Gab@StFerdinandIII - https://unstabbinated.substack.com/
Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Corona, 'The Science' or Scientism, Islam, the State, the cult of Gender Fascism, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion...
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
One of the more popular, if apocryphal ‘proof’s of Copernicanism, is the ‘phases of Venus’ argument, first put forward by the irascible, self-promoting Galileo who disbelieved in the veracity of comets, and whose proof of Copernicanism rested on tidal flows. The myth of Galileo and his purported struggle for ‘science’ against an ignorant, unknowing and corrupt Church is dealt with here. Almost none of what is taught about the Galileo ‘travesty’ is valid.
A charge forwarded by the Copernicans was that that Ptolemy’s geo-centric model could not account for the phases of Venus. This is not true. It does not infer that Ptolemy’s model was correct, but it also does not mean that the Copernican model is valid.
More here
A long-standing problem, known to ancient astronomers, is that of planetary retrograde motions. Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, appear as bright stars that move along paths inclined to the ecliptic by only a few degrees. Their observed periods of motion with respect to the Sun range from 116 days for Mercury, 584 for Venus and 780 days for Mars.
These planets move west to east through the stars like the Sun and moon do, but from time to time the planets halt their eastward motion and appear to move backward, east to west, before resuming their normal eastward motion. In principle, each of the planets, as viewed from Earth, will create a retrograde motion, although some, due to their proximity to Earth, will have more pronounced retrogrades. This is true of Venus and Mars, the latter’s path being the most eccentric.
Retrograde motion does not support heliocentricity and raises quite a few questions. After stellar parallax and stellar aberration, it is the most cited ‘proof’. None of them, however, ‘confirm’ heliocentricity.
More here
In 1995 the European Space Agency launched the SOHO or the Solar and Heliospheric Operations space probe. SOHO studies and photographs the relationship between the Sun and Earth.
SOHO was designed to help answer:
The structure and dynamics of the solar interior
Why does the solar corona exist and how is it heated to the extremely high temperature of about 1 000 000°C?
Where is the solar wind produced and how is it accelerated
The origins and trajectories of comets (some 5000 discovered)
SOHO moves around the Sun in step with the Earth, by slowly orbiting around the First Lagrangian Point (L1), where the combined gravity of the Earth and Sun keep SOHO in an orbit locked to the Earth-Sun line. The L1 point is approximately 1.5 million kilometres away from Earth (about four times the distance of the Moon), in the direction of the Sun.
SOHO has an uninterrupted view of the Sun.
SOHO transmits a continuous 200 kbit/s data stream of photographs and other measurements via the NASA Deep Space Network of ground stations. Probably the key objective of SOHO's utility is to predict coronal mass ejection (CME) arrival times at Earth. This is to protect electrical grids and satellites. CMEs directed toward the Earth may also produce geomagnetic storms, which in turn produce geomagnetically induced currents, in the most extreme cases creating black-outs or disruptions. More here
SOHO transmits a continuous 200 kbit/s data stream of
photographs and other measurements via the NASA Deep Space Network of ground stations. Probably the key objective of SOHO's utility is to predict coronal mass ejection (CME) arrival times at Earth. This is to protect electrical grids and satellites. CMEs directed toward the Earth may also produce geomagnetic storms, which in turn produce geomagnetically induced currents, in the most extreme cases creating black-outs or disruptions.
The speed of light is variant. Light speed for the receiver (Earth) is not constant. There is also the vector radiation of light and energy which does not conform to the simple model of Relativity. NASA and space agencies used a fixed Earth (ECI or Earth Centred Inertial) in their software and calculations for satellites, probes and instrumentation. They don’t use ‘heliocentricity’.
As with so much of ‘the science’, ChatGPT or OpenAI replies related to scientific questions do not necessarily provide truth or reality. Questions about Global Positioing Systems (GPS) or geo-synchronous satellites are an example. Neither proves the Earth’s alleged Copernican motion, nor Einsteinian Relativity. Quite the opposite. They highlight the issues with Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. More here
In the last post we discussed stellar ‘parallax’ and why it does not prove heliocentricity and in fact completely upends planetary distance calculations from the Earth along with many other ‘modern scientific’ assumptions in astro-physics.
Related to the parallax is ‘stellar aberration’, which has been offered as a proof for heliocentrism since perhaps the early 17th century. Aberration is generally the first ‘observational proof’ of Copernicanism, given some 70-200 years after the theory was proposed by the confused Copernicus depending on who you believe. Pieroni, a Catholic astronomer who was friends with the self-promoter Galileo and Kepler the conniver, is sometimes credited with this ‘discovery’ in the early 17th century, though invention is a better description, given the poor calibration of the telescopes used in that era.
In the modern era ‘aberration’ was invented by James Bradley in 1725 though the dates vary from 1724-1729 depending on the source. Floating down the Thames, Bradley attempted to find a stellar parallax (Busch, 1838) but instead created his own aberration based on observations of the Draco or Dragon constellation (which apparently has not changed in its relationship with the Earth over 3500 years and through 1.8 Trillion miles of Earth movement!). Bradley found nothing as outlined below and fraudulently ‘recorded’ a fringe shift of light displacement 2 times the observable size. More here
In a previous post we discussed the many experiments which could find no movement of the Earth through the ‘aether’ (now called ‘dark matter’), or Einstein’s fictitious ‘vacuum’ of space (now defined as a ‘lack of energy’). These are never taught. In schools we are told that the stellar ‘parallax’ ‘proved’ that the Earth is moving. The German astronomer Bessel in 1838, is usually credited with this ‘discovery’. It is logical to maybe pause and summarise why such claims regarding parallax are also false.
Geo-centrists from the time of Tycho Brahe, had referenced the lack of a parallax to prove immobility. There is still a lack of parallax today, given how small the effect is, how negative parallax is as common as ‘positive parallax’, how few stars are affected and how different non-Copernican models can explain such an effect (below).
We should keep in mind a few things. The first is that the confused Copernicus whose effort was largely philosophical, not mechanical, combined different models including the Platonic and Pythagorean, to justify heliocentricity. He offered no proofs, his book ‘The Revolutions’ being infilled with plagiarised ancient Greek astronomical tables from Rhodes and Halicarnassus.
How is it possible that after some 1 trillion miles of Earth travel in ‘space’, ancient astrological maps would still be applicable to someone in the 16th century? Never discussed.
A simple reason why parallax failed to convince anyone is that such ‘evidence’ does not support Copernicanism. The proof for this statement is that by the 1890s, Relativity was the only possible recourse left for Copernicans to support heliocentricity. In other words, if parallax was so convincing and definitive a proof for Copernicanism (or Foucault’s ridiculous pendulum experiment), that would have been that.
More here
The above quote sums up ‘The Science’. Einstotle philosophises that the Michelson-Morley experiment along with the Fizeau, Airy and the thousands conducted by Miller and others, should simply be dismissed because, obviously, heretofore, ergo, the Earth is racing around the Sun at 60.000 miles per hour.
As he wrote many times, Einstotle’s axiom is to accept Copernican theory as the starting point, without needing to prove it. This is unscientific. Many posts on here discuss the lack of proofs for Copernicanism and why it is a philosophical program, if not an outright sophistry.
Einstotle and his friends cannot answer the most basic questions. I list a few below out of hundreds. Let us consider some general dogma from physics and cosmology on planetary motion and the ‘expansion’ of the universe. Many of the claims from ‘the science’ disprove their own theology. I submitted the following questions to PhDs in physics and cosmology some years back. I have never received an adequate explanation, nor proof. Just hostility or appeals to authority and consensus. More here
“Many writers pretend to understand [relativity], but simply do not. Many otherwise alert students studying relativity become logically bewildered and lose confidence in their own ability to think clearly as they slip into mysticism and become the next generation of scientific priests….The public has trusted the physicists, trusted them perhaps more, in this generation, than any other group.
……But in time, people will learn that physicists are no more immune to the perverse motivational currents of the times than any other professional people. Scientists have enormous, vested interests in protecting their theories – vested energy, time, money and indeed reputation.” (Richard Hazelett and Dean Turner, The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers: A Counter- Revolution in Physics, 1979, pp. 88-91)
Consider the quote above written in 1979. The hope that people will wake up and see ‘the science’ for the charade it is, for the corrupt business model it is, for the philosophical sophistry it is, has not materialised. In fact, the submission to authority and ‘science’ is far more prevalent and slavish today, than in 1979.
In the last post we discussed the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, the great impetus for Relativity, and the lack of proofs that the Earth orbits the Sun. Relativity was the only possible approach to explain away the lack of mechanical proof for the Earth’s rapid 108.000 km per hour march around the Sun.
The following experiments, which failed to detect the Earth’s motion, are rarely taught and are almost unknown. They are buried by ‘The Science’ as either irrelevant, or are trotted out as proof of Copernicanism even though they clearly disprove it! One cannot understand ‘why Relativity?’ if these failed endeavours are not understood. More here
As taught in every classroom and echoed in every official philosophical narrative, Kant (1724 ‐ 1804) is usually portrayed as a ‘giant of philosophy’. The never married, isolated, reclusive, ‘cannot be bothered to have children’ sophist, who never travelled and knew nothing of the world of work or reality, is hailed as a great Copernican-confirmer, another of the Enlightenment’s luminous orbs of rationalism. The revisionist historians paint the recluse as a happy, sociable chap. Contemporary accounts express the opposite viewpoint.
In the standard narrative, apparently no one before Kant and the self-proclaimed Enlighteners, had thought about morality, physics, science, reason, life or the soul. In this vein we should never underestimate the powerful impact of the printing press (1440). The ease of publication, distribution and the forced necessity of literacy, allowed such propaganda to take root. The narrative was and is, that before the 17th century all was dark.
This claim is fiction of course. Relativity for example, was discussed by the schoolmen in the first universities during the 12th century (at Chartres for example). By the time Galileo and friends were taught physics, the laws of inertia and motion were already well understood, not to mention astronomy and advanced geometry. You have to be incredibly naive to believe that Newton et al conjured their theories and experiments out of nothing. More here