jun 13, 2021)

El Forastero said:


> Is someone going to link to the TYCHOS soon?
> 
> Yawn.
> 
> Oceans don't bend. Game over.


That is a very interesting model . When Brahe died/was murdered, Kepler stole his data . He was made to return it by the courts but retained all the data pertaining to Brahe's observations of Mars . I've always wondered about that , why Mars? I believe this data ended up in the Vatican but I can't recall the sources and don't have time to trawl the web now that good info is the needle in the haystack. 

Of course that model would have to redefine the so called speed of light , planetary distance - in fact all astronomical observation. Nice .


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jun 14, 2021)

I don't think the heliocentric model was accepted by mainstream science until after 1838 when Bessel was announced to have discovered stellar parallax . This link   https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/PT.3.1295    is to an article which gives the general acceptance of the theory as around 1770 .

This date is around the time of the death of Abbe de laCaille - famous astronomer whose work in south Africa had agreed with G. Cassinis 17th century surveys of France and  brought the oblate spheroid theory into question again.

Those newspaper articles from this thread SH Archive - Proof People Believed in Flat Earth in 1900 A.D.? take on a new meaning for me .  

Truth seems very hard to come by in the official history of anything. Maybe it takes hundreds of years to brainwash the whole world .


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jun 14, 2021)

fabiorem said:


> t was always like that, in every tradition.
> Heliocentrism only appeared in the 13th or 14th century, probably derived from the sun cult.
> Flat Earth model have nothing to do with it. In fact, FE only appeared in the 19th century, through the so-called "zetetic astronomy".



_"The concept of a* Sun-centred solar system was known to the ancient Greeks.* It predates Copernicus by nearly two millennia and can be traced back several centuries before Ptolemy's pronouncement that the Earth stood fixed and motionless at the centre of the universe."_ (Article)

_"In _*1595*_, an early Jesuit missionary to China, Matteo Ricci, recorded that the Chinese say: "*The earth is flat and square*, and the sky is a round canopy." In the 17th century, the idea of a spherical Earth spread in China due to the influence of the *Jesuits*, who held high positions as astronomers at the imperial court."_ (Article)

The Ancient Egyptians believed the Earth was flat and geocentric (although how that works with the supposed encoding of the circumference of the Earth in the Great Pyramid is a mystery.) Norse mythology is based on a flat earth plane through which grows the 'One Tree'. The Vedas contain both a globe model geocentric planetary system and a flat one, so you can take your pick.

Vedic Astrology, claimed to be the oldest in the World, was geocentric, although in modern times they have started to say that it is 'geo-referenced' rather than geocentric. The only vague reference to heliocentricism.. heliocentricness.. heliosychronictivity is in an English translation (i.e. deliberate mistranslation) of the Rig Veda.

 It's my considered opinion that the default concept of the Earth is of a flat, geocentric one, everything else came after.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jun 14, 2021)

Tried to find the source of the Eratosthenes legendary experiment , can't find anything going back further than the 17th Century . Copies of Manuscripts from monasteries as I recall. None of his work survives . Could be the same with all those philosophers mentioned in the article you linked . Eratosthenes himself has evolved from a poet/head librarian - who was known to a second rate philosopher with a duff nickname apparently - into some world class astronomer mathematician in the space of a few years . Suits the new helio model beginnings image I suppose.

My opinion is that the heliocentric system is a Jesuit construct , Jesuits founded by Loyola late 16th century .  

I can remember being taught in the 1960s that all ancient civilisations held the earth to be flat . Now it seems we are told that loads o Greeks thought differently . Rewriting of history in my lifetime maybe . 

This website is marvellous - threads that are real gems all over the place . Spend most time reading through these and a lot of these cast new light on everything which i took for granted and was led to believe as true.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 14, 2021)

I suggest everyone to read Fomenko's opinion on the subject. There is no need to be _recentists_ to read it and in fact is full of curiosities and tips (http://chronologia.org/en/seven/3N11-EN-4.pdf - paragraph 7, page 302 and following).


----------



## EUAFU (Jun 16, 2021)

To believe that the Earth is round and orbits the Sun I would have to explain how rivers would ascend the supposed curvature of the Earth to empty into the sea.  It is more than clear that heliocentrism is part of the web of lies created to imprison the human being.  Heliocentrism, Evolution, Billions of Years, Infinite Space are part of the modern deception quartet.  Search for Airy Deception.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 16, 2021)

According to Fomenko the system invented by Tycho Brahe is identical to the Copernican:


----------



## Sigian (Jun 18, 2021)

EUAFU said:


> To believe that the Earth is round and orbits the Sun I would have to explain how rivers would ascend the supposed curvature of the Earth to empty into the sea



They don't, rivers go from a higher point to a lower point, just like all liquids, the path of least resistance.  No one that I have ever read claimed that the rivers flowed the way they do according to the curvature of the earth.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jun 18, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> According to Fomenko the system invented by Tycho Brahe is identical to the Copernican:
> View attachment 10870​


Looking at the orbit of Mars from that drawing made from Brahe's observations , then we can see that Mars will come between Earth and Sun at some point .

Is this why the Mars data was stolen by Kepler? Is Mars involved in eclipses ?

That would prove of the geocentric system and refute the heliocentric system would it not?


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jun 18, 2021)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Looking at the orbit of Mars from that drawing made from Brahe's observations , then we can see that Mars will come between Earth and Sun at some point .
> 
> Is this why the Mars data was stolen by Kepler? Is Mars involved in eclipses ?
> 
> That would prove of the geocentric system and refute the heliocentric system would it not?



Actually I think the larger circle centred on the Earth is showing the Sun's _apparent _orbit around the Earth, i.e. the Sun as seen from the Earth. The description states that the drawing is from the reference point of the Earth. It's a bit confusing.

In the 'spheres' version of Vedic Cosmology the eclipses are not caused by the Moon, but by Rahu and Ketu - two 'shadow' planets:





(Link)​


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jun 18, 2021)

Nice info on Vedic cosmology . Will have to look into that further.

Correct about the suns "apparent" orbit . When the sun is at the opposite position from that shown then mars' orbit would come between earth and the sun . That's what I see from that diagram . 

Fomenko  is saying that the heliocentric system ascribed to Copernicus (wrongly and by the Jesuits imo ) had to be later than Brahe's model . Moving the reference point to the sun is a trick .Brahe's observations were carried out here on earth . If mars orbit brings it inside the suns orbit then the heliocentric model is wrong ...... I think. It's confusing .

Lunar eclipses with that red colour?


----------



## DampDevil (Jun 19, 2021)

Here is a little experiment. Download Stellarium. It is heliocentric software and it is 100% free. Punch in your coordinates and pick 10 random observations. Then take binoculars or a small telescope and verify for yourself. I have used the software many many times. It has helped me find planets, star clusters, and nebulas. There is no doubt in my mind, after being out many nights, the model portrayed in that software is the correct one. It is always on point and on time. I am open to almost anything but we DO live on a planet that circles around a burning ball of plasma and we do have planetary neighbors that you can see for yourself. Mars could never come between us and the sun, it is impossible. Put a solar filter on your scope and prove otherwise if this is something you believe in =) 
But is astrophysics on point at all times? I think not. They say gravity is king and disregard any notions of electrical forces being at work in the cosmos. This is ignorant imo.


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 19, 2021)

DampDevil said:


> Here is a little experiment. Download Stellarium. It is heliocentric software and it is 100% free. Punch in your coordinates and pick 10 random observations. Then take binoculars or a small telescope and verify for yourself. I have used the software many many times. It has helped me find planets, star clusters, and nebulas. There is no doubt in my mind, after being out many nights, the model portrayed in that software is the correct one. It is always on point and on time. I am open to almost anything but we DO live on a planet that circles around a burning ball of plasma and we do have planetary neighbors that you can see for yourself. Mars could never come between us and the sun, it is impossible. Put a solar filter on your scope and prove otherwise if this is something you believe in =)
> But is astrophysics on point at all times? I think not. They say gravity is king and disregard any notions of electrical forces being at work in the cosmos. This is ignorant imo.


Do you understand that the accuracy of predictions does not mean that the model is correct?





The second model is clearly preferable yet the first model is much more accurate. It hits the observations perfectly, while the second line is a simple model that has small errors that can be seen as the red lines, the distance between the line/function and the points/observations. 

The point I'm trying to make that I hope you take with you is that a model can be precise and accurate without being correct.


----------



## DampDevil (Jun 19, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> Do you understand that the accuracy of predictions does not mean that the model is correct?
> 
> View attachment 10900
> The second model is clearly preferable yet the first model is much more accurate. It hits the observations perfectly, while the second line is a simple model that has small errors that can be seen as the red lines, the distance between the line/function and the points/observations.
> ...


Hmm. So it comes down to prediction then? If I can predict events in the sky with my simple freeware and later on observe them for myself, would I then be able to trust it? Isnt that verification enough? Heliocentrism do not cover the entire realm of astrophysics. Only our small courtyard of space. There could be alot wrong with our assumptions and I presume there are tons of them.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jun 19, 2021)

DampDevil said:


> Here is a little experiment. Download Stellarium. It is heliocentric software and it is 100% free. Punch in your coordinates and pick 10 random observations. Then take binoculars or a small telescope and verify for yourself. I have used the software many many times. It has helped me find planets, star clusters, and nebulas. There is no doubt in my mind, after being out many nights, the model portrayed in that software is the correct one. It is always on point and on time. I am open to almost anything but we DO live on a planet that circles around a burning ball of plasma and we do have planetary neighbors that you can see for yourself. Mars could never come between us and the sun, it is impossible. Put a solar filter on your scope and prove otherwise if this is something you believe in =)
> But is astrophysics on point at all times? I think not. They say gravity is king and disregard any notions of electrical forces being at work in the cosmos. This is ignorant imo.



I am pointing out that according to the Brahe model Mars orbit will fall between Earth and the Sun . If the heliocentric model is just a change of reference position to the Sun then we won't be able to check that out according to Stellarium, because the program will tell us that it does not . 

 If stellarium uses the the heliocentric model (which it surely will) based on the Brahe model with a change of reference position to the sun then it will predict that Mars will not pass between earth and sun. That's what the models predict - not me. The problem is we observe from the earth. We can however check whether Mars comes between the Earth and the Sun by observation.

In the interests of truth perhaps we could view Brahes original data. We might get a look at the times when mars crosses the sun . Brahe , if that is an accurate drawing of the system according to his meticulous observations, must have seen Mars orbit crossing between Earth and the Sun. It's what his model predicts.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jun 20, 2021)

Here is a link to site which includes much information about Brahe, Kepler and the formation of the heliocentric model.

It includes links and references books which develop the story . All pertinent to deconstructing Heliocentrism .
Asasinarea lui Tycho Brahe de catre Johannes Kepler

Just re-read the article. Starts of in Spanish? then the main article is in English , and just noticed it is a post by Sandokhan .

I doff my cap .


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jun 20, 2021)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Starts of in Spanish?



It's actually Romanian, but it's highly relevant to other SH topics that it looks very similar to Spanish and particularly Italian.


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 21, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> It's actually Romanian, but it's highly relevant to other SH topics that it looks very similar to Spanish and particularly Italian.


You could almost call it a roman language


----------



## John Galt (Jun 23, 2021)

DampDevil said:


> Here is a little experiment. Download Stellarium. It is heliocentric software and it is 100% free. Punch in your coordinates and pick 10 random observations. Then take binoculars or a small telescope and verify for yourself. I have used the software many many times. It has helped me find planets, star clusters, and nebulas. There is no doubt in my mind, after being out many nights, the model portrayed in that software is the correct one. It is always on point and on time. I am open to almost anything but we DO live on a planet that circles around a burning ball of plasma and we do have planetary neighbors that you can see for yourself. Mars could never come between us and the sun, it is impossible. Put a solar filter on your scope and prove otherwise if this is something you believe in =)
> But is astrophysics on point at all times? I think not. They say gravity is king and disregard any notions of electrical forces being at work in the cosmos. This is ignorant imo.



Calling it 'heliocentric software' is disingenuous -- unless you've personally navigated the supposed globe with the app open to confirm so. Anyone who studies the stars and other objects can correctly map it to an app, but that doesn't confirm the shape of the realm. All of what you're seeing could easily be mapped in a dome, crater, or whatever. You don't know what we do or do not orbit because you've never left this realm.

Denial of round earth doesn't mean we know everything. It's the opposite. We know the heliocentric model is full of inconsistencies and so we think, examine, and discuss until new theories and new evidence comes about. You know as little as we do.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 23, 2021)

This http://chronologia.org/en/seven/3N11-EN-3.pdf is interesting. Fomenko's underlying assumption is that human intellectual development is at a constant pace, _ergo_ the traditional story of Greek discoveries in ancient times, followed by a 'dark age' followed by European renaissance, is false.

However I doubt the thesis of constant development. We now think that science proceeds by paradigm shift, which can occur suddenly and discontinuously. How else do we explain that humans evolved 10s of thousands of years before they discovered mathematics, theory of gravitation etc? Unless Fomenko wants to argue that humans evolved about a thousand years ago?


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jun 23, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> How else do we explain that humans evolved 10s of thousands of years before they discovered mathematics, theory of gravitation etc?



Deliberate repression of knowledge (i.e. book burning) or catastrophes perhaps?

Edit: I'm glad you described gravity as a theory btw.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 23, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Edit: I'm glad you described gravity as a theory btw.



All theories are theories, but this one has great explanatory power, as Newton himself comments (can't remember where).


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jun 23, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> All theories are theories,



_"If it’s called a theory, it’s the same as a hunch: That’s true sometimes, when you’re just beginning to look into a phenomenon. But after a while, the word merely means that you didn’t actually see the event play out—even if all the evidence tells you what happened. The theory of evolution? *A fact*. The Big Bang theory? *A fact*. But unless you’re 13.8 billion years old, you weren’t here to witness it all."_ (Jeffrey Kluger March 7, 2014 Editor, Time Magazine.)

That's what I call a 'New Normal'.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 23, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> _"If it’s called a theory, it’s the same as a hunch: _ (Jeffrey Kluger March 7, 2014 Editor, Time Magazine.)


A hunch is a feeling or guess based on intuition rather than comprehensive observation and careful reasoning or mathematical deduction, so this editor is simply wrong when it comes to Newton's theory.

Newton's theory is what we call a beautiful theory: simple and economical that describes practically everything we see about moving bodies, and is backed up by centuries of precise observation. It explains how bodies fall at a different rate depending on their height and latitude. It explains lunar motion, the motion of the planets, and everything about the _apparent_ motion of the sun around the earth. Note I use the word 'apparent'.

Perhaps it's wrong. But science is not concerned with absolute and certain knowledge, which is unattainable, but rather economy of explanation.


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 23, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> This http://chronologia.org/en/seven/3N11-EN-3.pdf is interesting. Fomenko's underlying assumption is that human intellectual development is at a constant pace, _ergo_ the traditional story of Greek discoveries in ancient times, followed by a 'dark age' followed by European renaissance, is false.
> 
> However I doubt the thesis of constant development. We now think that science proceeds by paradigm shift, which can occur suddenly and discontinuously. How else do we explain that humans evolved 10s of thousands of years before they discovered mathematics, theory of gravitation etc? Unless Fomenko wants to argue that humans evolved about a thousand years ago?


Fomenko didn't start from a personal assumption. His starting point was the research and discovery done by Robert Newton.
All the various assumptions follow that premise.


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 23, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Fomenko didn't start from a personal assumption. His starting point was the research and discovery done by Robert Newton.
> All the various assumptions follow that premise.



“The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy” Claudius Ptolemy

Newton finds that the astronomical data collected by P was wrong, possibly fraudulent. OK, so?


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 23, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> “The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy” Claudius Ptolemy
> 
> Newton finds that the astronomical data collected by P was wrong, possibly fraudulent. OK, so?


http://chronologia.org/en/seven/1N02-EN-093-126.pdf


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jun 23, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> this editor is simply wrong when it comes to Newton's theory.



and everything else imo, but this is from the editor of Time Magazine - about as mainstream as it gets. This is exactly how the narrative is controlled and manipulated.

Just how economical does an explanation have to be before it's a lie I wonder?


----------



## Grosseteste (Jun 23, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> and everything else imo, but this is from the editor of Time Magazine - about as mainstream as it gets.


He is a science and technology journalist.


----------



## E_V_ (Jun 23, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> A hunch is a feeling or guess based on intuition rather than comprehensive observation and careful reasoning or mathematical deduction, so this editor is simply wrong when it comes to Newton's theory.
> 
> Newton's theory is what we call a beautiful theory: simple and economical that describes practically everything we see about moving bodies, and is backed up by centuries of precise observation. It explains how bodies fall at a different rate depending on their height and latitude. It explains lunar motion, the motion of the planets, and everything about the _apparent_ motion of the sun around the earth. Note I use the word 'apparent'.
> 
> Perhaps it's wrong. But science is not concerned with absolute and certain knowledge, which is unattainable, but rather economy of explanation.


Math is intuition 


_View: https://youtu.be/YTOZn7ZMacU_


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jun 23, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> Newton's theory is what we call a beautiful theory: simple and economical that describes practically everything we see about moving bodies, and is backed up by centuries of precise observation. It explains how bodies fall at a different rate depending on their height and latitude. It explains lunar motion, the motion of the planets, and everything about the _apparent_ motion of the sun around the earth. Note I use the word 'apparent'.
> 
> Perhaps it's wrong. But science is not concerned with absolute and certain knowledge, which is unattainable, but rather economy of explanation.


Poincare , in the 1880s ,showed there was no regular repeating solution to predicting the positions of earth , moon and sun in their orbits i.e. n=3.
Newtons theory of gravitation is unable to predict the motions of three bodies let alone the entire "solar system " . It's known as the n  body problem , well known in mathematics, for which there is no known solution . 

We are able to predict the positions of the planets etc through observations taken over time . This suggests the earth is stationary and at the centre of the system . But this is outside the controlling paradigm.

I would say that being able to predict the motions of heavenly bodies tells us that gravity ,as described by Newton , is an ugly theory .

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or beerholder.


----------



## Sigian (Jun 24, 2021)

FarewellAngelina said:


> This suggests the earth is stationary and at the centre of the system .



Center, maybe, but I don't see how it could be stationary.  Terminal velocity would not exist (not a theory) as it would be weight/mass based on how fast an object falls, hence the gravity argument, but it also holds for an object moving in 1 direction at a constant rate.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jun 24, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> He is a science and technology journalist.



No really? Gosh!


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jun 24, 2021)

Sigian said:


> Center, maybe, but I don't see how it could be stationary.  Terminal velocity would not exist (not a theory) as it would be weight/mass based on how fast an object falls, hence the gravity argument, but it also holds for an object moving in 1 direction at a constant rate.


I regard earth as stationary because a) I have never sensed any motion or rotation unless drunk/ill/jumped on a roundabout , and b) scientific experiment has not detected any movement or rotation .

That mass attracts mass because it has mass ,by use of an unknown mechanism , is an idea plucked out of thin air by the alchemist Newton . Without any evidence  . Much the same as the heliocentric model which was presented without bringing any new observation or evidence to the existing model of the time  . 

Isn't terminal velocity dictated by the density of the medium through which an object moves? Why are you insisting that gravity is mass based?

More likely the force of attraction is electromagnetic - 40 magnitudes greater than the undetectable farce of gravity . The laws of motion are demonstrable .

I am also open to being persuaded otherwise .


----------



## Sigian (Jun 25, 2021)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Isn't terminal velocity dictated by the density of the medium through which an object moves? Why are you insisting that gravity is mass based?



No, that is why a feather and a bowling ball will both fall at the same rate of speed (ie. terminal velocity) in a vacuum (again not theory proven).  

Did not insist that gravity was mass based, but was instead saying if gravity doesn't exist, and we exist on a flat plane, that we couldn't be stationary due to terminal velocity.  

If the velocity in which an object falls on a flat, stationary plane, is based upon the mass, then they would fall at different rates of speed.  Even objects propelled at first actually slow down to the good ole 9.8m/s/s.

If that flat plane were moving upward however, like an elevator, at a constant speed.  That would give an object a terminal velocity.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jun 25, 2021)

Sigian said:


> No, that is why a feather and a bowling ball will both fall at the same rate of speed (ie. terminal velocity) in a vacuum (again not theory proven).
> 
> Did not insist that gravity was mass based, but was instead saying if gravity doesn't exist, and we exist on a flat plane, that we couldn't be stationary due to terminal velocity.
> 
> ...


Sorry if I misunderstood the point you were making . I'm confused here . 9.8m/s/s is an acceleration not a velocity , which would be 9,8m/s.

If an object falls are you saying that it should just reach 9.8m/s velocity then that should remain constant until it hits the floor ? 

Surely terminal velocity depends on the surrounding medium and amount of drag on the falling object (shape related).

I've come across the accelerating earth theory before but not looked at it closely enough to form an opinion . Suggests an enclosed system  ,first thought.


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 26, 2021)

This passage from this thread bears reading.
Actual people writing out their experiences and observations of the physical world.



> In his book “South Sea Voyages,” Arctic and Antarctic explorer Sir James Clarke Ross, described his experience on the night of November 27th, 1839 and his conclusion that the Earth must be motionless: “The sky being very clear, the planet Venus was seen near the zenith, notwithstanding the brightness of the meridian sun. It enabled us to observe the higher stratum of clouds to be moving in an exactly opposite direction to that of the wind--a circumstance which is frequently recorded in our meteorological journal both in the north-east and south-east trades, and has also often been observed by former voyagers. Captain Basil Hall witnessed it from the summit of the Peak of Teneriffe; and Count Strzelechi, on ascending the volcanic mountain of Kiranea, in Owhyhee, reached at 4000 feet an elevation above that of the trade wind, and experienced the influence of an opposite current of air of a different hygrometric and thermometric condition … Count Strzelechi further informed me of the following seemingly anomalous circumstance--that at the height of 6000 feet he found the current of air blowing at right angles to both the lower strata, also of a different hygrometric and thermometric condition, but warmer than the inter-stratum. Such a state of the atmosphere is compatible only with the fact which other evidence has demonstrated, that the earth is at rest."


----------



## Sigian (Jun 27, 2021)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Surely terminal velocity depends on the surrounding medium and amount of drag on the falling object (shape related).



Sorry, maybe going about an explanation wrong, I apologize.  Any falling object will reach a certain speed, depending on the medium though as to how fast it hits that speed limit or terminal velocity as we term it, but will not exceed that speed.  So lighter objects do take longer to reach said velocity due to drag and the medium it passes through.

Yes a heavier object will reach this terminal velocity faster due to mass, but will accelerate no faster once reached.  In a vacuum a feather and a bowling ball will fall at exactly the same rate due to no medium or drag present, still falling at 9.8 m/s/s but no terminal velocity.

"G" for gravity is the 9.8 m/s/s, yes I know gravity is a debatable thing, but say a flat plane moving upward would create the same force as said spherical gravity.  

Terminal velocity is when said object reaches its max falling speed limit of sorts, and will fall no faster.  An object will speed up until it hits this limit, and objects going fast will even slow down during a fall to be on par with the objects terminal velocity.

Just trying to state that a heavy object with little resistance or drag should have no max velocity, if the plane is stationary and gravity does not exist at all.  Because if "g" does not exist, then terminal velocity would not exist as an object would continue to accelerate beyond depending on mass and height dropped from.

Like how if you drop a penny from the top of the empire state building, it will not continue to accelerate beyond a certain speed, which is why it wouldn't kill someone upon striking them on the ground.  

If that makes sense, sorry, just to myself, if gravity isn't real and we are on a flat plane, then we would still require movement to compensate for this.  If gravity does not exist, and we are stationary, how does "g=9.8 m/s/s" play into any calculations that are used today?  I would assume that it would be a higher number based upon the height and mass of an object and completely nullify the standard equations.  Yet it is used from skydiving to dropping bombs.  

And yet apparently measurable, the pull of 9.8 m/s/s is actually slower the further away from the ground that you get, than at sea level.  Supposedly it is faster at the poles of a spherical planet than at the equator, to myself would mean the earth isn't exactly round but squished in at the poles.  

Dunno, such a complex lie, with so many pieces, and apparently so many involved is just strange.  Too many variables to keep under wraps from astronauts to satellite imaging.  Usually the less people involved in the deciet the easier it is to hide, just strange that with all the whistle-blowers lately there has been nothing said about the planets shape at all.  

Seems there are many secrets that someone doesn't want others to know about, seems odd that early mentions of heliocentrism were met with being burnt at the stake by religious zealots, seems if anything they didn't want the truth to be told, not the other way around.  

In my own opinion, being a flat dome covered plane of existence with nothing at all outside of that seems weird, complete nothingness outside, reaching out infinitely in all directions.  Unless we are just some exhibit in an extraterrestrial zoo created for the pleasure of a higher intelligence.  

I believe electromagnetics play a much larger role than we realize, from planetary and star formation and more.  I mean, we can levitate water, frogs and other things due to diamagnetic levitation, even a human being if we used a strong enough field.  I mean, something first figured out in 1939 then supposedly lost or forgotten about for 50ish years, we can levitate non metallic objects.

Levitating frog.

Sorry, getting quite off topic from the main topic of heliocentrism.  Not trying to derail.

As far as that goes, it seemed a stigma to think otherwise that everything did not orbit the earth, even though there has been lots of say otherwise.  But to link and post those proofs really doesn't seem relevant since the science and math behind these really aren't relevant to those that disagree with any of it.

If history was rewritten at some point due to an event/reset etc, and some of these previous civilizations seemed more advanced than us today, then why leave in those parts of history, just do like TPTB today, scrub all the information, do away with those that know, the less people in on it, the easier it is to contain and propagate the lie.




kd-755 said:


> This passage from this thread bears reading.
> Actual people writing out their experiences and observations of the physical world.



An interesting passage, and it speaks of the arctic and Antarctic regions, but nothing different about the Earth's shape, Antarctica not being a continent according to FE models, or anything of the such, so how could anything else written by them be trusted?  Is there an original on display somewhere?  A copy of a copy doesn't make me feel giddy that what was written or rewritten is word for word original.  

Believe me I have tons of questions myself, usually told to look it up and then come upon 10+ theories all saying different things.  I've looked across Lake Ontario and not been able to see but distant shores but nothing else, have been on the ocean in the keys where you can make out the top of let's say alligator lighthouse from a distance and more comes to view the closer you get.  Yes only using my eyes, but personal observations.  Though maybe we were designed to not see the bars on our cage, who knows, but that's just my opinion added to the pile.  

One of the main reasons Galileo pointed out a heliocentric system was that he observed Jupiter's moons revolving around it, and if everything revolved around the earth, those moons wouldn't exist.  With something as massive as the sun supposedly orbiting the earth than Jupiter's moons shouldn't orbit something smaller.  

One of many observations made to that fact.  Though everything still really hinges on if you believe the earth is a sphere or flat, as most FE seem to believe other planets etc don't actually exist as we know them and are part of a dome over the earth.  So heliocentrism or geocentric is a very hard to discuss topic completely depending on people's stances.

Sorry dreamtime, really not trying to derail anything, just a lot to take into account in my opinion, things aren't as simple as they seem sometimes.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jun 28, 2021)

The Geocentric model is based on what we can actually observe from here on earth. Brahe did over many years.

The Heliocentric model is based on what we would see if we observed the same Geocentric model from the sun.

That is what Fomenko pointed out . Page 1 link on post 13 by Silveryou - thanks for that link. 

The history of heliocentrism is shown to be false . 

No one has ever measured the sun's diameter , the distance to any planet or moon or star . In the heliocentric system its all done by assumption .


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 28, 2021)

Sigian said:


> An interesting passage, and it speaks of the arctic and Antarctic regions, but nothing different about the Earth's shape, Antarctica not being a continent according to FE models, or anything of the such, so how could anything else written by them be trusted?


So James Clark Ross and the other chaps observations are not trustworthy because reasons but those attributed to a man called Galileo are!
Right ho!


----------



## Sigian (Jun 29, 2021)

FarewellAngelina said:


> No one has ever measured the sun's diameter , the distance to any planet or moon or star . In the heliocentric system its all done by assumption .




That's where the measurement of the speed of light comes into play, gives us at least a measurement of distance.




kd-755 said:


> So James Clark Ross and the other chaps observations are not trustworthy because reasons but those attributed to a man called Galileo are!
> Right ho!



Sorry, maybe stated incorrectly, guess I basically meant is that how can we trust anything put onto paper really be anyone.  There's always some form of agenda out there, transparency doesn't exist.


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 29, 2021)

Sigian said:


> how can we trust anything put onto paper really be anyone.


We cannot and therein lies the rub.
 All we have are our own experiences of places and phenomena and as we cannot easily get to many places of the earth the best we get after that is accounts of others we know personally. The written record comes in a very poor third as it is chockablock full of lies and misinformation. Probably put there to obfuscate any truths that sneak through for reasons unknown.
Truth is there is no way to know who wrote what or when (maps being a prime product of a behind the scenes map factory I feel as they are more dramatic than acres of text and this is a digital age where few read they prefer to glance at imagery)


----------



## Sigian (Jun 29, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> We cannot and therein lies the rub.
> All we have are our own experiences of places and phenomena and as we cannot easily get to many places of the earth the best we get after that is accounts of others we know personally. The written record comes in a very poor third as it is chockablock full of lies and misinformation. Probably put there to obfuscate any truths that sneak through for reasons unknown.
> Truth is there is no way to know who wrote what or when (maps being a prime product of a behind the scenes map factory I feel as they are more dramatic than acres of text and this is a digital age where few read they prefer to glance at imagery)



Agree 100%.  That is why I recently chose a job which let's my family and I travel, at least in the US.  I am 2 years in and have bee from Maine to Florida a few times now, need sent westward as there is a lot to explore and see there with my own eyes.  The more that I get to see with my own eyes, the more that translates or reverberates with things I have read along the way.

As far as the written word, well most know that the victors get to write the history books, so things could be so far twisted at this point, and that could be the plan of TPTB as well, reset into their reality, instead of free into our own.  

Though maybe the physical form is what entraps us, beings of energy, sucked in and our realities changed.  

I still wanna know who was originally instructed to keep the bloodlines pure, with the old monarchies, what was pure, who told them, and why?  Anyone know of any good threads on bloodtypes? RH+ vs RH-?


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jun 29, 2021)

Sigian said:


> That's where the measurement of the speed of light comes into play, gives us at least a measurement of distance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No one has measured the speed of light. It's an unproven assumption based on the idea of a heliocentric system based on no evidence. Well based on the Brahe geocentric model with the viewpoint shifted to the sun it appears.


----------



## Sigian (Jun 29, 2021)

As is both assumptions, but under one the speed of light was first measured in 1676 by a Danish astronomer.   Though not determined a precise speed until the 1920's.

Though as myself and KD were just pointing out, everything written is under question as to whether it is real or not.  

But really, how us measuring the speed of light impossible?  Heliocentric or geocentric, it still has a speed right?  At least from our observations, whether they maybe right/wrong/simulated or otherwise.  

Again though, some seem to want to break down and do away with math itself...measurements, that yes we ourselves defined their makeup, to help us better understand things, are still measurements.  If 1+1 doesn't equal 2, then please explain this thought pattern to me, am always open and willing to learn as much as I can into my neurons and synapses.
Setup a light sensor and a switch, have the distance between the two measured out, and then turn the light on and with computers it's pretty easy to get an accurate reading of time delay of light on versus light hitting sensor.  Viola, speed of light.  

Sorry, just seemed pretty basic, not trying to ruffle any feathers.


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 29, 2021)

Sigian said:


> the speed of light was first measured in 1676 by a Danish astronomer


It really is barking to me how this kind  of thing is taken as gospel.



> Roemer, working at the Paris Observatory, was not looking for the speed of light when he found it. Instead, he was compiling extensive observations of the orbit of Io, the innermost of the four big satellites of Jupiter discovered by Galileo in 1610. By timing the eclipses of Io by Jupiter, Roemer hoped to determine a more accurate value for the satellite’s orbital period.



It is said he was looking at lights in the sky through a telescope in 1676 for something Galileo is said discovered through his telescope 'back in the day' and measuring it presumably with a clock (how did they set the accuracy of clocks back then?) to establish if Galileo was on the money so too speak.
Sound too good to be true!

Seems heliocentrism  is simply looking at lights in the sky and projecting the interpretation of them onto the physical reality we live in.


----------



## Sigian (Jun 29, 2021)

It's as if everything comes into question, are we simply projected ourselves?  There has to be some base that is agreed upon to measure our reality.

And no, not taking it as gospel, not quite sure how it would be measured way back then with what we are told is limited technology.  

But today, well, much easier to pinpoint, though there has been a lot of debate on if the speed of light is a constant or not.  

Things we use every day are not witchcraft, they are made based on design, calculations and more.  If some of these measurements were off, then they wouldn't work properly.  Like having a wrong fuel to air mixture in an engine.  Sometimes you gotta break things down to their simplest form to start to understand them.

Not directed at you KD, just that we need a basis for this reality, and it seems as if quite a few things fit, but so many others don't.  Not everything is a lie, though I am not someone to point out what is and isn't, but some things in our reality are actually based on things we can't wave away.

Is it me or does it seem like the Mandela effect is getting more and more prominent?

Maybe a collapse is emminent.


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 29, 2021)

Sigian said:


> And no, not taking it as gospel, not quite sure how it would be measured way back then with what we are told is limited technology.


Was commenting generally not personally. 
There is always a missing 'bit of kit' in these historical claims.


----------



## Sigian (Jun 29, 2021)

You ain't kidding...we are supposed to believe for a thousand plus years these places/writings/artifacts weren't touched by anyone else?  Gives a bit more credence to a missing 1000 years.

Guess there's a reason my grandfather said believe nothing you hear, and only half of what you see.  Though he was born back in 1909 so, maybe that's an early indicator of what TPTB were doing.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jun 29, 2021)

Sigian said:


> As is both assumptions, but under one the speed of light was first measured in 1676 by a Danish astronomer.   Though not determined a precise speed until the 1920's.
> 
> Though as myself and KD were just pointing out, everything written is under question as to whether it is real or not.
> 
> ...


Ole Roemer . Took two observations through his scope six months apart assuming earth was millions of miles away from it's original position  - Heliocentrism.  Geocentric model would say that's just plain parallax .Light was thought to be instantaneous before this time.

No motion of earth has ever been detected . 

 Calculating the speed of light is not direct measurement of speed of light. Scientists have never directly measured the speed of light . It is inferred by calculation - known as indirect measurement. Indeed direct measurement is no longer attempted .Indeed it is now given as a constant c which removes the requirement of measure, suits the paradigm.

Light was thought to be instantaneous before the heliocentric con came along.


----------



## Sigian (Jun 30, 2021)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Calculating the speed of light is not direct measurement of speed of light.



Never said that calculations were a direct measurement.  



> The first measurement of _c_ that didn't make use of the heavens was by Armand Fizeau in 1849.  He used a beam of light reflected from a mirror 8 km away.  The beam was aimed at the teeth of a rapidly spinning wheel.  The speed of the wheel was increased until its motion was such that the light's two-way passage coincided with a movement of the wheel's circumference by one tooth.  This gave a value for _c_ of 315,000 km/s. Leon Foucault improved on this result a year later using rotating mirrors, which gave the much more accurate value of 298,000 km/s. His technique was good enough to confirm that light travels slower in water than in air.



From here.

There have been more than one direct measurement of the speed of light taken, not sure where you are getting that it is impossible.  This is just one of the earlier ways it was calculated and then improved upon to be more precise.  But the tech we have today can very precisely measure the speed of light of a laser.  

Frankly we can all link and quote so many things, but it's up to others to be able to read and understand things enough to know whether they are fact or fiction.  

It kind of reminds me of anesthesia, I have been under about a dozen times for surgeries, yet scientists/doctors really do not know the actual mechanism than causes the prophenol to put one's mind in a hibernative state.  But it works.  Or people that are religious, there's nothing written from the actual time period things took place, the written word came much later for the masses, but they still believe what they believe.

The mind is such a tricky thing that we really cannot comprehend and may never.  

I still really love Nikola Tesla's quote - 

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”

Makes a lot more sense now to myself.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jun 30, 2021)

Sigian said:


> But the tech we have today can very precisely measure the speed of light of a laser.



That's a measurement of the speed of light from a laser though.



Sigian said:


> Frankly we can all link and quote so many things, but it's up to others to be able to read and understand things enough to know whether they are fact or fiction.



So, then what? Fact or fiction is decided by consensus opinion? 'Reality' is therefore decided by consensus opinion? Uneducated or non-indoctrinated people are not capable of distinguishing the difference and so can never affect reality? Only the educated elite can decide and create 'reality'?

The great unwashed instinctively 'feel' geocentricity for millennia, but then a group of people who can "read and understand things" decide on heliocentircity and it becomes fact.


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 30, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> That's a measurement of the speed of light from a laser though.


Beat me to it!


----------



## Sigian (Jul 1, 2021)

And what is a laser?

Cmon no one ever rebuild engines and use a timing light to fine tune the timing on an engine?  I can see how using certain instruments that light can be measured.

So is the speed of sound immeasurable as well?  A much lower wavelength?

Though then again, sometimes it seems as if I am just thinking thus all in my head, typing things out for myself and maybe no one really exists but my mind.

Hard to truly say, but there has to be some basis to measure the reality that we reside within.  I really don't think much would work otherwise.  Radio, television, electricity, the internet, there's definitely a base that exists in this reality.   Maybe we should narrow that down first to be able to agree upon things.

Because in my honest opinion, the more we work together, maybe we can make this reality better. But there had to be some common ground.


----------



## Jd755 (Jul 1, 2021)

Sigian said:


> Maybe we should narrow that down first to be able to agree upon things.


A lot like herding cats it seems.

We can only experience 'the world/reality/totality/process' as individual points of perception. Certainly we work together all the time if not with each other then with everything else in this world/reality/totality/process.
The paradox is there really. We only change/alter our experience of ourselves, our self through in of our self yet together we make change go exponential.
I don't feel we are equipped to figure out all that is. We investigate we research but in reality we cannot even figure out what thought is or the point of fingernails/toenails. What we do is decide for ourselves what is or isn't acceptable to us as individuals.
Perhaps the duality that we all seem to experience or tell ourselves is real is where the heliocentrism idea took hold or came from. figuring out when in 'history' is impossible. Figuring out when in the individual is easy. For me it was school as far back as I can remember but likely it was before then as I did not go to school before I was 5 years old so most likely my parents or the telly or friends planted the idea in me.
I suspect it was eerily similar for anyone reading this.

Heliocentrism is founded in the finite. We live our lives on a finite physical object that we cannot leave that has been mapped and proclaimed to be a ball shape and then we get told the only way off it apart from dying is to go into outer space on a machine.  This leads to us abandoning personal responsibility for our self and our actions and adopting the pseudo authority of other people we neither know or ever get to meet in order to live in the finite.
To make heliocentrism work as a religion (something that relies totally on belief being held within the individual) it has to have gods. Gods in this case being the small moving lights in the sky which we are told by others are ball shaped physical bodies just the same as the one we live on.
As our eyes cannot distinguish anything about the possible shape of any light in the sky there has to be a machine invented for the stories of moving lights actually being ball shaped planets to take hold in the minds of other people thus giving people who promote these stories an authority they do not really have over the 'new believer'.  I would suggest that it is at the point that the telescope came into being is when heliocentrism came into being. Either the telescope came first and the idea of heliocentrism followed or it as the other way round.

I have no evidence for this and quite honestly I have no idea what evidence of this would look like..  All I have is my experience of looking at the night sky and seeing tiny lights some of which twinkle some of which change colour and applying that experience to the tales of a finite world/reality told to me long ago, well in the mid 1960's.

Edit for typo fixing  and adding missing words.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jul 1, 2021)

Here's a video where regular mainstream physicists tell you that we cannot directly measure the speed of light. Why no one has measured the speed of light — Veritasium


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jul 2, 2021)

Sigian said:


> And what is a laser?
> 
> Cmon no one ever rebuild engines and use a timing light to fine tune the timing on an engine? I can see how using certain instruments that light can be measured.



A laser is an electronic device that requires switching on in order to produce a beam of light. Does the delay between switching on and ignition of the light beam get taken into account? Does the acceleration of the light beam from zero to its terminal velocity get taken into account? What distance is required for the laser beam to reach its terminal velocity? Do different light frequencies have different speeds? Do different sound frequencies move at different speeds?

Using a light to adjust the ignition timing on a combustion engine doesn't require any knowledge or concept of the speed of light, although if you held the timing light 3 miles away from the crankshaft pulley then it might make you wonder.

As soon as you start to measure something an assumption is being made - you assume it can be measured and that's the first limitation. A barrage of limitations and definitions follow on and then you repeat it all again and say "Voila!" or maybe "Viola" if you play the fiddle. Then when you try to put it all together nothing fits - at least this is my experience with DIY carpentry.

This is evident in the heliocentric vs. geocentric assumption - when you try and put it all together you have to move other bits around to make it fit.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jul 3, 2021)

Roemer actually never gave a determination of the speed of light  

Roemer himself never published his results and also used Brahe's geocentric data. Apparently published in an anonymous report sent to the Royal Society in London .

Rømer's determination of the speed of light - Wikipedia

Looks like the heliocentric model is nonscience . No historical record of this determination of the speed of light.

Rewriting of the history of science


----------



## Sigian (Jul 4, 2021)

As far as the timing light, simply meant that there are tools for everything, if the pulses of light can be used to measure the timing of an engine, then why not be able to create a device that can measure light.

Not sure that light would have a terminal velocity since it really isn't falling, though an interesting concept.  

Life as we know it really just isn't binary, it's pretty much quantum.  As in instead of a solid yay or nay answer, there are many answers that could actually be true I guess.  

I guess it seems that it comes down to, to each their own as far as answers.  Hell we don't know if we truly exist or not at this point, the only knowledge we have is from the world around us as we know it, and it might not even be our true reality.


----------



## JohnDee (Jul 6, 2021)

Definitely good to try and separate the heliocentric v geocentric debates from the FE stuff.  Both Ptolemy and Copernicus cover the shape of the Earth right after their introductions.



Will Scarlet said:


> "_300 years before Quantum Mechanics, Sir Isaac Newton came up with Classical Mechanics which describes very basic action and reaction. Newton’s entire work in Physics and Calculus was taken wholesale from the Vedas and Kerala book of Calculus. It was simply taken from the Vedas where it was originally used for calculating rates of change in Astronomy and Astrology for many thousands of years before Newton._" (I wrote that down about 8 years ago and don't remember where I found it, sorry.)



The debate over who did what first is rather meaningless when talking about Hermeticists, of which Newton was about the last one.  Nor did Newton "wholesale" rip off anything from the Vedas or Kerala.  In terms of his physics, as laid out in Principia, there is really no analogue.  He synthesized loads of information from many diverse sources into his "system of the world".  Nothing in the Vedic astronomy (which was largely derived from Greek astronomy), etc comes anywhere close to the level of Principia.  Unless of course one wants to play games of allegory...


Joemcgee said:


> I've been up in this neck of the woods recently, I'll try to distill some general findings over several posts, the table of contents if you will, will be as follows
> -1500s- John Dee, The platonic atomists and the cuboctahedron
> 
> Much on this forum has been written of Elizabethan Polymath John Dee... What I would like to add of note is a study is his work called the Monas Hierogylphica.  An Alchemical work written cryptically so as to hide its knowledge from the inquisition.  In the analysis performed here... Equates the sacred meaning of the book to a simple shape, the Cuboctohedron.  Furthermore This shape was added in the first english translation of Euclid Elements (by John Dee) as the 15th and 16th volumes.  Parts of the book that were censored in the 18th and 19th century's successively.  To this day only the first 13 volumes are mentioned. What was so important than, about this shape?
> ...



There is much to be said about John Dee.  His _Monas Hieroglyphica _was not written "cryptically to hide its knowledge from the inquisition", with but a little understanding of the schools of thought he was working in, and reading the dedication to Maximillian part, it is relatively easy to understand, though throughly esoteric.  The "sacred meaning" of the book is not really the Cuboctahedron, nor Platonic shapes in general.  Kepler does much more with these concepts.  In Dee's preface he goes over the many different disciplines that can benefit from the Monas, geometer being just one.  The cuboctahedron is derived from Dee's theories of "octacity".  If anything binary number theory, cryptographic algorithms, elliptical astronomy, rhumb line cartography, and memetic mnemonic symbolism are the "sacred meanings".

Dee's main thing in math was celestial navigation, of which he was much indebted to Pedro Nunes, as well as his friend Mercator (of the map fame).  The packing of spheres is part of a larger debate from the works of Vieta.  Dee does not write at depth on "physics", so it is hard to fully tell whether he was a monist (indivisible atoms) or a corpuscularian (divisable atoms).  This is really a debate between Newton, Descartes, Leibniz, et al.  If i had to venture a guess, Dee is somewhat in the Leibniz camp.  Either way, there is no account that Dee saw the Earth as a cuboctahedron.  He takes the Euclid axioms of point, line, and circle and extrapolates them to the sphere and ellipticals instead.  

There was no "Flat Earth theory of antiquity" involving the Cuboctahedron.  By and large the Earth, particularly after Euclid, has been considered a sphere for millenia by most of the world.  This being from the circumlocution noticed in the stars, as well as the premise of the sphere being the most 'perfect' of shapes, an argument later wholesale adopted by the Church, among others.  There was never a real debate on the "spherical nature" of Earth, until, as another poster said, the Zetetic Astronomy of the 19th century.

It is true, however, that Dee's Monas is low-key being subversive and pushing heliocentric model.  It is never stated explicitly, but can be inferred easily.  It has little to do with fear of inquisition and everything to do with helping England navigate the (new) world better than the competition.  He also talks a bunch of trash on the 'trendy' mystic alchemists of his day.



fabiorem said:


> Heliocentrism only appeared in the 13th or 14th century, probably derived from the sun cult.



If there is a "cult" involved it was rather the cult of the Wandering Stars aka 'planets', whose orbits did not act like the other celestial objects. From this comes heliocentric model, as well as the notions of hierarchy of celestial power.  The sun exhibits undeniable influence upon earth, and as such the conception of the sun being a 'higher power' was not hard to come by.  In terms of religious thought this can work just like spherical earth, that being that the notion of earth revolving around a higher power is theologically sound.  This is an argument both Copernicus and Kepler, among many others, make.


FarewellAngelina said:


> My opinion is that the heliocentric system is a Jesuit construct , Jesuits founded by Loyola late 16th century .



Copernicus is essentially the father of (modern) heliocentrism as we know it.  The Jesuits were not founded until the very end of his life, in no relation to him.  Nor did they take his theories completely to heart.  One of the premiere Jesuit/Catholic astronomers of the era, Christoph Clavius, was key in adding astronomy to the Jesuit curriculum.  Clavius accepted Copernican mathematical models as superior and used them, but did not accept heliocentrism, and instead was decidedly geocentric.


EUAFU said:


> It is more than clear that heliocentrism is part of the web of lies created to imprison the human being.



Ironic, considering the heliocentrism (along with much else) that arose out the Renaissance was, during its time, an attack against what they (heliocentrics and adjacents) saw as the "web of lies created to imprison the human being"...


----------



## Llend (Jul 6, 2021)

_With some questions, the more you try and chase the answer—the more said answer will evade your grasp_. I sorta think the whole shape/orientation of the
  time/space scales are like this too.

I think much of the very early discussion of planets and configurations had much to do with subjective human perspective and also the correlative observations between the complex felt interactions of self interwoven with the world that abounds. People had less difficulty with experiencing and understanding abstraction. Today many think too concretely, and entire schools of thought and idea are founded upon a misplaced sense of concreteness.

placing faith in written history doesn’t quite seem practically logical. How easy is it to retroactively invent stories and persons of eras past simply to establish the credibility of one’s idea.

That said I think an idea that I will put forward is that the human body and ways of perception themselves are like lenses and cables for focusing, directing, and filtering light in profound ways. Perhaps the illusion of our reality is more a by-product of each individual person’s thoughts; and the notion of a ‘singular predictable system of shape and scale’ are various ways in which powerful minds of math and sciences have mapped and interpreted ways of grasping (as opposed to mapping the thing grasped).

what if scaling up or down presents an amalgamation of ‘possible models’, instead of ever just one clear and definite/graspable shape to our universe and the physics of its interactions. To me the intuitive correspondences between the human intricacies and those intricacies of the vast or subtle scales suggest there must be folly to limiting the definition of one or the other to purely objective scrutiny.

I know in eastern thought, the notion of atomic or bit-like structures wasn’t the conclusion of many. Rather they discuss the inherent ‘relation-as-structure’ systems at play. Thus the being of one person is as much a contributor for the shape and quality of the entire universe as say the force of the sun is, but perhaps they work at different scales of magnitude. An implication of this would be that it could be possible for a person to experience a larger scale configuration in a kind of intuitive language of feeling-sense that their mind could grasp. There are many unconventional ways to navigate, see, and describe both time and space.

In general I I’ve felt that I got to easily caught up in grasping for a certainty with regard to what the physical universe looks like and found myself in a box of my own making. Limitations and constraints can be useful in so much as they can be used to contextualize and share understanding, but ultimately I think there is a different kind of knowledge that you can develop about observations, space, time, self, and life that really deconstructs many definite or limited views.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jul 6, 2021)

JohnDee said:


> The debate over who did what first is rather meaningless when talking about Hermeticists, of which Newton was about the last one. Nor did Newton "wholesale" rip off anything from the Vedas or Kerala. In terms of his physics, as laid out in Principia, there is really no analogue. He synthesized loads of information from many diverse sources into his "system of the world". Nothing in the Vedic astronomy (which was largely derived from Greek astronomy), etc comes anywhere close to the level of Principia. Unless of course one wants to play games of allegory...



Thank you for sharing your opinions. As far as I'm aware Fulcanelli was considered to be the last Hermeticist. The Kerala book of Calculus was a coincidence then and had no bearing whatsoever on Newton's Calculus that he "synthesized" 250 years later. There was no connection or comparison, allegorical or otherwise, made between Newton and Vedic Astrology in my comment.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jul 6, 2021)

JohnDee said:


> Copernicus is essentially the father of (modern) heliocentrism as we know it.  The Jesuits were not founded until the very end of his life, in no relation to him.  Nor did they take his theories completely to heart.  One of the premiere Jesuit/Catholic astronomers of the era, Christoph Clavius, was key in adding astronomy to the Jesuit curriculum.  Clavius accepted Copernican mathematical models as superior and used them, but did not accept heliocentrism, and instead was decidedly geocentric.


Interesting chronology concerning Copernicus in this link -  http://chronologia.org/en/seven/3N11-EN-4.pdf
 Jesuits formed 1540 - Copernicus dies 1543 , releases his book for publication on his death bed.

I'd put Copernicus in with Eratosthenes and Roemer - none of these were astronomers , Respectivley medical doctor, librarian/poet , mechanical engineer who's mythical works are passed as the cornerstone of heliocentrism.


----------



## JohnDee (Jul 6, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Thank you for sharing your opinions. As far as I'm aware Fulcanelli was considered to be the last Hermeticist. The Kerala book of Calculus was a coincidence then and had no bearing whatsoever on Newton's Calculus that he "synthesized" 250 years later. There was no connection or comparison, allegorical or otherwise, made between Newton and Vedic Astrology in my comment.


When I speak of Hermeticism I am speaking of the original, old school Hermeticists.  The Medici Court, Ficino, the Renaissance, and all their progeny.  Once Descartes and Bacon are crowned the kings, so to speak, of the new era of the Enlightenment, Hermeticism more or less dies out (many others things go on to).  In the late 19th and early 20th century there is a 'resurgence' of some vague sense of Hermetic ideas, which leads to Fulcanelli, among others.  But this crowd is very much different than that of the 14th-16th century.

I am just responding to the line in your post about "Newton wholesale ripping off" Indian sources.  There has been no definitive and direct link found between Kerala and the Calculus of Newton (or Leibniz).  Nor is the "calculus" the same.  Both Madhava, et al. and Newton are following a long tradition of "counting infinitesimals" that had been going on for thousands of years.  Both were drawing upon knowledge that had been flowing along the silk road for ages.  Both were drawing upon the classic works of Greco-roman astronomy and math.  Kerala was a active trading port, and as such information was flowing in and out.  But translating Sanskrit texts was not really going on yet at that time.  It certainly can be the case that they both came to similar conclusions independently, especially since they were operating in more or less a similar tradition.  But Newton did much more than "invent calculus", he creates a systemic model of physics.

There is a line in your post that says Newton ripped off the Vedas.  The only reason that this might even make sense is in regards to Vedic Astronomy.  Otherwise, one would have to read the Vedas and make elusive claims of allegory in order to find the similarities.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jul 7, 2021)

JohnDee said:


> I am just responding to the line in your post about "Newton wholesale ripping off" Indian sources.



Please don't attribute quotes to me that I did not make.



JohnDee said:


> But this crowd is very much different than that of the 14th-16th century.



Again, this is just your opinion, right? Or are you stating it as a fact and if so, by what authority?



JohnDee said:


> But translating Sanskrit texts was not really going on yet at that time.



I don't know what time you are referring to. The Jesuits were in India from 1542 onward, exactly 100 years before Newton's birth. The Rig-Veda was the first book they conned a Brahmin into dictating. The translation was shipped back to Europe immediately after.

"_Twenty-four centuries before Isaac Newton, the Hindu Rig-Veda asserted that gravitation held the universe together. The Sanskrit speaking Aryans subscribed to the idea of a spherical earth in an era when the Greeks believed in a flat one. The Indians of the fifth century A.D. calculated the age of the earth as 4.3 billion years; scientists in 19th century England were convinced it was 100 million years._” (Dick Teresi, Lost Discoveries: The Ancient Roots of Modern Science.)

Perhaps you could quote the ancient Greek equivalents of Rahu and Ketu given your opinion that Vedic Astronomy was "largely derived from" the Greeks.


----------



## JohnDee (Jul 9, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Please don't attribute quotes to me that I did not make.


Not attributing it to you, just saying it was in your post.  I'm not attacking you or anything, just talking on the subject



Will Scarlet said:


> Again, this is just your opinion, right? Or are you stating it as a fact and if so, by what authority?


I'm stating it as a fact and giving my opinions.  The "authority" is the great library of books that the 'Hermeticists' of the 14th-16th century wrote.  Then compare that to the writings of the 19th-20th 'Hermeticists'.  Yes, they are both working with in same 'ancient mystery tradition' and playing with many of the same ideas.  Yes, they are both quite often 'neo-platonic'.  But the way they write and express their ideas; their theories and practices, were very different.  They are coming from different places and different times.  Italian Renaissance, Hellenistic, esoteric energy is the 'older tradition'; Spiritualism, Theosophy, psychology, occultism is the 'newer tradition'. 

I could go into much more detail, about the history and ideas and such if you want, but I will leave that out here.



Will Scarlet said:


> I don't know what time you are referring to. The Jesuits were in India from 1542 onward, exactly 100 years before Newton's birth. The Rig-Veda was the first book they conned a Brahmin into dictating. The translation was shipped back to Europe immediately after.


I'm sure it was.  But during this period in Europe was mainly working in Greek, Latin, Vernacular, or Arabic/semitic (mostly by way of Greek).  It's not that they didn't have or want Sanskrit texts.  But India was still very far away in those days and the Indian world hadn't gone West, the Muslim world had gone East, in similar fashion as Great Alexander of old.  Otherwise, whatever Indian/Vedic astronomy they could get the Europeans were into it.  One can find references to Indian sources in cartography, navigation, astronomy, etc but most of this is by way of Arabic translations of Indian works.  It is not really until late 17th-19th century that Indian/Sankrit texts become more common.  But even then and now they are really not that common.  

In terms of Newton, I am just responding to the line in the quote you posted.  He left a bunch of writings and correspondences.  He talks a lot about and has no hesitancy to reference a great many foreign and ancient sources he is studying or drawing upon (Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Babylonians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Chaldeans, etc).  I see no reason why he would be hiding in particular Indian ones.  It's not that Newton did something, therefor they didn't; it's not about who did what first.  I'm just saying it wasn't some nefarious conspiracy to "steal" these ideas. 



Will Scarlet said:


> "_Twenty-four centuries before Isaac Newton, the Hindu Rig-Veda asserted that gravitation held the universe together. The Sanskrit speaking Aryans subscribed to the idea of a spherical earth in an era when the Greeks believed in a flat one. The Indians of the fifth century A.D. calculated the age of the earth as 4.3 billion years; scientists in 19th century England were convinced it was 100 million years._” (Dick Teresi, Lost Discoveries: The Ancient Roots of Modern Science.)


I'm haven't read that Teresi book, but at a cursory glance he seems to have an agenda pushing the old "West/Europe stole everything" narrative that has become common.

The Rig-Veda asserts no such thing.  This is what I'm saying about allegory and twisting words post-facto to mean whatever one might want.
For some time now sensational claims of the Vedas containing advanced science or technology have been thrown around, but it is always the same story.  Some poetic line is conflated to mean X, Y, or Z.  Nothing new, people have been doing with the Bible, Quran, etc. religious texts for a long time now.  The supposed line about "gravity" from the Vedas is Rig Veda 1.164.13, which in translation reads:

13. Upon this five-spoked wheel revolving ever all living creatures rest and are dependent.
Its axle, heavy-laden, is not heated: the nave from ancient time remains unbroken.

This is mythological poetry, to get this to mean gravity you have to make some rather fanciful mental leaps.  It is the same case with the other bold claims about the Vedas.  Poetic lines from a collection of Hymns twisted to fit any narrative.  Which just ends up doing Indian history and achievement a great disservice.  Indian has long been a great place of learning and they have made many great advances in math, astronomy, sciences, etc.  The thing is, they left many books and writings on these subjects down through the ages.  But instead of reading or talking about their actual thoughts and ideas, people find it more "convenient" to bring out the Vedas, because they are ancient or spiritual, or whatever, and find the words that "fit" what that want to be the "truth".

Also Newton didn't "invent" or "discover" gravity.  Such an idea had long been known.  His work was the "law of gravitation", where he attempted to find the acute laws of motion behind the centripetal force of gravity.



Will Scarlet said:


> Perhaps you could quote the ancient Greek equivalents of Rahu and Ketu given your opinion that Vedic Astronomy was "largely derived from" the Greeks.


I'm not sure what you mean?  If you are asking if the Greeks had attributed celestial beings with astrological powers to causing eclipses and the lunar nodes, then no, that doesn't seem to be the case.  But they certainly knew about eclipses and lunar nodes, and had many thoughts on them.

The subject of Ancient Greek astronomy, and its relation to India, etc is a long and deep subject.  I can go into in detail, but I will only be brief here.  I'm not implying India had no astronomy until the Greeks.  The basic claim of "Greek influence" in most easily understood with Alexander, who conquered into India, bringing Hellenistic culture with him.  Ancient Greek astronomy was considered as a discipline of math and is openly derived from many Babylonian, Egyptian, Chaldean, Persian sources.  Before Alexander the Achaemenid Empire of Persia had conquered into India as well, bringing with them their culture.  Certainly the influence of Babylonian ideas goes in both directions.  Names like Eudoxus, Archytas, Theodosius of Bithynia, Apollonius of Perga, Hipparchus, etc. bring ideas into astronomy that would seem to have much more significance than Rahu and Ketu...  

The "golden age" of Classic Vedic astronomy wasn't really until the 4th-6th centuries AD, with Aryabhata, Brahmagupta, etc.  At this point they are openly talking of their Greek (and Roman) sources, like the _Romaka Siddhanta (Doctrine of the Romans).  _Really the most interesting thing is that don't seem to work with Ptolemy, but older Greek/Roman stuff.  There's plenty of Indian works on Astronomy, one can rather easily find out their thoughts and ideas.  Otherwise, like I said, this tale is a long one.


----------



## Llend (Jul 10, 2021)

> Rig Veda 1.164.13, which in translation reads:
> 
> 13. Upon this five-spoked wheel revolving ever all living creatures rest and are dependent.
> 
> Its axle, heavy-laden, is not heated: the nave from ancient time remains unbroken.


The five-spokes of the wheel are extensions of a solar center point (not necessary ‘the sun’ but more like a nexus/Axel in the pulsation of energy, the Axel helps the spokes with distribution) the spokes themselves sorta skewer the planetary energies. The structure isn’t literal in the sense it tries to map what we see in space, but ontological in expressing the metaphysical influences of the celestial spheres. 

The nave is talking about both the interconnection of soul and vitality (or vibratory and metabolic) and generational cycles versus individual forces (how both the karma of generations and the choices one makes in ones own life day to day act as forces upon ones being). Think of these four ideas as the four walls of the naive, the Axel is centered within this naive, it’s not heated since it is the source of heat, just like fire can burn other things but cannot burn itself.

You could say this effects the ‘spiritual’ gravity of the soul, but this is a much loftier idea than speaking of the gravity of Maya (the gravity which physics suggest is a force in the world).


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jul 10, 2021)

@JohnDee  you're absolutely right about absolutely everything and I'm so tired of arguing against the mainstream (and other) narratives and its 'facts'. The majority of people here already know these 'facts' and rejected them long ago - that's why they're here in a stolen history forum. If you're here to convert us poor deluded fools then congratulations, I now worship at the altar of your 'facts'. Thank you so much. Now I can stop fighting against mainstream opinions and get on with my life.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jul 10, 2021)

To carry on the deconstruction.

Heliocentric model predicts that at equinox  the sun will rise due east and set due west ( 90E and 270W) all over the earth. The day and night length will be approximately equal.
| EarthSky

This is the conclusion predicted by the model using the tilt of earth , a daily rotation , and a 365.25 yearly orbit by earth of the sun.

Spring equinox this year is given as March 20th. On that day in Leeds (North England) from the observational tables of timeanddate.com website we see that the sun rose 89E and set 271W and the day length was 12hr 11min.

timeanddate.com/sun/uk/leeds?month=3&year=2021

We can see that on March 18th in Leeds the sun 90E and set 270W and the daylength was 12hr 2min ,almost equal to night length but the closest was actually on March 17 .

Anyone can check the timeanddate site for any place but the equinox data is extremely interesting in that it contradicts the heliocentric model predictions .


----------



## valdyn (Jul 10, 2021)

DampDevil said:


> Here is a little experiment. Download Stellarium. It is heliocentric software and it is 100% free. Punch in your coordinates and pick 10 random observations. Then take binoculars or a small telescope and verify for yourself. I have used the software many many times. It has helped me find planets, star clusters, and nebulas. There is no doubt in my mind, after being out many nights, the model portrayed in that software is the correct one. It is always on point and on time. I am open to almost anything but we DO live on a planet that circles around a burning ball of plasma and we do have planetary neighbors that you can see for yourself. Mars could never come between us and the sun, it is impossible. Put a solar filter on your scope and prove otherwise if this is something you believe in =)
> But is astrophysics on point at all times? I think not. They say gravity is king and disregard any notions of electrical forces being at work in the cosmos. This is ignorant imo.


You're testing something that was not in doubt. The thing to be tested is: Is there a different reality that matches the same verifiable formulas. 

Astrophysics is an entirely different issue. It was proven that it is false, but instead of going back to fundamentals they just invent dark matter and dark energy. That is obvious nonsense.


----------



## fabiorem (Jul 11, 2021)

JohnDee said:


> The subject of Ancient Greek astronomy, and its relation to India, etc is a long and deep subject.  I can go into in detail, but I will only be brief here.  I'm not implying India had no astronomy until the Greeks.  The basic claim of "Greek influence" in most easily understood with Alexander, who conquered into India, bringing Hellenistic culture with him.  Ancient Greek astronomy was considered as a discipline of math and is openly derived from many Babylonian, Egyptian, Chaldean, Persian sources.  Before Alexander the Achaemenid Empire of Persia had conquered into India as well, bringing with them their culture.  Certainly the influence of Babylonian ideas goes in both directions.  Names like Eudoxus, Archytas, Theodosius of Bithynia, Apollonius of Perga, Hipparchus, etc. bring ideas into astronomy that would seem to have much more significance than Rahu and Ketu...
> 
> The "golden age" of Classic Vedic astronomy wasn't really until the 4th-6th centuries AD, with Aryabhata, Brahmagupta, etc.  At this point they are openly talking of their Greek (and Roman) sources, like the _Romaka Siddhanta (Doctrine of the Romans).  _Really the most interesting thing is that don't seem to work with Ptolemy, but older Greek/Roman stuff.  There's plenty of Indian works on Astronomy, one can rather easily find out their thoughts and ideas.  Otherwise, like I said, this tale is a long one.




Except the dates are all wrong, and we don't know if Alexander was macedonian, scythian or persian, or all these at the same time.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jul 11, 2021)

Not sure of your point . Heliocentric model was introduced without any new supporting evidence . No one has directly measured any distance to any solar system body - are you agreeing or questioning that ?

The thread is about deconstructing the heliocentric model . Why do you feel the need to introduce flat earth and religion?

The heliocentric model is pretty easy to dismantle using science and observation .

You should trust your own senses .


----------



## Shabda Preceptor (Jul 12, 2021)

fabiorem said:


> Except the dates are all wrong, and we don't know if Alexander was macedonian, scythian or persian, or all these at the same time.


Even more than the dates, it is well known that the Greeks (and many other cultures) were P.I.E. civilizations (Proto-Indo-European), even if only compared based on linguistics the relationship is undeniable, so in the area of astronomy and the comparisons made, the Indians already influenced the Greeks before they ever came to be a group in the first place due to their origins being in the land now called India, but that seems to be discounted in the astronomy statement or at least considered insignificant. On that I disagree personally. Linguistics are known to be very influential on all cultures as they're part of the basis upon which most else is laid within a culture group, regardless of time period. Linguistic influences have fingers that reach into nearly every other aspect of a culture. Just my opinion, but an important one.


----------



## JohnDee (Jul 15, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> @JohnDee  you're absolutely right about absolutely everything and I'm so tired of arguing against the mainstream (and other) narratives and its 'facts'. The majority of people here already know these 'facts' and rejected them long ago - that's why they're here in a stolen history forum. If you're here to convert us poor deluded fools then congratulations, I now worship at the altar of your 'facts'. Thank you so much. Now I can stop fighting against mainstream opinions and get on with my life.



I'm not quite sure how to respond to this, nor do I fully understand your hostility.  But you have judged me wrong here.  Please don't attribute to me intentions I do not have.

I do not care about nor seek to push any kind of "mainstream" narrative.  I'm not here to "convert poor deluded fools".  It is not about me being "right" and you being "wrong".  I was merely responding to things you said, offering my understanding.  Certainly I might be wrong, but Ancient/classic astronomy (and Hermeticism) are subjects I spend much time studying on my own, without regard for any mainstream narrative.  I have not come to my ideas because some institution has indoctrinated me; I do not follow the proscriptions of some priestly class of "Scientists", "historians", etc dictating what is "truth" or not.  I prefer to consult source texts (when available) for ideas, not some manipulated, out of context, vague accounts used to push whatever narrative.  But of course I am open to suggestion.  

I certainly understand to some degree what 'stolen history' is about.  Hiding, covering up, or distorting history is just as much 'stolen history' as trying to take away real and honest discoveries and insights of those in the past, be they Eastern, Western, or whatever.  Every "big name" in the "narrative" is not an enemy, every discovery is not some theft.  Yes, there are many problems with the typical "Western/Eurocentric narrative" of history that is commonly taught.  But I prefer not be merely reactionary against it, but instead to understand what semblance of "truth" that can be found in it.  And certainly there has been a great deal of influence passed back and forth from the Mediterranean to India.  

If I am wrong or am misunderstanding things, then I am glad to be corrected.  I am open to any discussion.  I have not read everything, I have not studied all the ideas.  There is a vast amount of knowledge that I do not possess.  But in terms of ancient astronomy, among other things, it certainly seems like I should engage with the source writings and ideas of the ancients themselves to attempt to understood them.  Otherwise, who/what should I consult?  If the source texts are not a good place to start, then what is?  If I am to reject them, as I should some mainstream narrative, then what am I left with?  If I have been led astray, then can you not point out where I have gone wrong?


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jul 15, 2021)

The problem with source texts are that there are no ancient ones . Copies of copies . In terms of the ancient Greek astronomy , where are the original works attributed to Aristarchus for example ?  Heliocentric model attributed to this guy but none of his work survives - some say one work survives but this makes no mention of this heliocentric stuff. This where the myth starts.

The point is that there are no trustworthy sources for ancient astronomy . No proof has ever been put forward from today's theorists that we live in a heliocentric system.

My opinion is that the heliocentric model was written into history retrospectively - by the Jesuits probably.

I would genuinely like to know which sources you use which formed your views on ancient astronomy


----------



## JohnDee (Jul 20, 2021)

Shabda Preceptor said:


> Even more than the dates, it is well known that the Greeks (and many other cultures) were P.I.E. civilizations (Proto-Indo-European), even if only compared based on linguistics the relationship is undeniable, so in the area of astronomy and the comparisons made, the Indians already influenced the Greeks before they ever came to be a group in the first place due to their origins being in the land now called India, but that seems to be discounted in the astronomy statement or at least considered insignificant. On that I disagree personally. Linguistics are known to be very influential on all cultures as they're part of the basis upon which most else is laid within a culture group, regardless of time period. Linguistic influences have fingers that reach into nearly every other aspect of a culture. Just my opinion, but an important one.


The 'Great Thread of History' is woven between the Ganges and the Mediterranean, the Silk Road.  Along it has passed back and forth most of the great knowledge and development of the world.  The linguistics you reference are a testament to this.  Once people start writing, everyone begins influencing everyone else.  At times it is coming from India, at times Mesopotamia, at times the Mediterranean, and from further out; many things spreading and mixing.  There is no discounting anyone, nor is anything insignificant.  It is not a zero sum game.  Some people wrote stuff down, others didn't.  It is more about trying to follow the weave and understanding the pattern. 

I see no issue with the idea that the Greeks were influence by the Indians -- just as I see no issue with the idea that the there was a 'golden age' of Greek/Hellenistic astronomy, were they wrote many things down, making references to Egypt and Babylon; and then a little later a golden age of Indian astronomy where they wrote many things down and made some references to the Greeks; and then a little later a golden age of Arabic-Islamic astronomy where they wrote even more stuff down, making references to both Indian and Greece; culminating into the Renaissance where still more stuff was written down, referencing all manner of things.  As it stands this is the thread of astronomy that has woven the debate of geocentrism/heliocentrism, among numerous other things.      



FarewellAngelina said:


> The problem with source texts are that there are no ancient ones . Copies of copies .



Certainly the further back you go the more rare "source texts" become.  Almost all of "history" is copies of copies.  The lost works of Aristarchus are in many ways no different than rumors of some lost papyrii of Ancient Egypt, hidden scrolls of Babylon, some temple hidden in the Jungle, the monks of Tibet -- whatever supposed wisdom from any lost civilization.  History is always some part myth, because myth is part of making culture.  And in studying the surviving works of history there is always the assumption of mistranslations, copy errors, agendas, etc.  "Trustworthy" or not, we have what we have.  



FarewellAngelina said:


> The point is that there are no trustworthy sources for ancient astronomy .



I do not agree with this, mainly because I don't know what "trustworthy" is supposed to mean.  What is the criteria?  It is not that some lost person/work/etc. contained the "truth" -- it's that things get referenced to a point that it at least seems "true" somebody, somewhere was doing something.  It's not about "trusting" in Aristarchus or his myth.  It doesn't matter if he even existed.

Should one discount or reject works on the premise that they merely reference things no longer extant?  Should Ptolemy and all his writing be tossed out because he spends a paragraph saying "this guy Hipparchus did some neat stuff, but I'm gonna do this other neat stuff"?

In the case of Aristarchus, nothing, heliocentrism or otherwise, is predicated on him and nothing is "proved" by his lost works.  He is merely someone who other ancients (Archimedes, Plutarch, Strabo, etc) reference as being an astronomer and having made an argument for heliocentrism.  Some agreed, many didn't.  The ideas have long been debated. 



FarewellAngelina said:


> My opinion is that the heliocentric model was written into history retrospectively - by the Jesuits probably.


Of this I am not convinced.  Certainly the Jesuits were/are very devious and have long been up to no good.  But I'm not sure where they are "writing in" heliocentrism or what "good" that would do.  They surely don't seem to be hiding the fact that most of the old writings are geocentric...



FarewellAngelina said:


> I would genuinely like to know which sources you use which formed your views on ancient astronomy



As far as sources go, there are a great many.  Astronomy has been one of the most recorded and written about things in history, the world over.  It goes back to agriculture; calendars, math, physics, navigation, etc all come out of astronomy.  It hard to talk about the history of Astronomy without talking about the history of Math.  Many things have been lost, and many more remain untranslated.  An understanding of Latin and Greek greatly helps, as would Arabic and Sanskrit.  It would help if you could be a little more specific.  But I shall offer a few suggestions here and link a few things.    

There are the ancient star charts and astronomical tables of the Babylonians and Egyptians, their comments on their calendars and the seasons.  Ideas on architecture.  One can find many things.  The Greeks mention getting many things from them, but don't give specifics.

In terms of the Ancient Greeks, astronomy was integrated into their mathematical and geometric studies, as well as the cosmology of the Philosophers.  As such many of the famed works of Euclid, Archimedes, Plato, Aristotle, Hesiod, etc. all contain thoughts and ideas on the subject.  Of great interest is Apollonius' work on Conic Sections.  Otherwise, yes, many works of Hipparchus, Aristarchus, Posidonus, Meneleaus, etc are "lost".  But still they are referenced by others, not because they were "correct" or "true", just as people who did or said certain things interesting to certain areas of study.

There is of course the very famous Ptolemy, the great geocentrist.  His works Almagest and Planisphaerium (among others) are both of great interest, and have long been studied across the world. 

In term of India, their astronomy flourished around 5th century.  There is the famous Aryabhatiya or the Pañcasiddhāntikā.  You also have the very old Vedanga Jyotisha.  Many more.

In terms of the Arabs/Muslims, who for a some time (primarily 9th-12th centuries) did a great deal of work in the astronomy tradition (_anwa_).  Their works are numerous, bringing together the traditions of Mesopotamia, Greece, and India.  They also did much work with the astrolabe. One can find a general overview here.

Then of course there are the later works of Copernicus and Kepler; Brahe, Galileo, Bruno, Dee, Leibniz, Newton, etc.  There are the works of Portuguese, Spanish, English, etc navigators.  One can go in so many directions.   

So on and so forth.  The subject goes very deep.  As I have said, it has been long studied, so there are a great many things to look through.


----------



## fabiorem (Jul 21, 2021)

Copies of copies means there is no history at all, unless of course you want to know the history of those who made those copies, and most of them were involved in all sorts of fraud.
But then, the same logic applied to ancient Greece, can also be applied to ancient India. Do we have the original Rig Veda? I will not be surprised if the Rig Veda was actually written in the 19th century and given this ancient clothing to match it with the greek texts.

I have seem people talking about the western US belonging to Tartaria once, when the so-called "tartarian architecture" is not present in the open eastern russian steppes (at least not in the same quantity). We could imagine some big event wiping out the evidence. Ok, anything is possible, because since history was falsified, we could give wings to alternative theories.
However, when we apply the same logic to Rome, and speculates the evidence could have been wiped out in the same way in the balkans, the same people who were pushing the tartarian theory start asking for "proof". Why these people want to question the (official) history of the West, but not the (official) history of the East? If the history of the West was falsified, it is obvious the history of the East also was.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jul 21, 2021)

JohnDee said:


> There is of course the very famous Ptolemy, the great geocentrist.  His works Almagest and Planisphaerium (among others) are both of great interest, and have long been studied across the world.



Ptolemy the great geocentrist's work has not survived - the earliest copy is given as a 9th century translation from Greek to Arabic . 

Mentioning as many names of so-called ancient Greek astronomers as you can does not hide the fact that that no original work survives of those many named . 
Mainstream does not equate to trustworthy .

Copernicus and Kepler already dealt with . And Dee - leave Kellys wife alone . 

I think you may have wandered onto the wrong forum .


----------



## JohnDee (Jul 21, 2021)

fabiorem said:


> Copies of copies means there is no history at all, unless of course you want to know the history of those who made those copies, and most of them were involved in all sorts of fraud.


But the only way to have any kind of "history" is to "copy" it.  Whether it's the oral tradition or the written word.  If you don't repeat some kind of information, in some kind of way you will have nothing, history or otherwise.  And people need history, as in remembering time spent together, to form any kind of bonds.  And things can still be learned, myth or otherwise.  It all goes hand in hand with language, and writing exponentiates it to a great degree.

You make good points.  The "west" is often held to a different standard.   



FarewellAngelina said:


> Ptolemy the great geocentrist's work has not survived - the earliest copy is given as a 9th century translation from Greek to Arabic .
> 
> Mentioning as many names of so-called ancient Greek astronomers as you can does not hide the fact that that no original work survives of those many named


What difference does it really make?  We still have many copies, in many languages, of a work full of math and astronomical calculations to look at.  Texts that have beyond a doubt influenced astronomy and math for a long time, at least since the "9th century".  The words written and ideas contained in these texts have been key to the debates in astronomy, geocentrism/heliocentrism, etc.  What's in the text is what matters, not the name of the person that did or didn't write it.  No one says "Ptolemy said X, and therefore it is true".  Same for the Greeks.  Absolutely no one is hiding the fact that the "original work" of these supposed people has not survived.  Trigonometry, etc is still a thing, despite who "invented" it.  And if we had the "original works" would you accept them, or would you find reasons to just reject them too?  What "sources" do you consult?



FarewellAngelina said:


> Mainstream does not equate to trustworthy .



I'll ask again, what is the criteria for "trustworthy"?  Certainly "mainstream" does not equate to trustworthy, but what exactly does "mainstream" mean here?  At a certain point it would seem one would have to just reject everything and make up their own narrative.  But what would this narrative based on?  Old books, pure imagination?  Is it more "trustworthy" to just make up history, than to try and make sense what has been left behind?  



FarewellAngelina said:


> Copernicus and Kepler already dealt with . And Dee - leave Kellys wife alone .



If the works of Copernicus and Kepler have been "already dealt with" I would love to know where.  Vague conspiracies about who they were or what their motives were doesn't change the fact that they left works behind, and it is the ideas in these works that are the important thing.   
Take what you will from Dee's diaries but it was Kelly that first proposed that they "share everything", including wives.  To which Dee doesn't come across as being to pleased about.



FarewellAngelina said:


> I think you may have wandered onto the wrong forum .


I have lurked here for some time, enjoying the discussions on various things.  I post in this thread because it is a subject that I study.  If trying to study old works, to find whatever truth, to see where history has been distorted, and come to my own conclusions is not something for this forum, then perhaps I am in the wrong place.  But it quite seems that is some of what "stolen history" is about...


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jul 22, 2021)

You have only to click on the links provided throughout this thread to find out about Copernicus and Kepler. These links will also provide you with with the anomalies and contradictions which show the heliocentric model to be untenable .

Is post 72 of this thread where you came in? Just after it was shown that the speed of light , that cornerstone of modern physics and astronomy had never been measured . You start of with the "don't mention FE stuff " (nobody had if I recall correctly) and follow that with Ptolemy and Copernicus having covered the shape of earth . 

You say you study the subject of this thread - the deconstruction of the heliocentric model and modern physics - yet you indulge in silly sophistry - very brigade 77 like . Though you may have contributed to the debate - equinox anomaly maybe - there's alot more to that.

I trust my own senses ,experience and judgement on scientific matters .


----------



## JohnDee (Jul 23, 2021)

What difference does it matter where I came in?  It was when I got around to posting.  I'm not sure what the speed of light stuff has to do with anything.  I was only responding to a few things I took slight contention with, particularly in regards to Newton and John Dee.  I don't have much of an issue with anything else in this thread.  Otherwise I have been responding to things that were in response to me.    

I mention FE echoing what other posts had said, that it is good to try to have a discreet discussion on heliocentrism vs geocentrism.  The simple reference to Ptolemy and Copernicus was just to point out that the shape of the planet was not something that was particularly in debate in astronomy for some time, while helio vs geo were.  Make what you will of that.  

Yes, I defended Newton, which is perhaps taboo.  But you don't see me defending Kepler for stealing Brahe's data or faking his own.  And certainly I have not said anything is true because X, Y, or Z said 1, 2, or 3.  Nor have I said heliocentrism, geocentrism, or whatever is true.  Particularly because my mind is not made up on the subject.     

Yes there are links in this thread to some of it, but still nothing of great depth in regards to the books themselves.  I am trying to make my stumbling way through Kepler's _Astronomia Nova_ and _Harmonices Mundi_, so I guess I'm looking for stuff that deals more intensely with just his work.  So far with Coperincus's _De Revolutionibus_ I have found it to be a flawed but still quite beautiful book.  These are some of the books that the narrative has been based on, so I'm just trying to see what I can piece together and what can be found in them, if anything at all.  



FarewellAngelina said:


> You say you study the subject of this thread - the deconstruction of the heliocentric model and modern physics - yet you indulge in silly sophistry - very brigade 77 like . Though you may have contributed to the debate - equinox anomaly maybe - there's alot more to that.


I'm not sure what "silly sophistry" I'm indulging in.  Tho accusing me of being some British Army Intelligence spook quite seems like some.  But if you want to go into that subject I would much rather talk about Dee, heliocentrism, mapping the New World, cryptography, Walshingham, and the foundations of British Intelligence.   Yes there is a lot more to all of this.  People were responding to me about the nature of "sources", as such I was responding in turn.  

I see no reasons for any dispersions to be cast.


----------



## fabiorem (Jul 24, 2021)

JohnDee said:


> But the only way to have any kind of "history" is to "copy" it.  Whether it's the oral tradition or the written word.  If you don't repeat some kind of information, in some kind of way you will have nothing, history or otherwise.  And people need history, as in remembering time spent together, to form any kind of bonds.  And things can still be learned, myth or otherwise.  It all goes hand in hand with language, and writing exponentiates it to a great degree.
> 
> You make good points.  The "west" is often held to a different standard.




But here lies a problem: if everything is copied from oral traditions, and oral traditions vary greatly from one region to another, how can we trust those copied sources? 

See the case of the bulgarian threads. The OP mistook a cursive F for a S, while looking at it on the screen. Now imagine this during the middle ages, with old yellow paper and only the light of candles to read the ornated text. It is easy, in those conditions, to mistake the cursive F for a S, and hence the name Slavius was popularized in the East (also due to slavic languages being more sharp in pronunciation), and later the same word was captured by the Vatican, to distort it's meaning, which now would be "slave" instead of "glory". So you see two distortions of the source, the first caused by a mistake, the second caused by xenophobic leanings. How many more cases we could have of it? Hundreds, thousands, which leaves history as a convoluted mess. That's why we have to question these copies of copies.


----------



## RumbaV (Jul 31, 2021)

I'm confused why people think the geocentric model must also imply a flat stationary earth.

It's possible that these people knew perfectly well that earth was a globe, and the sun was at the center of the solar system.

Then why are there pictures that suggest they believed in a geocentric model?

A very compelling reason for that could be that it simply makes their mathematics easier to do, and has nothing to do with a flat earth

It makes perfect sense to chose your coordinate system in such a way that makes the earth central to all your calculations and diagrams, because the earth is where we live and from here we interact with the other energies in our solar system.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jul 31, 2021)

Jupiter is around 6AU from the sun .  1AU = 93,000,000 miles or 150,000,000km

Insolation for earth ( at 1AU ) = 1370W per square metre - of which a small part is in the visible spectrum. From my days as a swot .

 Electromagnetic light propagates according to the inverse square law , so once that sunlight passes earths orbit very little will reach Jupiter. 

Jupiter , being a globe , will scatter these incoming rays in all directions according to the principles of optics (it's why we have hotspots on curved objects) . An extremely tiny amount will then be reflected another 5AU to earth again propagating as per inverse square law . 

I once calculated all this for the planet Saturn at 9AU from the sun , which one can clearly see with the naked eye . I do not know how we can even see the planets . 

They must be luminaries and nearby , or we know nothing about light .

Just deconstructing a bit more.


RumbaV said:


> I'm confused why people think the geocentric model must also imply a flat stationary earth.
> 
> It's possible that these people knew perfectly well that earth was a globe, and the sun was at the center of the solar system.
> 
> ...


Geocentric model does not imply a flat stationary earth . Geocentric implies nothing about shape.

The fact that no scientific experiment has ever found the earth to be spinning implies a stationary earth.


----------



## DanFromMN (Aug 10, 2021)

If people stopped putting their faith in men to be truthful about experiments that they cant repeat and observe themseves, the PT(should not)B would lose all control.

Imagine how much more willing to accept a close relationship with God people would become if the true nature of this place were to become common knowledge? 

How many more people would be saved? 

Theres certainly an agenda.


----------



## alltheleaves (Aug 14, 2021)

Grosseteste said:


> He is a science and technology journalist.


Yes, for TIME.

In 1922/23 TIME was funded by the Harkness family and their Standard Oil dough. Luce & Hadden (Yale, Skull & Bones) were the prime movers. Several other Bonesman invested along with other frequently sighted "elite" family names like Harriman, Cheney and Gates.

As "mainstream" as it gets.


----------



## grav (Aug 15, 2021)

RumbaV said:


> I'm confused why people think the geocentric model must also imply a flat stationary earth.



I will rise to defend what Nasa and the military have described in their documents as a "stationary atmosphere above a flat non-rotating surface."

Water seeks its own level; oceans are water, so ....
Air which is still is probably not moving over a surface which spins 1000 mph; it is very hard to not say duh right now. So I won't. Gravity drag as the official explanation is ouch-worthy.
Optics and math - Chicago is visible from 50 miles. The Suez is over 100 miles long and level along a datum line its entire distance as it connects 2 seas without locks.


----------



## suspicious (Nov 28, 2021)

I hope it's not too late to give a humble contribution to this thread. When I heard the FE stuff for the first time back in 2015 I said "that's insane". But I was honest and tried to proof the earth is a ball. And guess what? It's flat. The simple way to check that is looking at sunrise and sunset, no matter where you are on earth the sun always rises on the east moving upward AND slightly to the right. And then the sunsets downward AND slightly to the right again. If we were in a ball the sun should have a different behavior on the southern hemisphere, specially high summer, rising on the east and going slightly to the left and setting on the west and going slightly to the left again. I have been to Argentina and could check that's not what happens.

On a spinning ball things should have the same pattern in high latitudes both in Greenland and Ushuaia, considering an observer looking at the sun rotating and a fixed point on the ground that also goes around the observer. That happens in Greenland, but when you are in Ushuaia the observer looks at the sun during the all day and the fixed point on the ground does not rotate, SO it's the sun that's going around and the ground is fixed. Ergo, we are on the same plane, north and south. I have some drawings to show that in a graphic way but I think that's not necessary to attach here. 

Not to mention the artificial horizon on a plane, that's another silver bullet on the ball. However I consider the sun observation good enough since people from the past came to the same conclusion and "smart people" of the 20th century couldn't see that because they were looking at the TV screen.


----------



## grav (Nov 28, 2021)

suspicious said:


> I have been to Argentina and could check that's not what happens.
> 
> On a spinning ball things should have the same pattern in high latitudes both in Greenland and Ushuaia, considering an observer looking at the sun rotating and a fixed point on the ground that also goes around the observer. That happens in Greenland, but when you are in Ushuaia the observer looks at the sun during the all day and the fixed point on the ground does not rotate, SO it's the sun that's going around and the ground is fixed. Ergo, we are on the same plane, north and south. I have some drawings to show that in a graphic way but I think that's not necessary to attach here.



Ushuaia is an important clue.
Its proximity to Antarctica means that it can never have a Midnight Sun, which is easily observable in the Arctic.
If heliocentrism were real, there would be tons of videos of the sun appearing above the horizon 24/7 in southern summers. 
On the other hand, with modern cinematic software, it should be possible to create believable videos that fake the phenomenon.


----------



## Akanah (Dec 24, 2021)

I suppose heliocentrism arose parallel to geocentrism, because both are like the respective one or other side of a medallion. That is so similar as with spherical earth vs. concave earth which perhaps also both came up at the same time. We live in a dual world and therefore there are always two sides from the beginning. I see no point in picking apart the heliocentrism model of modern physics without also examining the geocentrism model (which is common among religions).


----------



## Nick Weech (Aug 12, 2022)

Will Scarlet said:


> "_Nor is it necessary that these hypotheses should be true, nor indeed even probable, but it is sufficient if they merely produce calculations which agree with the observations... And let no one expect from astronomy, as far as hypotheses are concerned, anything certain, since it cannot produce any such thing, in case if he seizes on things constructed for another other purpose as true, he departs from this discipline more foolish than he came to it. The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena, and not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood._" (Nicolaus Copernicus 'To the Reader on the Hypotheses In this Work', Unsigned preface by Andreas Osiander to Copernicus: On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres (1543), trans. A. M. Duncan, 1976)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In “Three Views Concerning Human Knowledge” Popper set out from the conflict between the Church and Galileo Galilei and wrote that the former had “no objection to Galileo’s teaching the mathematical theory, so long as he made it clear that its value was instrumental only; that it was nothing but a ‘supposition’, as Cardinal Bellarmine put it; or a‘mathematical hypothesis’ – a kind of mathematical trick, ‘invented and assumed in order to abbreviate and ease calculations’.” 6 
Popper (1956 [1963] 98, n. 2) considered Osiander and Cardinal Bellarmine among the “founding fathers of the epistemology which … I am
going to call ‘instrumentalism’.” {Opposed to the 'Realists' like Galileo}
Duhem and Popper thus joined hands in recognizing as instrumentalists some historical figures. But whereas for the former Osiander and
Bellarmine were the “good guys,” the latter hastened to contrast them with his own positive hero, Galileo Galilei: “Galileo himself, of course,
was very ready to stress the superiority of the Copernican system as an instrument of calculation. But at the same time he conjectured, and even believed, that it was a true description of the world; and for him (as for the Church) this was by far the most important matter” (Popper 1956 [1963] 98, italics in the original).

https://www.researchgate.net/public...nomy_Duhem_vs_Popper_Maimonides_vs_Gersonides

"Copernicus studied at the University of Kraków and then travelled to Italy to study canon law at the University of Bologna and medicine at the University of Padua. Through all this time he was also studying and thinking about astronomy. Upon his return to Poland, Copernicus served as secretary and physician to his uncle, who also obtained a position for him as canon of Frombork (or Frauenberg) Cathedral. When his uncle’s died, Copernicus took up his duties as cathedral canon and remained in Frombork for most of the rest of his life. Though an official of the Church, it is doubtful whether Copernicus was ever ordained to the priesthood."
Nicolaus Copernicus - The Society of Catholic Scientists

The Jesuits were founded in 1534.
Lots up for investigation I agree.


----------



## sekito (Aug 12, 2022)

Since this thread has been pushed, I will give my two cents on it:
1. It seem to me that the “Church condemned Galileo‘s heliocentric model” is a contrived lie.  Given the fact that Christianity worships the Sun, there is only reason for them to support it rather than reject it.

2. Personally, I think most people who thinks about this to be too limited in their conception of space and reality. Whether you agree with Einstein or not(Einstein simply got his “theory” from copying others after all), it is conceivable that reality is not limited to 3 dimensions. When physicists talk about space(or space time, which I personally disagree with) curvature, they are conceiving of a 4-dimensional universe. Therefore descriptions of 3-dimensional objects like round or flat are inadequate to describe Earth which is (at least) 4 dimensional.

In my view, the Earth is both round and flat simultaneously depending on one’s position and perspective(on Earth’s surface vs. far away from it) - this is possible when we do not limit ourselves to a 3-dimensional world. (Note: I consider the possibility of it being a flat torus to be highly likely, so in a way, it can also be said to be ‘hollow’). Similarly, the Earth is both static and in motion depending on how you conceive it (Mach’s principle). It is my belief that all cosmic objects are stationary in the absolute reference frame, and it is the space(or ether) that is changing between them(due to what we call ‘gravity’), thus giving rise to the illusion/sensation of movement. To clarify, my view is that both Heliocentrism and Geocentrism are ulimately incorrect, as they are both illusions due to the changes in space, and not truly ‘movement‘ of cosmic objects.

3. My view on the TYCHOS model(or Tycho Brahe’s model). I agree with the observation that the sidereal position seems to suggest a stationary Earth in relation to the stars. However(!) if one is able to accept the existence of space curvature, then this apparent effect can also be explained by gravitational lensing - that is to say, our perception of the stars are not the true positions of the stars, but instead a refraction that ‘moves’ along with the Earth due to the combined gravitational effect of the Sun and the Earth. In that case, it is unable to be taken as evidence for or against any model of the solar system. On this basis, by Occam’s razor, I would take that the Earth is, like the rest of the planets, ‘moving around’ the Sun; rather than the more convoluted “the solar system except the Earth moves around the Earth” model.


----------



## Nick Weech (Aug 12, 2022)

Nick Weech said:


> In “Three Views Concerning Human Knowledge” Popper set out from the conflict between the Church and Galileo Galilei and wrote that the former had “no objection to Galileo’s teaching the mathematical theory, so long as he made it clear that its value was instrumental only; that it was nothing but a ‘supposition’, as Cardinal Bellarmine put it; or a‘mathematical hypothesis’ – a kind of mathematical trick, ‘invented and assumed in order to abbreviate and ease calculations’.” 6
> Popper (1956 [1963] 98, n. 2) considered Osiander and Cardinal Bellarmine among the “founding fathers of the epistemology which … I am
> going to call ‘instrumentalism’.” {Opposed to the 'Realists' like Galileo}
> Duhem and Popper thus joined hands in recognizing as instrumentalists some historical figures. But whereas for the former Osiander and
> ...


Just a bit more for the discussion.

The Jesuits & The Globe Earth: The Mother Of All Conspiracies!

"At the very time Copernicus was resisting appeals to publish his theory of a heliocentric solar system, the Roman Catholic Church was waging war on the new Protestantism. Catholics admit the “Counter Reformation” was “an effort to stem the tide of Protestantism by genuine reform within the Catholic Church.” The Jesuit order was established in 1540 under the approval of Pope Paul III—the very pope with whom Copernicus had corresponded regarding calendar reform and to whom Copernicus dedicated his book, _Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies_!
It cannot be overstated: the Catholic Church was the force behind Copernicus, persistently urging the reluctant cleric to spread abroad his heliocentric theories that contradicted Scripture."

Galileo as we're told, was punished for pushing this heliocentric view: Paradox? Maybe there's a deeper agenda over centuries ...

Let's remember : "The author of the Big Bang theory was none other than the Jesuit-trained priest, Father Georges Lemaître. On October 28, 2014, Sarah Kerr reported on Pope Francis’ address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. In his remarks, the pontiff “said the Big Bang theory is compatible with the Catholic Church’s teaching on creation.” Pope Francis stated: “The Big Bang, that today is considered to be the origin of the world, _does not contradict the creative intervention of God; _on the contrary, it requires it.” He is a Jesuit of course.

I'm not taking sides but there's something being hidden behind all this blabber and smoke ...


----------



## Gold (Aug 19, 2022)

Will Scarlet said:


> _"The concept of a* Sun-centred solar system was known to the ancient Greeks.* It predates Copernicus by nearly two millennia and can be traced back several centuries before Ptolemy's pronouncement that the Earth stood fixed and motionless at the centre of the universe."_ (Article)
> 
> _"In _*1595*_, an early Jesuit missionary to China, Matteo Ricci, recorded that the Chinese say: "*The earth is flat and square*, and the sky is a round canopy." In the 17th century, the idea of a spherical Earth spread in China due to the influence of the *Jesuits*, who held high positions as astronomers at the imperial court."_ (Article)
> 
> ...


Would love to get my hands on as proper a translation of the Vedas as there exists outside of the Vatican..


----------



## Frits (Aug 19, 2022)

Gold said:


> proper a translation of the Vedas as there exists outside of the Vatican


I think that's in the Vatican libraries, hidden from the sheep. I'd like to know everything the Vatican and the Smithsonian is hiding.
I think a lot of 'discovery' that people have done and are doing were/are meant to destroy history.

It is important to know that people derive their strength from knowing what their culture is or has been: destroying it makes many people unstable and impressionable; and that's what the TPtB want.


----------



## Nick Weech (Aug 20, 2022)

Gold said:


> Would love to get my hands on as proper a translation of the Vedas as there exists outside of the Vatican..


Manufacturing Confucianism
This interesting text, connecting to Fr Ricci may throw light on events in ancient China .


----------



## Nick Weech (Aug 21, 2022)

Gold said:


> Would love to get my hands on as proper a translation of the Vedas as there exists outside of the Vatican..


Where, one wonders, did Atri Bhauma observe and record that famous total solar eclipse of the Rig Veda? Where exactly did Yajnavalkya of the Shatapatha Brahmana conjure the intercalary 95 year cycle to align the lunar and solar years? Where was he struck by thoughts, some dare say, so close to heliocentrism? Somewhere in Mithila perhaps. Where did Dirghatamas Auchatya conceive of the celestial circle of 360- *which would later become the 360 degrees of mathematics*? Both appear in his cryptic Rig Vedic hymns and in clearer, more developed forms in later texts such as the Shatapatha Brahmana and the Vedanga Jyotisha. We may never know.Where, one wonders, did Atri Bhauma observe and record that famous total solar eclipse of the Rig Veda? Where exactly did Yajnavalkya of the Shatapatha Brahmana conjure the intercalary 95 year cycle to align the lunar and solar years? Where was he struck by thoughts, some dare say, so close to heliocentrism? Somewhere in Mithila perhaps. Where did Dirghatamas Auchatya conceive of the celestial circle of 360- *which would later become the 360 degrees of mathematics*? Both appear in his cryptic Rig Vedic hymns and in clearer, more developed forms in later texts such as the Shatapatha Brahmana and the Vedanga Jyotisha. 
We may never know.


----------



## Nick Weech (Sep 5, 2022)

Nick Weech said:


> Where, one wonders, did Atri Bhauma observe and record that famous total solar eclipse of the Rig Veda? Where exactly did Yajnavalkya of the Shatapatha Brahmana conjure the intercalary 95 year cycle to align the lunar and solar years? Where was he struck by thoughts, some dare say, so close to heliocentrism? Somewhere in Mithila perhaps. Where did Dirghatamas Auchatya conceive of the celestial circle of 360- *which would later become the 360 degrees of mathematics*? Both appear in his cryptic Rig Vedic hymns and in clearer, more developed forms in later texts such as the Shatapatha Brahmana and the Vedanga Jyotisha. We may never know.Where, one wonders, did Atri Bhauma observe and record that famous total solar eclipse of the Rig Veda? Where exactly did Yajnavalkya of the Shatapatha Brahmana conjure the intercalary 95 year cycle to align the lunar and solar years? Where was he struck by thoughts, some dare say, so close to heliocentrism? Somewhere in Mithila perhaps. Where did Dirghatamas Auchatya conceive of the celestial circle of 360- *which would later become the 360 degrees of mathematics*? Both appear in his cryptic Rig Vedic hymns and in clearer, more developed forms in later texts such as the Shatapatha Brahmana and the Vedanga Jyotisha.
> We may never know.



_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fehFdW5n2Kk_

Muslim mathematicians were great force before Copernicus & Gallileo, so may have influenced them completely:
I was wondering when Islam moved to the heliocentric view- apparently they always had it since AD 750 or so!

When they calculate the position of Mecca :

Which Direction Is Mecca - IslamiCity

"Muslim prayers have a geographic angle not found in other religious traditions. The holiest site in Islam is the Kaaba, a mosque in Mecca, and observant Muslims perform their daily prayers literally facing that spot. But figuring out which way to pray isn’t quite as simple as it seems-especially in the very odd case of Tematangi, a remote atoll in French Polynesia.
In the Quran, the direction that Muslims are instructed to face when they pray is called the qibla, which means “direction” in Arabic. The need to calculate the qibla correctly was one factor that led to the development of sophisticated math and geography in the Arab world during the so-called “Islamic Golden Age,” between the 8th and 13th centuries.
On a flat Earth, calculating the qibla would be easy: You would use a “rhumb line,” a line of standard bearing that crossed all meridians of longitude at the same angle. If you were praying in Anchorage, Alaska, for example, you’d face Mecca by facing roughly west-southwest. But here’s the problem: The Earth is round. Most scholars of Islam, from the Middle Ages up to today, have recommended that believers pray using a so-called “great circle” to find the path of least distance to Mecca. By this math, a Muslim in Anchorage would actually face almost due north to pray! (Check a globe if you don’t believe me on this.)"

16th and 17th C  Iranian maps: Two Iranian World Maps for Finding the Direction and Distance to Mecca on JSTOR

It's mostly new to me ... appreciate some of our community with their vast expertise may like to share here


Dan Gibson (author) - Wikipedia

"In 2017, historian David A. King authored a highly critical review of Gibson's _Early Islamic Qiblas_[1] in which he cites plagiarism, misconstruction and misunderstanding of his 1990 work on Qibla direction.[2] King also published a systematic review in 2018 entitled _"The Petra fallacy - Early mosques do face the Sacred Kaaba in Mecca but Dan Gibson doesn't know how / Comparing historical orientations with modern directions can l_ead to false results".[3]

King argued that early Muslim Arabs were unable to precisely establish Qiblas when building new mosques until later mathematical developments made precision possible.[4] Further, King wrote, many variations in orientation are better accounted for by regional and local practices, imperfect geography, and folk astronomy.  King noted Gibson's inadequate grasp of mathematics, citing Gibson's "spherical polygons" (p. 170) as inexplicable. King summarized his analysis of Gibson's work as an "amateurish, non-scholarly document that is both offensive to Muslims and also an insult to Muslim and Western scholarship."[4] Gibson placed a response to King on academia.edu, "Dr. King on the other hand is convinced that the sloppy qiblas actually intended to point: east, west, solstices, sunrises and so forth. I have not come across anything in Islamic religious manuscripts that support these Qiblas. But perhaps in time someone, somewhere will stumble across something that will change our understanding of Qiblas. All I have found so far, is that every Muslim expects the Qibla to point to Masjid Al Harām."[5]"

David A. King (historian) - Wikipedia

"The first volume of his _magnum opus_ entitled _In Synchrony with the Heavens_ (2004) contains the first descriptions of the astronomical tables used by Muslim astronomers for timekeeping by the sun and stars and the regulation of the astronomically-defined times of Muslim prayer throughout the year for different localities. The sophistication of some of these tables and instruments is remarkable, especially those that are universal, in the sense of serving all latitudes. Also remarkable is the way in which Muslim astronomers tabulated all conceivable functions relevant to the problems of spherical astronomy. *The vast majority of these tables were unknown in medieval Europe, which is why they have only come to light in modern times.*" (NW emphasis)


----------



## Mick Harper (Sep 11, 2022)

Coincidentally or not, the modern pursuit of wisdom begins (and ends) with an examination of heliocentrism. The publication of Thomas Kuhn's _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions _in 1962 alerted the world to the fact that basic paradigm theories are more sociological than scientific. Kuhn himself contended himself with instancing the Copernican Revolution and leaving it at that, academics have contented themselves with instancing Kuhn and leaving it that.

They are all terrified of going any further because the clear implication of Kuhn's work is that _all _basic paradigm theories are of their nature deeply suspect. Nobody minds people of the past being laughed at for believing risible things, everybody minds being laughed at for believing risible  things themselves.


----------



## Nick Weech (Sep 11, 2022)

Sorry about the duplication. My posts were edited by an admin person/bot is my excuse.

It's been interesting for me at least looking at the period and I end (for now) ...

... by looking at 1615, (AD/BCE/??) and see Fr Bellarmine's letter to Fr Foscarini. But where is Foscarini's letter to Fr Sebastione Fantone? It provoked Bellarmine's well known response, succintly summed up as Realists vs Instrumentalists. Fr Bellarmine was a very astute man but he was stuck in a difficult position, so it seems (going by what I can find out in translations) his job as arch Inquisitor :

"For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this." trying to reconcile the dispute just as Osiander had attempted with his preface to Copernicus' book

" It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun really is in the center and the earth in the heavens". This is tghe key point which was a turning point away from possible reconciliation, as had up till 1615.

What agenda was being served by banning that Foscarino letter? It's a little hard to find even now: It was edited at times along the way ...
Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible : including a translation of Foscarini's Letter on the motion of the earth : Blackwell, Richard J., 1929- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

"The *realist approach* assumes that concepts,, theories and other aspects in science are a true or approximately a true reflection of the natural physical world (Hesse, 2020)

"According to *instrumentalists*, scientific theories are used to predict various issues instead of providing the true or approximately true descriptions of the physical world. Instrumentalism is the opposite of scientific realism where people tend to believe in observable and unobservable aspects as an explanation to the physical world. It is vital to understand the difference between the two as a way of gaining a deeper understanding on the discussion topic. A physical theory is not an explanation about the natural world and instead, it is a system of propositions whose aim is to represent as possible the whole group of experimental laws (Bhakthavatsalam and Kidd, 2019)"

This leads off into epistemology: The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

 Mick Harper may have something to add here ...


Mick Harper said:


> Coincidentally or not, the modern pursuit of wisdom begins (and ends) with an examination of heliocentrism. The publication of Thomas Kuhn's _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions _in 1962 alerted the world to the fact that basic paradigm theories are more sociological than scientific. Kuhn himself contended himself with instancing the Copernican Revolution and leaving it at that, academics have contented themselves with instancing Kuhn and leaving it that.
> 
> They are all terrified of going any further because the clear implication of Kuhn's work is that _all _basic paradigm theories are of their nature deeply suspect. Nobody minds people of the past being laughed at for believing risible things, everybody minds being laughed at for believing risible  things themselves.


It is so obvious once we see something for ourselves. 
Having  it pointed out means either we may start to see it too or we deny it because we are already tied into a belief system. For most of us it is 'textbook history' We do not want to see the ramifications of "not seeing what is pointed out"; maybe something in us does NOT want to be shown- whatever. That's where the real battles might be fought and either lost or won. 

 Edwin Johnson is my example , of someone who picked away at assumptions he had taken for granted ... and found he could'nt stop

Why are we so afraid of being laughed at by our peers. If we admit we don't know and want to find out, we are immune from that. But it takes courage in the face of experts who we are taught to believe in, as we are taught to follow the straight & narrow path. Kept in line.

Thanks Mick

Critique of Kuhn's Argument


----------



## Mick Harper (Sep 11, 2022)

Actually, one is not laughed at by adopting the Don't Know position. You might be thought a bit thick, you might be accused of not caring, but the Don't Know position is generally quite a respectable one. That is why people usually describe themselves as Agnostics when in reality they are, for all practical purposes, Atheists.

However, if you _oppose_ the current position you _will _get the treatment. Both barrels.


----------



## Nick Weech (Sep 11, 2022)

But the point often made, via mass "education", is that you're more than thick if you say 'I don't know'; even young children KNOW (fill in any example here). 
It has become a paradigm for society, ignorance (non belief) is to be eliminated in all areas as a human right of course.

Your saying 'I don't know' is weaponised into 'You simply don't want to know' - in other words you're promoting ignorance over truth etc


----------



## Mick Harper (Sep 11, 2022)

That is true and a common bane. No talking head has ever said, "I don't know." Or rather "We don't know."  We have watched the consequences of this for two years as the Covid pandemic played itself out. The Crazies turned out to be right (though for the wrong reasons). It would probably have been best to do nothing.

But there I go. Claiming to know.


----------



## Nick Weech (Sep 11, 2022)

If I can really say "I don't know", I can safely argue by analogy "Nor do you. Where's your proof, not where's your belief?"
We see that most of what people say "I know" is really "I believe" because I was told or shown by somebody else.

Never mind Descartes still believing in his mind and God. What about Feynman?
"This is a notion that the eminent 20th-century theoretical physicist, Richard Feynman noted when he stated: “_What we call scientific knowledge is just a body of information of varying degrees of certainty_”, and that certainty can never reach 100%."

Richard Feynman Creates a Simple Method for Telling Science From Pseudoscience (1966)

"The problem of _demarcation_, or what is and what is not science, has occupied philosophers for some time, and the most famous answer comes from philosopher of science Karl Popper, who proposed his theory of “falsifiability” in 1963. According to Popper, an idea is scientific if it can conceivably be proven wrong. Although Popper’s strict definition of science has had its uses over the years, it has also come in for its share of criticism, *since so much accepted science was falsified in its day (Newton’s gravitational theory, Bohr’s theory of the atom), and so much current theoretical science cannot be falsified (string theory, for example)*."  (NW emphasis)

Back to the Sixties Mick. Thanks again

Heavy stuff for Sunday morning ...


----------



## User1 (Sep 14, 2022)

Interesting topic and while I appreciate the need to deconstruct mainstream science I think their is a limit to how far one can deconstruct science in general.  I say this because we are limited in our ability to perceive and interact with reality, much less understand it and our observations are limited by our senses.  Some great arguments and insights shared and I agree with much of it.  This is however just so that we can make sense of a world that doesn't make sense.  

Theories about heliocentrism or earth shape are not borne out in reality because of our perceptual limitations or in this case, our inability to remove ourselves from the earth environment and gaze upon it outside the earth.   While many place science on a pedestal as the answer to solving the mysteries of history and life and defeating the BS of the PTB, I feel it is telling that during a period in our history, when it would seem we were very technologically advanced (and it is my view that we were way more advanced than the present), these people with their understanding of science, the universe and their architectural marvels and amazing technologies were religious.  Whether they worshipped pagan deities or the God of Abraham, science and technology did not create a society of atheists.  A more advance civilization concluded there is more to reality than science and they appealed to what some would the supernatural.  I don't think it's supernatural at all but rather beyond our experience of reality but be that as it may, this is very telling.

Linked to the above paragraph and the topic of heliocentricity is the worship of the sun. I don't have answers to provide as I'm not a researcher and I'm really on this site to learn from way more knowledgeable members.  I simply am interested in why so many civilizations, tribal, urban, jungles, cities, etc.  they worshipped the sun as a sentient being.  This I find puzzling.   Why do the lumi and their lumi friends still push the sun-worship agenda, which I think is the real purpose behind heliocentricity, sun-worship. I can understand an uneducated people but those who were the scientists of old...not so much.



Nick Weech said:


> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fehFdW5n2Kk_
> 
> Muslim mathematicians were great force before Copernicus & Gallileo, so may have influenced them completely:
> I was wondering when Islam moved to the heliocentric view- apparently they always had it since AD 750 or so!



As a Muslim I understand the position shared by the presenter and the opinion of the scholars she references however I do not share the opinion.  It's just not a topic that seems to come up much in the history of Islam so I don't know about the claim that it a widespread belief.  I get the feeling that a false dichotomy has been presented and accepted and then a position need to be adopted based on this, ignoring any and all other possibilities e.g.  crater earth? Or my own view, we just don't know.



dreamtime said:


> Nature of the evidence of widespread historical belief in a stationary earth



Islamically I understand the earth to be stationary.  There are different interpretations on whether it is round or flat based upon the works of early scholars however you can explore quite a lot of them at the following link.

The earth may be round, it may be flat.  Whatever it is, my feeling is that it is definitely stationary.

Peace


----------



## Mick Harper (Sep 15, 2022)

It is surprising how geocentric are our current theories of how it all works. As instanced in this YouTube from a well-known contributor to this thread
A New Model of the Solar System


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPWH9xh_Jy0_​


----------



## Nick Weech (Sep 15, 2022)

User1 said:


> Interesting topic and while I appreciate the need to deconstruct mainstream science I think their is a limit to how far one can deconstruct science in general.  I say this because we are limited in our ability to perceive and interact with reality, much less understand it and our observations are limited by our senses.  Some great arguments and insights shared and I agree with much of it.  This is however just so that we can make sense of a world that doesn't make sense.
> 
> Theories about heliocentrism or earth shape are not borne out in reality because of our perceptual limitations or in this case, our inability to remove ourselves from the earth environment and gaze upon it outside the earth.   While many place science on a pedestal as the answer to solving the mysteries of history and life and defeating the BS of the PTB, I feel it is telling that during a period in our history, when it would seem we were very technologically advanced (and it is my view that we were way more advanced than the present), these people with their understanding of science, the universe and their architectural marvels and amazing technologies were religious.  Whether they worshipped pagan deities or the God of Abraham, science and technology did not create a society of atheists.  A more advance civilization concluded there is more to reality than science and they appealed to what some would the supernatural.  I don't think it's supernatural at all but rather beyond our experience of reality but be that as it may, this is very telling.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your comments. It is a subject worth further investigation ...


User1 said:


> Interesting topic and while I appreciate the need to deconstruct mainstream science I think their is a limit to how far one can deconstruct science in general.  I say this because we are limited in our ability to perceive and interact with reality, much less understand it and our observations are limited by our senses.  Some great arguments and insights shared and I agree with much of it.  This is however just so that we can make sense of a world that doesn't make sense.
> 
> Theories about heliocentrism or earth shape are not borne out in reality because of our perceptual limitations or in this case, our inability to remove ourselves from the earth environment and gaze upon it outside the earth.   While many place science on a pedestal as the answer to solving the mysteries of history and life and defeating the BS of the PTB, I feel it is telling that during a period in our history, when it would seem we were very technologically advanced (and it is my view that we were way more advanced than the present), these people with their understanding of science, the universe and their architectural marvels and amazing technologies were religious.  Whether they worshipped pagan deities or the God of Abraham, science and technology did not create a society of atheists.  A more advance civilization concluded there is more to reality than science and they appealed to what some would the supernatural.  I don't think it's supernatural at all but rather beyond our experience of reality but be that as it may, this is very telling.
> 
> ...


"As a Muslim" as indicator of how this is true? Is it? Can there ever be the same cognitive norms. Fundamental point  imo...

'definition of traditional epistemology, followed by an explanation of how class, gender, and race can affect what one can know.  
Traditional epistemology can be defined as all knowers, regardless of who you are or what your social situation is, are bound by the same cognitive norms'


Mick Harper said:


> It is surprising how geocentric are our current theories of how it all works. As instanced in this YouTube from a well-known contributor to this thread
> A New Model of the Solar System
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPWH9xh_Jy0_​



Thank you Mick.


Mick Harper said:


> It is surprising how geocentric are our current theories of how it all works. As instanced in this YouTube from a well-known contributor to this thread
> A New Model of the Solar System
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPWH9xh_Jy0_​



Is this part of a series? It should get people looking further: Applied Epistemology
The Applied Epistemology Library :: View Forum - Basics


----------



## Mick Harper (Sep 15, 2022)

The general theme is: "All paradigm theories of the past have been found wanting so there is no reason why our current crop should be taken as gospel." But people will have to explore the visible threads (there are others that are for working out new ideas) to find out what subjects have been taken to task.


----------



## Nick Weech (Sep 15, 2022)

Mick Harper said:


> The general theme is: "All paradigm theories of the past have been found wanting so there is no reason why our current crop should be taken as gospel." But people will have to explore the visible threads (there are others that are for working out new ideas) to find out what subjects have been taken to task.


as an assumption let's say everything is up for grabs, for reinterpretation.

Start with your heliocentric video posted above ...


----------



## Mick Harper (Sep 15, 2022)

Come on then, if you think you're hard enough.


----------



## ViniB (Oct 8, 2022)

Just look at tge reactions in this post, some people will never question the infinite space vacuum


----------



## PantaOz (Oct 8, 2022)

A fundamental idea in the geography of ancient China is "round sky and square earth." It first appeared, according to the Chinese scientists (I will not argue if they are correct or not... ) at least 2,000 years ago and has had a considerable negative and positive impact on Chinese topography. The history of geographical philosophy is a recent academic topic in China. This change first started in the 1980's and "The center of geographical history" has emerged (Yang 1989, p. 7; Wang 1982, p. 4).

The history of exploration, cartography, and the geographers themselves received more focus in earlier studies of ancient Chinese geography.The idea of a circular sky and a square earth was not given any consideration.     



> China had its own world picture.  As the _Huainanzi_, a treatise on government prepared under the Han dynasty (202 BC – AD 220), put it: “The Way of the Heaven is called the Round, The Way of the Earth is called the Square.” 1 Correlations in nature confirmed the schema of round above and square below. For example, the _Huainanzi_ assumed the microcosm of the human body resembled the macrocosm of the universe. It went on to note, the head’s roundness resembles heaven and the feet’s squareness resembles earth.2 Song Yu, a poet writing in the fourth century BC, used another analogy, “The square earth is my chariot and the round heaven my canopy.” 3


Chinese astronomy in antiquity was founded on this fundamental world view.

The Gnomon of the Zhou, a fundamental collection of writings composed during the Han dynasty, confirmed that the sky was a revolving umbrella located far above the square earth.

We shouldn't think that the Chinese were prevented from creating an advanced and precise astronomy by their view of the world.

All things considered, the calendar was an imperial prerogative. The Emperor also needed to be mindful of natural occurrences like eclipses since they served as a warning that the heavenly authorities were not happy with his rule. The Imperial Astronomical Bureau has been in charge of keeping an eye on the sky and establishing the calendar since ancient times. 



> The Chinese retained their traditional world picture despite Buddhist and Muslim immigrants who brought the concept of the spherical earth with them.  Then, in the sixteenth century, Portuguese traders began to enter China.  They were so belligerent that the Ming dynasty (1368 – 1644) authorities made several efforts to throw them out.  But in 1577, the Chinese leased the foreigners a small piece of land, called Macau, at the mouth of the Pearl River.  This was intended to contain them, while allowing China to benefit from the commerce they brought.  Shortly afterwards, a few Jesuit missionaries slipped into China proper.  Their ambition was to convert the Middle Kingdom to Christianity.
> https://catholicscientists.org/articles/round-or-square-china-christianity-shape-of-earth/
> The Jesuits planned to use western science and technology to make themselves useful to the imperial authorities.  In return, they sought permission to evangelize freely.  The strategy was spearheaded by an Italian priest named Matteo Ricci (1562 – 1610), who arrived in China in 1582.  Cultured and gregarious, he mastered the written language and nurtured contacts within the literate elite. His aim was to reach the Emperor and gain official sanction for missionary work.  He succeeded in penetrating the Forbidden City in 1601 and the Jesuits maintained a presence there for much of the next 150 years.



It seems that for all these people everything is about taking advantage... Ricci understood that the Jesuits needed to be both necessary and non-threatening if his colleagues were to be permitted to publicly preach. He had the chance to demonstrate how useful he could be by studying European geography and astronomy. Late in 1595, Ricci wrote letters outlining what he had learned about the Chinese worldview.
He observed that they believed the earth to be flat and square and the sky to be a circular canopy. In private, he dismissed these opinions, but he was aware that he needed to use caution in his attempts to correct them. He chose his first project after observing how Chinese guests at the Jesuits' mansion would stare at a world map that was displayed on the wall. 



> The Chinese had excellent maps of their own country, so Ricci combined these with European charts plotted during the voyages of Portuguese and Spanish explorers.  Diplomatically, he placed the Americas on the right and Europe on the left so China remained near the center.  He filled out the unexplored parts of the world with elements of Chinese and classical fantasy such as the land of the dwarfs and a realm of one-eyed people.  The lower half of the southern hemisphere was filled by an enormous and non-existent continent, the _terra australis_, that Europeans had convinced themselves was awaiting discovery.  (A colored Japanese copy of the map made about 1610 can be found HERE.)
> https://catholicscientists.org/articles/round-or-square-china-christianity-shape-of-earth/
> https://catholicscientists.org/articles/round-or-square-china-christianity-shape-of-earth/
> Ricci improved his map in several stages before it reached its most developed form in 1602, which he called the “Complete Geographical Chart of Ten Thousand Countries.” When printed, it was twelve and half feet long and over five feet high. This was more than just a map of the world. Ricci included diagrams of the whole universe in each corner, as well as lengthy explanatory captions. He broached the subject of the Globe in the map’s general introduction:
> ...


----------



## alltheleaves (Oct 9, 2022)

PantaOz said:


> A fundamental idea in the geography of ancient China is "round sky and square earth." It first appeared, according to the Chinese scientists (I will not argue if they are correct or not... ) at least 2,000 years ago and has had a considerable negative and positive impact on Chinese topography. The history of geographical philosophy is a recent academic topic in China. This change first started in the 1980's and "The center of geographical history" has emerged (Yang 1989, p. 7; Wang 1982, p. 4).
> 
> The history of exploration, cartography, and the geographers themselves received more focus in earlier studies of ancient Chinese geography.The idea of a circular sky and a square earth was not given any consideration.
> 
> ...



Ricci was very influential which is why i hope to give http://library.lol/main/F25A4C4275F42DE62E68C59BED899A72 Manufacturing Confucianism a closer look. Jesuit influence on perceptions of Chinese perceptions.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Oct 9, 2022)

Mick Harper said:


> Coincidentally or not, the modern pursuit of wisdom begins (and ends) with an examination of heliocentrism. The publication of Thomas Kuhn's _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions _in 1962 alerted the world to the fact that basic paradigm theories are more sociological than scientific. Kuhn himself contended himself with instancing the Copernican Revolution and leaving it at that, academics have contented themselves with instancing Kuhn and leaving it that.
> 
> They are all terrified of going any further because the clear implication of Kuhn's work is that _all _basic paradigm theories are of their nature deeply suspect. Nobody minds people of the past being laughed at for believing risible things, everybody minds being laughed at for believing risible  things themselves.


Leeds Uni 1993 course -  History and Philosophy of Science - Kuhn's book was the primary text . Totally stunned to hear in the first lecture that the heliocentric model was introduced without any new evidence, observation or experiment. Plucked out of thin air.

Why the need to, or how do we deconstruct something that has no basis in reality ?


----------



## alltheleaves (Oct 10, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Leeds Uni 1993 course - ... the heliocentric model was introduced without any new evidence, observation or experiment. Plucked out of thin air.
> 
> Why the need to, or how do we deconstruct something that has no basis in reality ?


The quickie version. Heliocentrism - Wikipedia

Copernicus strung the pope along. His theoretical math supporting heliocentrism not published until a year after he died. 

Like certain other manias...the new theory was backed by real or implied threats and force. Inquisition - Wikipedia

Why the need to?

... Forgive my language but they do some things "for the hell of it".


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Oct 11, 2022)

alltheleaves said:


> The quickie version. Heliocentrism - Wikipedia
> 
> Copernicus strung the pope along. His theoretical math supporting heliocentrism not published until a year after he died.
> 
> ...


There is no mathematical heliocentric model as far as I can see. It is impossible to model the heliocentric model -it's known as the n-body problem . Science or maths cannot model a solar system moving through space . We cannot compute a rocket path from a rotating body travelling an elliptical orbit at 66000mph to the moon whizzing around that body. That is because we don't have a workable mathematical model. This part is not opinion. 

That we can predict eclipses and planetary positions is down to observation . A mathematical model may then be built on these observations. Tycho Brahe did this and came up with his geocentric model . Explained all his observations. 

This part is opinion .Wikipedia is basically written by nitwits , like heliocentrism - it's a tool used by the controlling fkn idiots to distort and rewrite history. Cox and deGrarse - I rest my case.


----------



## Just (Oct 13, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> There is no mathematical heliocentric model as far as I can see. It is impossible to model the heliocentric model -it's known as the n-body problem . Science or maths cannot model a solar system moving through space . We cannot compute a rocket path from a rotating body travelling an elliptical orbit at 66000mph to the moon whizzing around that body. That is because we don't have a workable mathematical model. This part is not opinion.
> 
> That we can predict eclipses and planetary positions is down to observation . A mathematical model may then be built on these observations. Tycho Brahe did this and came up with his geocentric model . Explained all his observations.
> 
> This part is opinion .Wikipedia is basically written by nitwits , like heliocentrism - it's a tool used by the controlling fkn idiots to distort and rewrite history. Cox and deGrarse - I rest my case.


66000 mph - and there it is again. So do you believe that the likes of Brian Cox and De Grasse Tyson know they’re spouting garbage or are they useful idiots who believe all the crap they read?


----------



## Cgary (Oct 13, 2022)

dreamtime said:


> This thread is exclusvely for deconstructing the mainstream model of astrophysics, including quantum physics, which is the foundation for the heliocentric model. There seems to be a lot of data indicating that humans always believed in the stationary earth, and only during the last hundreds years did the PTB manage to replace it with the belief in the exact opposite.
> 
> Questions for further research:
> 
> ...


I am very glad to see this posting.  I graduated in Engineering Physics many years ago and spent my latter years teaching math and physics until I could no longer due to my wife’s Alzheimer’s.  
Frankly I have had my problems with the atomic theory for some time.   I know you are dealing with QP but wonder if you go back further since helio’ certainly in a precursor to the revolution of electrons around a nucleus.


Worsaae said:


> The heliocentric model was adopted after Kepler took over Tycho Brahe's work. Tycho Brahe was a proponent of the geocentric model and he was one of the leading scientists at the time and had done years of observations that he had kept to himself.
> Tycho Brahe was poisoned, which is how Kepler allegedly got control of his data and research. Kepler took this research and reframed it in the context of the heliocentric model, which was then popularized. Anoher possibility is that Kepler simply made up the data and credited it to Tycho Brahe, who "had kept it hidden from everyone".
> 
> Reading Tycho Brahes work might be a good start.


In the 70’s I came across a publication called The Tychonian Society. A publication was produced —-until he died in the early 80’s—- by a Dutch Canadian.  The objective was geocentrism not FE.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Oct 13, 2022)

Just said:


> 66000 mph - and there it is again. So do you believe that the likes of Brian Cox and De Grasse Tyson know they’re spouting garbage or are they useful idiots who believe all the crap they read?


66,600mph to be a bit more exact ha . They portray themselves as useful idiots and get well paid for doing so. I know they spout garbage but whether they believe that stuff I don't know.

HI Cgary, some very intriguing info on a new Tychonic system at this site :

Cluesforum—Exposing Mass Deception - Index page

Well worth a look


----------



## PantaOz (Oct 14, 2022)

This is an interesting read, so I am sharing it with you!



> BULLETIN OF THE TYCHONIAN SOCIETY
> Number  44  —  July,  1987​
> When  I  first  got  interested  in  the  flat-earthers  more  than  a  decade ago,  I  was  surprised  to  learn  that  flat—earthism  in  the  English—speaking world  is  and  always  has  been  entirely  based  upon  the  Bible.   I  have since  assembled  and  read  an  extensive  collection  of  flat-earth  literature. The  Biblical  arguments  for  flat-earthism  that follow come mainly  from my  reading  of  flat—earth  literature,  augmented  by  my  own  reading  of the  Bible.
> 
> ...



And if you want more, feel free to read!

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org...Tychonian Society (Number 44 - July 1987).pdf


----------



## Nick Weech (Oct 19, 2022)

Channel I follow,  
Priesthoodagitator {1.27K subscribers} 
      recently posted interesting points about Heliocentrism:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOLv987pCyo_


(Misleading title will hide it from the trolling YT bots...)


----------

