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
In previous posts we have discussed aspects of Newtonian physics and the ‘laws’ of Saint Isaac, ‘axioms’ that must be remembered and regurgitated. There are many problems with Newton’s 3 main ‘postulates’ (laws). We will recapitulate these below. Newton is about celestial mechanics and has nothing to do with practical engineering.
Regarding celestial models, what is rarely mentioned by hagiographers and gatekeepers is that Newton imbibed and indeed depended on Kepler’s maths and Kepler’s 3 laws (debunked earlier). In fact the whole point of Newton was to calcuate the critical ‘constant’ that rotted Kepler’s maths. That constant was ‘gravity’.
Disclosure: One reason why the author does not like Newton is that the Englishman supported and even propagated the myth of a ‘vacuum’, which was marketed because it made his gravitational maths work. Newton was wrong (more below). If you deny the aether, you are in denial of reality.
What then of gravity as a theory? Yes it exists, but Newton does not explain how it works, nor what it is. Yet his massive corpus of unintelligible maths (some say gibberish) is accepted as ‘the science’ and buried his critics and started the funeral of the concept of the aether.
As we elucidated in a previous post, Kepler’s maths are at best the level of a first-year university student and tautological. In fact, the author, rather deviously, has taken Kepler’s maths and sent them to ‘experts’ for comment without telling them the provenance, and the responses were the same – the equations are inexact and circular. You can try this yourself. What then of Saint Newton, Apostle of the Mechanical Universe? More here
“I confess that when Tycho died, I quickly took advantage of the absence, or lack of circumspection, of the heirs, by taking the observations under my care.” (Kepler, 1609)
In 1601, the German Kepler stole from Tycho Brahe’s laboratory what would have been a treasure trove of information. Brahe was the most formidable force in astronomy since Ptolemy. There is ample evidence that Kepler, who worked with Brahe before Tycho’s mysterious death, murdered the Danish astronomer to get his bloody hands on inimitably pure observational data.
Here we will discuss what ‘The Science’ never will. Saint Kepler is always referenced as a giant amongst the Apostles of ‘The ‘Science’, who saved the phenomena of Copernican theory with his mathematical ‘proofs’ of elliptical orbits. Is this really true?
Was Saint Johannes really an Apostle saving ‘science’ and the ‘truth’ of the church of Scientism from the toothless and shoeless ‘anti-science’ heathens and pagans?
Was he really a divine light of reason in a world of unbelieving darkness and ignorance?
Or was Kepler just another Sunworshipping quack and worse, a conniving criminal murderer? More here
Below is a summary table of ~100 rows which summarise many posts and issues with Apollo 11 and the Apollo ‘moon landing’ narrative. Many more can be added, this is just a skeleton.
When confronted by the Fanboys it can be used (and searched) for answers. This is a first step to creating a proper database, cloudifying it, and sharing it. When that is done, I will post the real database as well. Looking forward to the Artemis-Orion ‘moon fly by’, promised now for about 10 years and analyse that ‘flight’ against the data details presented.
In a previous post we discussed why Euclidean mathematics gives a completely different and far more ‘physical’ distance measurement. This post extends that view and includes the Moon. The distance to the Moon (~238.000 miles) is accurate in the author’s opinion (summary below).
Interestingly, this accurate Earth-Moon distance, shatters the Relativistic calculation used by the standard model to arrive at the Sun’s distance from this planet. We should acknowledge that the desire to place the Sun at 93 millions from this planet is a very recent and a rather incredible claim based on circular logic and Kepler’s ‘Laws’ which are debunked in the next post (Kepler’s manipulated maths eventually put the Sun at a distance of 52 million miles). Some historical calculations you are not told about:
The problem is obvious. More here
Euclidean Distance: Euclidean distance treats space as a three-dimensional physical extension. It is based on the rigid geometry of the spatial medium itself and uses Pythagorean equations to calculate linear distances.
Standard Candle, Standard Model Distance: This is an inferential secondary calculation that relies on assumptions that the vacuum is real, and the speed of light is a universal constant. It is an estimation of distance based on the observed brightness (luminosity) of a celestial object, assuming its ‘true’ brightness is known.
Our quite ‘flat’ universe comports with the Euclidean 3-dimensional reality most of us outside of ‘The Science’ inhabit. In the philosophical science fiction of Relativity and the Biggest Bangers, they inhabit the Reimann-Minkowski-Einstotle-curved universe.
The data is clear. The cosmos is not curved. Taken as a whole, the universe is strictly Euclidean. This means that if we pull out our grade 9 maths set, we could inscribe a giant triangle in a circle in outer space, and the calculated value would be π (3.14). You remember Pi. More here
