Deconstructing the History of Heliocentrism and Modern Physics

[Deleted member 1432]

He is a science and technology journalist.

No really? Gosh!

 

[FarewellAngelina]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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




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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

 

[Deleted member 1432]

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.

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.