Deconstructing the History of Heliocentrism and Modern Physics

[Worsaae]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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 .

 

[Deleted member 1432]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Deleted member 1432]

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]

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).

 

[Deleted member 1432]

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]

"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.

 

[Deleted member 37]

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]

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?

 

[Deleted member 37]

“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

 

[Deleted member 1432]

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]

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_]

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]

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]

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.