Deconstructing the History of Heliocentrism and Modern Physics

[Jd755]

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

Beat me to it!

 

[Sigian]

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]

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]

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

 

[Deleted member 1432]

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]

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]

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]

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.

"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...

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?

Coinciding with Dee and his network, was the analysis of the closest packing of spheres. 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

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

 

[Deleted member 1432]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Deleted member 1432]

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.

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?

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]

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

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.

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.

"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.

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]

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).

 

[Deleted member 1432]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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 .