Deconstructing the History of Heliocentrism and Modern Physics

[dreamtime]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Deleted member 1432]

"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)

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]

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

-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

-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!

-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.

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.

In the early 1920's, the mathematician Theodor Kaluza sent Einstein a paper describing a five-dimensional spacetime, showing that an additional spatial dimension could unify the disparate field theories of gravitation and electromagnetism. Einstein was deeply fascinated by Kaluza's 5D theory, but he was never comfortable with the idea of space having another dimension, since there's no experimental evidence for a fourth spatial dimension. However, if Kaluza's extra dimension is conceived of as imaginary (i.e. invisible) rather than compactified, the 5-dimensional complex version of Einstein's equations are mathematically robust

-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

-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

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

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]

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". (Ahasuerus 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]

• 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]

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]

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 .

 

[Deleted member 1432]

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]

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.

 

[Deleted member 37]

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]

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.

 

[Deleted member 37]

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

 

[Sigian]

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]

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?

 

[Deleted member 1432]

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]

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]

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.