Poll

Why is there no accurate CGI rendering of the Sun in motion with the planets remaining in helical orbit?

Costs too much money
Newton/Kepler/Einstein, et. al., calculations, if used in a CGI, would show the model has been wrong all along...
Newton is wrong, Kepler is wrong, Einstein is wrong...
Scaling (despite the ability of computers to visually render large objects as small while retaining fundamental, necessary properties)
Other

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity

  • 266 Replies
  • 45519 Views
*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #60 on: January 22, 2018, 12:48:16 PM »
Because the RE have cried foul, saying that the vortex model is not right, what they want is a spiral pattern.
Remember what you have been told before?
You cannot make an appeal to authority and then completely ignore authorities.
Either you accept the authority of various scientists and accept that Earth is round and orbiting the sun with the entire solar system moving through the Milky Way and so on; or you don't appeal to them at all.

So either the argument is already over, you lose, or you can't appeal to an authority. So try again.

They know that this model is plain wrong:

Because it fails to show the sun's position in the milky way, and everything is out of scale, the orbits are not the correct shape and in the correct position and so on.

Here, then, is the spiral galactic orbit of the planets:

No it's not.
The planets do not orbit perpendicular to the solar system's path through the Milky Way.
The orbits are drawn completely out of scale.
While the planets almost orbit in the same plane, there are slight variations.
The orbit Pluto intersects the orbit of Neptune.
The eccentricity of the orbits are not all aligned.
The sun is at a focus of the ellipse, not the centre.
It doesn't even put the asteroid belt in the correct position.
So no that is so wrong it isn't funny.

Also, you might want to learn the difference between a spiral and a helix.
Both can easily be expressed in cylindrical coordinates (e.g. of the form (r,t,z), where z represents the position along the z axis, r represents the distance from this axis and t represents the angle between a line connecting the z axis to the point and the x axis, in the plane perpendicular to the z axis).

For a helix, it is (k1,k2*z,z), i.e. the distance from the z axis is maintained, the angle is swept as it moves along. This is similar to a corkscrew and is what is shown.
For a spiral it is (f(t),t,k2), i.e. the z position remains constant (i.e. it is in a plane), the distance from the z axis is a function of the angle.

That is, the motion of the planets are CIRCULAR HELICES ON A RIGHT CYLINDER.
No they aren't.


The tridimensional orbits of the Sun/Planets, would be circular helices on a right cylinder, which completely contradicts the planar elliptical orbits of the planets, in the heliocentric theory. A planar elliptical orbit would be possible if and only if the whole system is at rest (with respect to the rest of the Galaxy, in the round earth theory), and not moving toward Vega with 20 km/s.
Or if you just consider the motion of the objects relative to the solar system, rather than relative to the galaxy.

If Kepler's first law is flawed, then so is the law of universal gravitation:
Nope.
You fail to distinguish between the math itself and the application of the math.
Kepler's first law, while derivable from the law of gravity, is based upon assumptions/approximations.
A key one is that it approximates the system to a 2 body system, where the only objects considered are the sun and the planet.
This means it completely ignore the motion of the solar system relative to the galaxy.

This means that Kepler's laws not showing the motion of the planets relative to the galaxy does not mean gravity is wrong.
You claiming as such shows you have no idea what you are talking about or you are blatantly lying about it.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #61 on: January 22, 2018, 01:30:39 PM »
Since no one is planning any missions outside of out solar system for the foreseeable future, why does anyone even care about an accurate rendering of the solar system's movement through the galaxy?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #62 on: January 22, 2018, 02:12:41 PM »
Not necessarily using CGI, especially not impossible ones like you demand. As such, your argument remains as a non-sequiter.
You claiming the renderings are impossible is unsubstantiated garbage.
There you go lying again.
It isn't the solar system, it is the galaxy, where the models are incomplete.
Where did I ask for a galaxy in motion?
They don't.
They admit there is a lot they don't know.
For the most part they do, especially when it comes to the Solar System.
Notice how he said simulations, not CGI renderings?
Notice how he said running on super computers, indicating a likely significant computational cost?
Yep. Which means a break down of the calculations, translate to the appropriate coding, plug a monitor into a the appropriate jack, and VOILA! Cost taken care of!
Sure, because that statement did not make any comment regarding predictions or observations that have been made.
As such, it didn't say it doesn't explain observations or it doesn't make useful and accurate predictions.

So yes, it does sound like you are heapings piles of crap which you cannot possible defend (and projecting your own inadequacies onto others).
The entirety of the post I was addressing was a huge example of cognitive dissonance on the part of A2O...

Try again.
No, in other words, your argument is pure crap.
The lack of a CGI model doesn't show the model is wrong.
It shows either the model is wrong or the math is wrong.
If you are just going to continue to baselessly assert crap, I will continue to dismiss it.

You are yet to justify your argument at all. Until you do all you have is a baseless assertion.

There is no logical connection between your premise and conclusion.

I will just skip the rest of your pathetic baseless assertions, just stick another dismissal of it in there if you need it.
All written without any substance except, "NO U!"
Yes, CGI exists because of numbers, but that doesn't mean the rendering includes the math behind it.

So what do you want, the math or the CGI? They are 2 very different things.
Now you are asking what I want?

I have stated my position quite clearly in the thread.

You are left making excuses, engaging in obfuscation, equivocation, crying, "MOMMY!!!", and even stating, "It does not matter what you want," in response.
How do you plan on depicting movement and orbit without it being to scale?
Already demonstrated to be a line of inquiry to which any answer would be dismissed as illegitimate, as you really do not care about a pursuit of truth in the matter.
Again, what you want is irrelevant.
You wanting something doesn't mean scientists are going to make it for you and the lack of it existing doesn't mean the models are wrong.

What utility is there in an animation of the solar system which just slides across the screen? That is effectively what you are asking for now.

Your argument is now effectively:
"I WANT THIS!!!!! BITCH MOAN BITCH BITCH MOAN!!!!
IT DOESN"T EXIST!!! WAH WAH WAH!!!""
YOUR WRONG!!!!!"

People not giving you want you want doesn't mean they are wrong.
See my previous answer above.
Yes, a worthless excuse from you (that does seem to be all you can provide), being completely unable to providing a justification for why this CGI rendering of yours should exist or why the scale doesn't make it impossible.
Again, you stating something is impossible in and of itself? Sorry, no reason to believe your claim or even trust what you write.
In motion compared to what?
It could just as easily be stationary (with the planets still circling) with the trails shooting off.
Regardless, at that scale it would be of absolutely no utility.
Did not ask for a stationary rendering.
No, written like an the intelligent individual I am, and dismissed like the pathetic fool you are.
Please...

You cannot possibly claim intellectual superiority when you cannot, with the same statement, type that statement in a way that makes sense.

LMMFAO!!!
If you want to see the sun's motion in the Milky way, they would be, as I showed above.
Again, you making a claim? I don't think so...
No, they would be completely out of scale due to the scales involved making it impossible to show them too scale.
You making a claim? I don't think so...
You are on a forum to debate the flat Earth.
If you think the FE is non-topical to your thread that means  your thread is non-topical to this forum.
Will leave that to moderation...
No, AKA, pointing your desperation with your past pathetic attempts which have repeatedly failed and thus your need to try and shift the topic to pathetic arguments like your OP, as you are unable to use anything rationale to justify your position.
I like my characterization better...seems a little more accurate...
There you go lying again.
What you first asked for cannot exist due to real constraints.
What you have tried changing it to can exist, but would be worthless.
Again, you making a claim? I don't think so...
No, that isn't the manipulation.
The manipulation would be completely changing the size of things to make it so you can see it, which requires fundamentally changing the orbits.
You making a claim? I don't think so...
Because it uses a different reference frame. Guess what? the movements taking place depends on the reference frame chosen.
Probably the only accurate thing I have seen you post here...
No, as I said before, any attempt to render it would result in you being unable to see it.
You making a claim? I don't think so...
And you are the one that took it out of context to blatantly misrepresent the meaning.
That makes you the dishonest scum, not me.
The context remains for all to see.
Nope, pointing out you are not in pursuit of the truth.
You are asking for a manipulated model which does depict reality.
The models presented do not show the reality of the Sun in motion, yet you claim that is good enough...

Do not presume to lecture me or even try to label me as a person not in pursuit of truth.

Your presence on the thread, defending inaccurate models, failing to depict the full motion of the Solar System throughout the galaxy, clearly demonstrates the lying asswipe you currently are and will always be.
No it wouldn't.
You asked for a CGI rendering.
When you go watch a CGI rendinger in cinemas, do they provide all the data used to make it? No.
Are you dense?
Have you attended any school?
You are conflating science fiction with textbook science?

Any institution of higher learning would demand the inputs and any honest scientist would openly and honestly present the inputs...

Really Jack...

There is a tree out back where it would be more private for you to take your dumps...

Spare us the shitposting...
I think I summed up your views Jack.

Oh, and your essential argument that a CGI rendering doesn't exist = Too expensive...
LMMFAO!!

Have one on me, next time you go out!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #63 on: January 22, 2018, 02:19:11 PM »
No they aren't.

Dr. Rhys Taylor, Cardiff University

https://briankoberlein.com/wp-content/uploads/system.jpg

This is the commonly accepted galactic model of the solar system: HELICES ON A CYLINDER.

The information in my messages is correct, as always.


Dr. Taylor:

The most basic notion that the planets trace helical paths through space is perfectly correct.

Can you read English?

You have just been shown to be in complete ignorance of the topic discussed in this thread.


A key one is that it approximates the system to a 2 body system, where the only objects considered are the sun and the planet.
This means it completely ignore the motion of the solar system relative to the galaxy.


You are making a fool out of yourself.

Any observation of the heliocentrical solar system CANNOT IGNORE the motion through the galaxy: here are the precise calculations of Sir Oliver Lodge:

They totally challenge and disprove the galactic orbit hypothesis for the heliocentrical solar system.

The conclusions reached by Lodge:

The sun moves in space at a velocity of about twenty kilometers a second (in relation to the nearby stars). This motion must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.



The precise calculations and orbital equations appear on page 146 of the journal.

On page 149, the precise data for the solar drift towards Vega, being applied for each planet of the solar system.





https://archive.org/stream/londonedinburg6351918lond#page/n3/mode/1up

The calculations performed by Sir Oliver Lodge are valid to this present day.

They totally challenge and disprove the galactic orbit hypothesis for the heliocentrical solar system.

The conclusions reached by Lodge:

The sun moves in space at a velocity of about twenty kilometers a second (in relation to the nearby stars). This motion must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.


Kepler's first law of motion is PURE FANTASY.

It applies to a PLANAR SYSTEM, which the solar system IS NOT.

The solar system undergoes A THREE DIMENSIONAL HELICAL PATH ON A CYLINDER, which cannot be described by an elliptical orbit.


Whoever faked/forged/falsified Kepler's Nova Astronomia had no idea that future generations would discover that the solar system is undergoing a galactic orbit.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776670#msg1776670

Kepler published his first law of planetary motion based on the data gathered by Tycho
Brahe in 1609. The law states that planets orbit the sun in ellipses with the sun at one focus.

“Almost 400 years later, William H. Donohue undertook the task of translating
Kepler’s 1609 Astronomia Nova into the English New Astronomy (Donohue 1992)
when in the course of his work he redid many of Kepler’s calculations, he was
startled to find some fundamental inconsistencies with Kepler’s reporting of these
same calculations (Donohue 1988)."

“After detailed computational arguments Donahue concluded the results
reported by Kepler . . . were not at all based on Brahe’s observational data; rather
they were fabricated on the basis of Kepler’s determination that Mars’s orbit was elliptical.

Get it straight through your head: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS KEPLER'S FIRST ORBITAL LAW.

Kepler FAKED/FORGED/FALSIFIED the entire set of data.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776680#msg1776680



http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1988JHA....19..217D

Kepler's fabricated figures, by W.H. Donohue

The scholar, William H. Donahue, said the evidence of Kepler's scientific fakery is contained in an elaborate chart he presented to support his theory.


Kepler's first "law" of orbital motion is totally FAKE!

The three dimensional helix which is the actual RE galactic orbit cannot be explained by Newton's law of attractive gravitation.

This means that Kepler's laws not showing the motion of the planets relative to the galaxy does not mean gravity is wrong.


How easy it is to prove you wrong again.




Since one leads to the other, and since Kepler's first law of orbital motion WAS FAKED to start with, then Newton's law of attractive gravitation is FAKE as well.


The supposed galactic orbit of the solar system, a helical path on a cylinder, cannot be described by a law of attractive gravitation, nor can it be defined in terms of an elliptical planar orbit for the planets.


The galactic orbit DEFIES modern science, as no astrophysicist can explain how the planets' helical orbits are confined to a cylinder, while AT THE SAME TIME NEWCOMB'S CONSTANT IS DEFIED AS WELL.



"Calculated precession rates over the last 100 years show increasing precession rates which produce a declining precession cycle period.

The precession rate goes up each year. The Astronomical Almanac gives a rate of 50.2564 (arc seconds) for the year 1900. In that year, the top astronomer in America, Simon Newcomb, used a constant of .000222 as the amount the precession rate will increase per year. The actual constant increase since that time is closer to .000330 (about 50 % higher than expected) and it is increasing exponentially (faster each year)."

"The fact of the matter is the gravity of the Sun and Moon have been very stable for
millions of years [according to the official theory of astrophysics] and there should be no reason in the lunisolar model for this significant upward trend in the wobble rate. If  anything it might be expected to slightly “decrease” under lunisolar theory as the Moon moves a fraction of an inch farther from Earth each year and as the Sun burns up a small fraction of its mass each year. But frankly these amounts are so negligible relative to the mass and scale involved that the precession rate should be noticeably stable year after year – if these masses are indeed the cause of the wobble. Lunisolar theorists not only need to find new inputs to the precession formula for the sake of accuracy, they need to offset these slight diminishments in gravitational forces and come up with larger effects in the opposite direction."

Newton's garbage law of attractive gravitation is DEFIED ON A MONUMENTAL COSMIC SCALE BY DARK FLOW AS WELL:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936995#msg1936995

« Last Edit: January 22, 2018, 02:25:15 PM by sandokhan »

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #64 on: January 22, 2018, 02:19:21 PM »
Since no one is planning any missions outside of out solar system for the foreseeable future, why does anyone even care about an accurate rendering of the solar system's movement through the galaxy?
Demonstrating the true nature of the character of the lying penguin...

Your avatar is truly appropriate!

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #65 on: January 22, 2018, 02:45:20 PM »
I find the lack of a CGI rendering of the heliocentric model (depicting the complete revolutionary movement of the Sun as it travels throughout the Milky Way) to be absolute certain evidence of:

1) The model being a lie:

2) Newton is wrong;

3) The Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong.

If humans can manufacture trash like this:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=14&v=0jHsq36_NTU

Then why can we not post the real deal, based on "real science?"



This guy got some interesting thoughts on this topic. Check out his stream https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73965.0

?

Ising

  • 125
  • I can't hear you over the sound of my awesomeness
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #66 on: January 22, 2018, 02:49:41 PM »

It applies to a PLANAR SYSTEM, which the solar system IS NOT.

The solar system undergoes A THREE DIMENSIONAL HELICAL PATH ON A CYLINDER, which cannot be described by an elliptical orbit.


It applies to any N-body system where one of them has a mass far exceeding that of all other bodies. Said system doesn't have to be planar at all.

Also, while this helical motion you're talking about cannot be described by one elliptic motion, it can be described by the combinations of two of them (say, one around the Sun and one around the galactic center).

Quote
Whoever faked/forged/falsified Kepler's Nova Astronomia had no idea that future generations would discover that the solar system is undergoing a galactic orbit.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776670#msg1776670

Kepler published his first law of planetary motion based on the data gathered by Tycho
Brahe in 1609. The law states that planets orbit the sun in ellipses with the sun at one focus.

“Almost 400 years later, William H. Donohue undertook the task of translating
Kepler’s 1609 Astronomia Nova into the English New Astronomy (Donohue 1992)
when in the course of his work he redid many of Kepler’s calculations, he was
startled to find some fundamental inconsistencies with Kepler’s reporting of these
same calculations (Donohue 1988)."

“After detailed computational arguments Donahue concluded the results
reported by Kepler . . . were not at all based on Brahe’s observational data; rather
they were fabricated on the basis of Kepler’s determination that Mars’s orbit was elliptical.

Get it straight through your head: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS KEPLER'S FIRST ORBITAL LAW.

Kepler FAKED/FORGED/FALSIFIED the entire set of data.


So according to you, nobody ever checked if Kepler's laws were right since Kepler himself ? No data exist but those that Kepler used, and which you claim were forged ? Don't you think these laws have been checked, double-checked and triple-checked countless times throughout the centuries, and don't you think the only reason people still take them into account is because it gets planets and comets trajectories right every goddamn time ?

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #67 on: January 22, 2018, 02:57:16 PM »
You claiming the renderings are impossible is unsubstantiated garbage.
Nope. You ignoring the justification doesn't magically make it disappear.
I have explained how the scales make it impossible.

Where did I ask for a galaxy in motion?
You asked for the motion of the solar system through the galaxy. That is a model of the galaxy, not the solar system.

For the most part they do, especially when it comes to the Solar System.
Yes, they admit they know a lot, not everything.

Yep. Which means a break down of the calculations, translate to the appropriate coding, plug a monitor into a the appropriate jack, and VOILA! Cost taken care of!
No, you just magically ignore the cost.
You are aware rendering something that complicated would also have a large computational cost.
And guess what? You wouldn't be able to see anything.

You either need to take the data from there, or the calculations from there, manipulate the calculations/data to produce the kind of images you want which means it will no longer be an accurate simulation, set it up for rendering and then render it.

The entirety of the post I was addressing was a huge example of cognitive dissonance on the part of A2O...
There you go lying again.

It shows either the model is wrong or the math is wrong.
Or it shows people haven't bothered making a CGI rendering.
Try again.

All written without any substance except, "NO U!"
If you ignore all the substance it sure looks like that.
The simple fact is your entire argument consists of unsubstantiated claims, leaps of logic and ignoring counter arguments.

I have stated my position quite clearly in the thread.
No you haven't.
You have asked several different things making it quite vague as to what you actually want. It is almost like you don't want any of it and just want an excuse to say its all wrong.

You are left making excuses, engaging in obfuscation, equivocation, crying, "MOMMY!!!", and even stating, "It does not matter what you want," in response.
You mean making rational arguments to show why your position is flawed, pointing out your claims are unsubstantiated and your arguments make no sense.
Yes, I do state it doesn't matter what you want, because you not getting what you want doesn't mean the model is wrong, especially when you are unable to provide any utility to what you are asking for.

How do you plan on depicting movement and orbit without it being to scale?
Already demonstrated to be a line of inquiry to which any answer would be dismissed as illegitimate, as you really do not care about a pursuit of truth in the matter.
You mean already demonstrated to be a question you can't answer because it shows the stupidity and dishonesty of your request, which shows the illegitimacy of your entire inquiry which lacks any pursuit of truth.

Again, you stating something is impossible in and of itself? Sorry, no reason to believe your claim or even trust what you write.
Yes, I am stating something is impossible due to the scales involved.
Perhaps if you started reading what I said rather than dismiss it you would have the reason to believe what I claim as I justified it.

Did not ask for a stationary rendering.
There you go ignoring the point again.
By making it a scale where you can see the orbit of the planets there will be no actual indication that the system is moving rather than the virtual camera being the one moving.

You cannot possibly claim intellectual superiority when you cannot, with the same statement, type that statement in a way that makes sense.
Sure I can. People make typos quite frequently.
I am just saying I am intelligent, not perfect.
Even a rock is intellectually superior to you.

Again, you making a claim? I don't think so...
Your entire argument is just you making a baseless claim.
Meanwhile I make claims and back them up.

Me making the claim is not a reason to dismiss it. Try again.

I like my characterization better...seems a little more accurate...
To your delusional mind perhaps, but by an objective measure your characterisation is so inaccurate it is pathetic.

The context remains for all to see.
Yes, but not in your signature.
If you wanted to present it accurately you could by simply paraphrasing what I said into a more honest depiction:
A CGI simulation of the motion of the planets through the galaxy depicting it in reality would be worthless as it is unable to show the motion of the planets due to the scales involved.

But no, you don't want to do that, as that doesn't make people look bad, so you need to blatantly misrepresent them.

The models presented do not show the reality of the Sun in motion, yet you claim that is good enough...
No, I claim it is good enough for what you want as you are no longer asking for the reality of the sun in motion.

Do not presume to lecture me or even try to label me as a person not in pursuit of truth.
I will label you as a person not in pursuit of truth as your actions have made that quite clear.

Your presence on the thread, defending inaccurate models
Where have I been defending inaccurate models?
Do you mean where I pointed out several flaws in them?
You might want to learn what defending means.

failing to depict the full motion of the Solar System throughout the galaxy, clearly demonstrates the lying asswipe you currently are and will always be.
Really?
Me not showing that is impossible and explaining why it is impossible makes me a liar?
You should really learn some logic so you stop spouting such nonsensical crap.

You are conflating science fiction with textbook science?
No. You are conflating a CGI rendering with the math behind it.

Any institution of higher learning would demand the inputs and any honest scientist would openly and honestly present the inputs...
You are not an institution of higher learning.

I think I summed up your views Jack.
No, you blatantly lied about them.

Oh, and your essential argument that a CGI rendering doesn't exist = Too expensive...
Nope, not my argument at all.
My argument is essentially that a CGI rendering of the planets' motion through the galaxy would by unable to show the planets' motion through the galaxy due to the scales involved which would make it worthless.

Have one on me, next time you go out!
Sure, send me a credit card.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #68 on: January 22, 2018, 03:02:24 PM »
No they aren't.
Dr. Rhys Taylor, Cardiff University
https://briankoberlein.com/wp-content/uploads/system.jpg
This is the commonly accepted galactic model of the solar system: HELICES ON A CYLINDER.
And now you just show a picture with no context at all.
Is that because the context shows you to be full of shit.

Here it is as one frame of a gif:

Notice how the plane of the orbits are not at a right angle to the path of the sun?

There is also not enough detail to determine if they are circular or slightly elliptical.

The information in my messages is correct, as always.
Nope, like always (or at least almost always) it is full of shit.
Now stop your copy pasted BS and make an argument if you can.

If you can't get lost.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #69 on: January 22, 2018, 03:23:50 PM »
Since no one is planning any missions outside of out solar system for the foreseeable future, why does anyone even care about an accurate rendering of the solar system's movement through the galaxy?
Demonstrating the true nature of the character of the lying penguin...

Your avatar is truly appropriate!
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #70 on: January 22, 2018, 04:00:30 PM »
Since no one is planning any missions outside of out solar system for the foreseeable future, why does anyone even care about an accurate rendering of the solar system's movement through the galaxy?
Demonstrating the true nature of the character of the lying penguin...

Your avatar is truly appropriate!

What argument?

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #71 on: January 22, 2018, 04:25:06 PM »
No they aren't.

Dr. Rhys Taylor, Cardiff University

https://briankoberlein.com/wp-content/uploads/system.jpg

This is the commonly accepted galactic model of the solar system: HELICES ON A CYLINDER.

The information in my messages is correct, as always.


Dr. Taylor:

The most basic notion that the planets trace helical paths through space is perfectly correct.

Can you read English?

You have just been shown to be in complete ignorance of the topic discussed in this thread.


A key one is that it approximates the system to a 2 body system, where the only objects considered are the sun and the planet.
This means it completely ignore the motion of the solar system relative to the galaxy.


You are making a fool out of yourself.

Any observation of the heliocentrical solar system CANNOT IGNORE the motion through the galaxy: here are the precise calculations of Sir Oliver Lodge:

They totally challenge and disprove the galactic orbit hypothesis for the heliocentrical solar system.

The conclusions reached by Lodge:

The sun moves in space at a velocity of about twenty kilometers a second (in relation to the nearby stars). This motion must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.



The precise calculations and orbital equations appear on page 146 of the journal.

On page 149, the precise data for the solar drift towards Vega, being applied for each planet of the solar system.





https://archive.org/stream/londonedinburg6351918lond#page/n3/mode/1up

The calculations performed by Sir Oliver Lodge are valid to this present day.

They totally challenge and disprove the galactic orbit hypothesis for the heliocentrical solar system.

The conclusions reached by Lodge:

The sun moves in space at a velocity of about twenty kilometers a second (in relation to the nearby stars). This motion must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.


Kepler's first law of motion is PURE FANTASY.

It applies to a PLANAR SYSTEM, which the solar system IS NOT.

The solar system undergoes A THREE DIMENSIONAL HELICAL PATH ON A CYLINDER, which cannot be described by an elliptical orbit.


Whoever faked/forged/falsified Kepler's Nova Astronomia had no idea that future generations would discover that the solar system is undergoing a galactic orbit.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776670#msg1776670

Kepler published his first law of planetary motion based on the data gathered by Tycho
Brahe in 1609. The law states that planets orbit the sun in ellipses with the sun at one focus.

“Almost 400 years later, William H. Donohue undertook the task of translating
Kepler’s 1609 Astronomia Nova into the English New Astronomy (Donohue 1992)
when in the course of his work he redid many of Kepler’s calculations, he was
startled to find some fundamental inconsistencies with Kepler’s reporting of these
same calculations (Donohue 1988)."

“After detailed computational arguments Donahue concluded the results
reported by Kepler . . . were not at all based on Brahe’s observational data; rather
they were fabricated on the basis of Kepler’s determination that Mars’s orbit was elliptical.

Get it straight through your head: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS KEPLER'S FIRST ORBITAL LAW.

Kepler FAKED/FORGED/FALSIFIED the entire set of data.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776680#msg1776680



http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1988JHA....19..217D

Kepler's fabricated figures, by W.H. Donohue

The scholar, William H. Donahue, said the evidence of Kepler's scientific fakery is contained in an elaborate chart he presented to support his theory.


Kepler's first "law" of orbital motion is totally FAKE!

The three dimensional helix which is the actual RE galactic orbit cannot be explained by Newton's law of attractive gravitation.

This means that Kepler's laws not showing the motion of the planets relative to the galaxy does not mean gravity is wrong.


How easy it is to prove you wrong again.




Since one leads to the other, and since Kepler's first law of orbital motion WAS FAKED to start with, then Newton's law of attractive gravitation is FAKE as well.


The supposed galactic orbit of the solar system, a helical path on a cylinder, cannot be described by a law of attractive gravitation, nor can it be defined in terms of an elliptical planar orbit for the planets.


The galactic orbit DEFIES modern science, as no astrophysicist can explain how the planets' helical orbits are confined to a cylinder, while AT THE SAME TIME NEWCOMB'S CONSTANT IS DEFIED AS WELL.



"Calculated precession rates over the last 100 years show increasing precession rates which produce a declining precession cycle period.

The precession rate goes up each year. The Astronomical Almanac gives a rate of 50.2564 (arc seconds) for the year 1900. In that year, the top astronomer in America, Simon Newcomb, used a constant of .000222 as the amount the precession rate will increase per year. The actual constant increase since that time is closer to .000330 (about 50 % higher than expected) and it is increasing exponentially (faster each year)."

"The fact of the matter is the gravity of the Sun and Moon have been very stable for
millions of years [according to the official theory of astrophysics] and there should be no reason in the lunisolar model for this significant upward trend in the wobble rate. If  anything it might be expected to slightly “decrease” under lunisolar theory as the Moon moves a fraction of an inch farther from Earth each year and as the Sun burns up a small fraction of its mass each year. But frankly these amounts are so negligible relative to the mass and scale involved that the precession rate should be noticeably stable year after year – if these masses are indeed the cause of the wobble. Lunisolar theorists not only need to find new inputs to the precession formula for the sake of accuracy, they need to offset these slight diminishments in gravitational forces and come up with larger effects in the opposite direction."

Newton's garbage law of attractive gravitation is DEFIED ON A MONUMENTAL COSMIC SCALE BY DARK FLOW AS WELL:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936995#msg1936995

tl:dr
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #72 on: January 22, 2018, 05:16:18 PM »
Since no one is planning any missions outside of out solar system for the foreseeable future, why does anyone even care about an accurate rendering of the solar system's movement through the galaxy?
Demonstrating the true nature of the character of the lying penguin...

Your avatar is truly appropriate!
What argument?
The one that questions the purpose of your request for such a rendering.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #73 on: January 22, 2018, 05:23:25 PM »
Sure. What does that have to do with making complex, yet useless, CGI renderings for your entertainment?
I has nothing to do with my entertainment.

Whose, then? You're the one asking.

Quote
It has plenty to do with "truth."

So-called truth? Maybe the folks capable of creating an approximation of what you're asking for have better things to do, like pursuing truth (without the quote marks).

Quote
I noticed your reliance on the word, "useless," yet again to to describe your version and view of/on science.

It appears you're conflating science (and, apparently, truth) with CGI renderings of models. They're not the same. Maybe that's the disconnect.

Quote
Thank you for at least being honest.

You're welcome!

Quote
What did ethical scientists do in the days before powerful and cheap computers?
Probably spent time on not so powerful and more expensive computers making up the BS you accept for SCIENCE!

And before less powerful and more expensive computers existed?  ;)

Believe it or not, science is based on more than computer simulations and entertaining renderings. Computers are a powerful tool, but not the basis for science. Verifiable measurements and testing of predictions are the basis for science.

Quote
Dunno. I would think so, but you keep coming back for more, so you must enjoy it.
I would read the above reply and seriously rethink who is getting pwned here... 8)

It's accurate enough for what is needed these days, even if not 100% perfect. It doesn't have infinite precision, which would be necessary for truly 100% accuracy, and probably never will, for the reasons stated.
None of the reasons you have offered are legitimate.

That's easy to say. Can you back that claim up with any facts?

Quote
Fortunately, scientists know there is some uncertainty in all measurements and predictions, but as long as the uncertainty in some datum is low enough for a given purpose, it is useful for that purpose. In the case of solar system models, they're accurate enough to safely and successfully navigate spacecraft to other solar system bodies, as well as predict astronomical events to accuracy far beyond the needs for most people, for years into the future. So, yeah... even if not perfect, the model is still accurate for virtually all needs.
Translation = As long as we keep selling the masses bullshit tis okay...

Old (often misquoted) adage: "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."

You can only say something is a success after it has been tried out or used.

The next time some easily-timed and, even better, location-dependent planetary event is predicted, see how close reality comes to the prediction. Out here in the real world, these science-based predictions happen, to a fraction of a second. All. The. Time.

Verifiable. No bullshit.

Quote
If a scientist seriously claims it's possible to know everything about some field, be skeptical. Competent ones would not make such a claim.
You are here claiming your reasons for the lack of an accurate rendering are 100 percent accurate, so thanks for the insight on your level of competency and actual inability to comment.

No, I'm saying 100% accuracy is not possible because it's simply not possible to know everything. You probably know this already, but can't let it go. If you don't know it already, you should.

Quote
Science is based on trust faith, but also verification. Even data considered trustworthy is subject to review as understanding, equipment, and techniques improve.
FTFY.

Nope. Faith would mean just accepting, instead of looking for independent verification.

Quote
No need to thank me.

You're right about that.

Quote
He said "solar system and galaxy simulations", not "solar system and galaxy CGI renderings with 100% fidelity, including all known and yet-unknown mass". Different statement.
So you are arguing on the one hand, a 100 percent accurate model is not feasible, that data compilation is not possible, yet on the other hand, claim the rendering is not possible and that orbits could not accurately be reproduced, yet the long range satellites and deep space probes work with the knowledge we have and we should just have faith... wtf?

You were the one asking for a "correct CGI rendering" using "all the math"

Given that science claims the Sun is speeding along at roughly 483,000 MPH, with planets, their moons, asteroids, comets, etc., dutifully in tow, and given that science claims that Kepler and Newton have all the math figured out and that is what allowed for the discoveries of planets and their orbits to begin with:

Please present a correct CGI rendering of the Solar System in its travels throughout the galaxy.

It's not possible to do "all the math" because all the data is not known.

Quote
Do you even think about what you post?

All the time. Do you?

Quote
LOL. Feel better after that little rant?

Just ignore my replies if they upset you.
Your replies do not upset me.

Here's the context you omitted:

Sounds to me as if it is a heaping pile of dung that you cannot possibly defend with any rational arguments.

Take a deep breath... relax. Better?

Quote
They only solidify my view on the insincerity of a bunch of JREFugees occupying this forum.

You're going to believe what you want. So what?

See what I mean?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #74 on: January 22, 2018, 05:35:18 PM »
Nope. You ignoring the justification doesn't magically make it disappear.
I have explained how the scales make it impossible.
Not one time. 

All you have done is make the claim.
You asked for the motion of the solar system through the galaxy. That is a model of the galaxy, not the solar system.
No it is not.

This type of reply is a perfect example of your inability to understand and comprehend the English language.
You wouldn't be able to see anything.
Again with the unsubstantiated claims.
Or it shows people haven't bothered making a CGI rendering.
Try again.
I do not need to try again, when I was correct in my first statement.

If you ignore all the substance it sure looks like that.
The simple fact is your entire argument consists of unsubstantiated claims, leaps of logic and ignoring counter arguments.
Again, a "NO U!"
No you haven't.
Yes. I have.
You mean making rational arguments to show why your position is flawed, pointing out your claims are unsubstantiated and your arguments make no sense?
No, I meant what I wrote the first time, so allow me to repeat it:"You are left making excuses, engaging in obfuscation, equivocation, crying, "MOMMY!!!", and even stating, "It does not matter what you want," in response."
Yes, I do state it doesn't matter what you want, because you not getting what you want doesn't mean the model is wrong, especially when you are unable to provide any utility to what you are asking for.
Another admission pursuit of truth has no utility in your life.
Yes, I am stating something is impossible due to the scales involved.
Perhaps if you started reading what I said rather than dismiss it you would have the reason to believe what I claim as I justified it.
Again, your entire life's existence is questionable and ultimately easily dismissed.
Sure I can. People make typos quite frequently.
Not when claiming to be intellectually superior to others...
I am just saying I am intelligent...
Not as evidenced by your writing...
Even a rock is intellectually superior to you.
Even a rock...

As if rocks possess intelligence...

LMFAO!!!

You believe rocks possess any level of intelligence and at the same time can lay claim to participate in a debate on the merits/justification of a CGI rendering of the Solar System?

Nope...I think you just submitted your resignation slip with this claim.

Meanwhile I make claims and back them up.
Not as evidenced by your writing.
Me making the claim is not a reason to dismiss it. Try again.
Actually, as demonstrated by earlier analysis, it is the ultimate reason to dismiss it.
To your delusional mind perhaps, but by an objective measure your characterisation is so inaccurate it is pathetic.
This, from the very mind claiming rocks as sentient and intelligent...

LMMFAO!

Who is delusional?
The context remains for all to see.
Yes, but not in your signature.
If you wanted to present it accurately you could by simply paraphrasing what I said into a more honest depiction:
A CGI simulation of the motion of the planets through the galaxy depicting it in reality would be worthless as it is unable to show the motion of the planets due to the scales involved.

But no, you don't want to do that, as that doesn't make people look bad, so you need to blatantly misrepresent them.
Again, you making a baseless claim...
No, I claim it is good enough for what you want as you are no longer asking for the reality of the sun in motion.
I used the word "rendering."

I will label you as a person not in pursuit of truth as your actions have made that quite clear.
Projecting, as evidenced by previous replies in this very post.

Where have I been defending inaccurate models?
By laying claim no models depicting the Sun in motion, with planets in tow, can be rendered.

And by essentially stating, "what is present is close enough..."

Here you explicitly wrote the false vortex model I presented in the OP as being sufficient for what I was asking for!

Then the one you provided will work fine.

Do you mean where I pointed out several flaws in them?
Where?
You might want to learn what defending means.
Already know...
Really?
Me not showing that is impossible and explaining why it is impossible makes me a liar?
You should really learn some logic so you stop spouting such nonsensical crap.
Claiming to have explained and actually doing so are two entirely different propositions.

No. You are conflating a CGI rendering with the math behind it.
No, you were conflating CGI in the movies with that of science textbooks...

Here it is again...
No it wouldn't.
You asked for a CGI rendering.
When you go watch a CGI rendinger in cinemas, do they provide all the data used to make it? No.
Are you dense?
Have you attended any school?
Any institution of higher learning would demand the inputs and any honest scientist would openly and honestly present the inputs...
You are not an institution of higher learning.
No shit Sherlock...

Hence the inclusion of the words, "...any honest scientist..."
I think I summed up your views Jack.
No, you blatantly lied about them.
Again, I think my version of events to be more accurate...
Oh, and your essential argument that a CGI rendering doesn't exist = Too expensive...
Nope, not my argument at all.
My argument is essentially that a CGI rendering of the planets' motion through the galaxy would by unable to show the planets' motion through the galaxy due to the scales involved which would make it worthless.
With only your words as evidence...
Sure, send me a credit card.
Not on your life, you poor broken sot...
« Last Edit: January 22, 2018, 05:37:14 PM by totallackey »

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #75 on: January 22, 2018, 05:47:04 PM »
The one that questions the purpose of your request for such a rendering.
Oh, that was an argument?

Pardon me!

Purpose of the request: Analyze the rendering for fidelity to the known laws of motion, universal gravitation, etc.

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #76 on: January 22, 2018, 06:00:34 PM »
Sure. What does that have to do with making complex, yet useless, CGI renderings for your entertainment?
I has nothing to do with my entertainment.

Whose, then? You're the one asking.

Quote
It has plenty to do with "truth."

So-called truth? Maybe the folks capable of creating an approximation of what you're asking for have better things to do, like pursuing truth (without the quote marks).

Quote
I noticed your reliance on the word, "useless," yet again to to describe your version and view of/on science.

It appears you're conflating science (and, apparently, truth) with CGI renderings of models. They're not the same. Maybe that's the disconnect.

Quote
Thank you for at least being honest.

You're welcome!

Quote
What did ethical scientists do in the days before powerful and cheap computers?
Probably spent time on not so powerful and more expensive computers making up the BS you accept for SCIENCE!

And before less powerful and more expensive computers existed?  ;)

Believe it or not, science is based on more than computer simulations and entertaining renderings. Computers are a powerful tool, but not the basis for science. Verifiable measurements and testing of predictions are the basis for science.

Quote
Dunno. I would think so, but you keep coming back for more, so you must enjoy it.
I would read the above reply and seriously rethink who is getting pwned here... 8)

It's accurate enough for what is needed these days, even if not 100% perfect. It doesn't have infinite precision, which would be necessary for truly 100% accuracy, and probably never will, for the reasons stated.
None of the reasons you have offered are legitimate.

That's easy to say. Can you back that claim up with any facts?

Quote
Fortunately, scientists know there is some uncertainty in all measurements and predictions, but as long as the uncertainty in some datum is low enough for a given purpose, it is useful for that purpose. In the case of solar system models, they're accurate enough to safely and successfully navigate spacecraft to other solar system bodies, as well as predict astronomical events to accuracy far beyond the needs for most people, for years into the future. So, yeah... even if not perfect, the model is still accurate for virtually all needs.
Translation = As long as we keep selling the masses bullshit tis okay...

Old (often misquoted) adage: "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."

You can only say something is a success after it has been tried out or used.

The next time some easily-timed and, even better, location-dependent planetary event is predicted, see how close reality comes to the prediction. Out here in the real world, these science-based predictions happen, to a fraction of a second. All. The. Time.

Verifiable. No bullshit.

Quote
If a scientist seriously claims it's possible to know everything about some field, be skeptical. Competent ones would not make such a claim.
You are here claiming your reasons for the lack of an accurate rendering are 100 percent accurate, so thanks for the insight on your level of competency and actual inability to comment.

No, I'm saying 100% accuracy is not possible because it's simply not possible to know everything. You probably know this already, but can't let it go. If you don't know it already, you should.

Quote
Science is based on trust faith, but also verification. Even data considered trustworthy is subject to review as understanding, equipment, and techniques improve.
FTFY.

Nope. Faith would mean just accepting, instead of looking for independent verification.

Quote
No need to thank me.

You're right about that.

Quote
He said "solar system and galaxy simulations", not "solar system and galaxy CGI renderings with 100% fidelity, including all known and yet-unknown mass". Different statement.
So you are arguing on the one hand, a 100 percent accurate model is not feasible, that data compilation is not possible, yet on the other hand, claim the rendering is not possible and that orbits could not accurately be reproduced, yet the long range satellites and deep space probes work with the knowledge we have and we should just have faith... wtf?

You were the one asking for a "correct CGI rendering" using "all the math"

Given that science claims the Sun is speeding along at roughly 483,000 MPH, with planets, their moons, asteroids, comets, etc., dutifully in tow, and given that science claims that Kepler and Newton have all the math figured out and that is what allowed for the discoveries of planets and their orbits to begin with:

Please present a correct CGI rendering of the Solar System in its travels throughout the galaxy.

It's not possible to do "all the math" because all the data is not known.

Quote
Do you even think about what you post?

All the time. Do you?

Quote
LOL. Feel better after that little rant?

Just ignore my replies if they upset you.
Your replies do not upset me.

Here's the context you omitted:

Sounds to me as if it is a heaping pile of dung that you cannot possibly defend with any rational arguments.

Take a deep breath... relax. Better?

Quote
They only solidify my view on the insincerity of a bunch of JREFugees occupying this forum.

You're going to believe what you want. So what?

See what I mean?
A2O, I am going to apologize for any form of personal attack I made to you in this thread.

You are not one in the same vein as JackBlack or Rab or Rayzor or Marko...

I will post a cogent reply to your post tomorrow.

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #77 on: January 22, 2018, 06:32:33 PM »
I will post a cogent reply to your post tomorrow.

No worries. Enjoy your evening.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #78 on: January 22, 2018, 06:41:56 PM »

The information in my messages is correct, as always.

Really? Justify these to any rational person !
Quote from: Sandokhan
Advanced Flat Earth Theory « Reply #410 on: August 09, 2017, 06:07:14 AM »
EARTH - SUN DISTANCE: 15-20 KILOMETERS

The Sun's diameter is some 600 meters:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1786946#msg1786946

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1787025#msg1787025

The Sun, Moon, Black Sun, Shadow Moon and Jupiter have the same diameter.

All planets/stars have the shape of a disk.

Venus and Typhon-Nibiru (Mercury) orbit the Sun: together they orbit above the flat surface of the Earth.

The distance from Earth to the Sun is some 15-20 km.
Read the following before you waste time even answering Sandokhan:

<< Oft repeated rubbish deleted >>
Those interested in how Sandokhan thinks should read: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory « Reply #44 on: April 24, 2010, 08:22:59 PM » which starts with:
Quote
In order to avoid situations like this ( http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38120.0 ) the FAQ must be modified to include the latest and best proofs provided in the alternative FAQ, re: flat earth maps, orbit/size of the sun, movements of the satellites, and much more.

As I have mentioned before, S. Rowbotham made several mistakes when discussing the secondary (supporting) flat earth theory (earth-sun distance, solar eclipse, circumpolar constellations), that is why it is very important to present the facts from an awesome and powerful position, one which will silence immediately any and all round earth arguments.
But then goes on to say:
Quote
The size (diameter) of the Sun, and the Earth - Sun distance in the FAQ must be modified to read: diameter of the Sun - 600 meters (to be elegant, we use 1000/PHI ~618 meters), Earth - Sun distance 10 - 12 km. HERE ARE THE PROOFS, real time videos of the ISS/Mercury Sun transits, also the ISS Moon transit.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36686.msg910271#msg910271
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36686.msg913547#msg913547

These links include the photographs of the Black Sun which, as you can see, has the same diameter as that of the visible Sun.
How any reasonable person could deduce that the sun was 618 m in diameter and 10-12 km high from that information baffles me!

By the way a 618 m diameter sun, 11 km high would have an angular size of about 3.2°. Yes, I know, the answer is  :D aether :D.
Mr Sandokhan, if you told me that the sky was blue, I'd immediately go and have a colour-blindness test!

Why would anyone take the slightest notice of someone who writes this sort of thing?
Quote from: sandokhan
Now we know that Pythagoras never existed actually, as there were no ancient Greece/Rome/Egypt in our radical new chronology, and that the conspirators invented the irrational number concept in order to deceive the public regarding the Pythagorean comma (instead of a circle of fifths, we would have a spiral of fifths); they also invented, through J.S. Bach, the equal temperament scale in order to hide the real scale they used to produce levitation of large blocks of stone.

If you have a week to spare, read the rest and the link in:
         
Flat Earth Believers / Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory « Message by sandokhan on June 09, 2010, 07:35:44 PM »

And
<< deleted so that you don't scare away any prospective flat earthers  >>
And please introduce any prospective flat earthers into your radical chronology, 15-20 km high 600 m diam sun and other weird ideas. This sort of stuff:
Quote from: sandokhan, Flat Earth Believers / Advanced Flat Earth Theory on July 14, 2009, 11:59:41 PM
Flat Earth Theory is a subset of a larger topic: the new radical chronology of history.
The new chronology of history: the correct chronology starts in the year 1000 AD, nothing is known prior to 800 AD.

The new radical chronology of history: each and every event assumed to have taken place prior to 1780 AD has been totally forged/invented/falsified. History is just some 365 years old (I started with a figure of 500 years, and slowly reduced the period to 364-365 years).

Christ was crucified at Constantinople some 260 years ago, and the falsification of each and every known religious text begun soon after, in the period 1775-1790 AD.
The Deluge occurred some 310 years ago; while the dinosaurs were created a few decades earlier, after Adam and Eve joined the one million pairs of humans which already were living beyond the Garden of Eden.

Yes, Mr Sandokhan, just make sure that you let everybody know the whole Sandokhanian Package.
Or all in one post, Flat Earth Debate / Re: Actually Being Smart This Time « Message by rabinoz on November 17, 2017, 12:15:17 PM »
Have fun with Mr Sandokhan's "alternate reality".

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #79 on: January 22, 2018, 07:14:53 PM »

What did ethical scientists do in the days before powerful and cheap computers?
Probably spent time on not so powerful and more expensive computers making up the BS you accept for SCIENCE!
LOL!
Please tell me the exact types of computers used by these famous astronomers before 1940:
Clyde Tombaugh, Jan Oort, Edwin Hubble, Arthur Eddington, George Hale, Annie Jump Cannon, Joseph von Fraunhofer, William Herschel, Charles Messier, Edmond Halley, Giovanni Cassini, Tycho Brahe and unbelievably:
Quote
Omar Khayyam (1048-1131, Persian) was a great scientist, philosopher, and poet. He compiled many astronomical tables and performed a reformation of the calendar which was more accurate than the Julian and came close to the Gregorian. An amazing feat was his calculation of the year to be 365.24219858156 days long, which is accurate to the sixth decimal place!

All from: StarTeach, Great Astronomers
And I could point many physicists in the BCE[1] that did amazing computational work without computers.
Just how would you like to do the calculations involved without any computer assistance?

[1] BCE is the Before Computers Era.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #80 on: January 22, 2018, 07:24:33 PM »
The one that questions the purpose of your request for such a rendering.
Oh, that was an argument?

Pardon me!

Purpose of the request: Analyze the rendering for fidelity to the known laws of motion, universal gravitation, etc.
Why get hung up on the rendering when it's the math that's the important part?  Renderings (especially at the scales involved) are really only useful for illustrative purposes.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #81 on: January 22, 2018, 09:53:40 PM »
So according to you, nobody ever checked if Kepler's laws were right since Kepler himself ? No data exist but those that Kepler used, and which you claim were forged ? Don't you think these laws have been checked, double-checked and triple-checked countless times throughout the centuries, and don't you think the only reason people still take them into account is because it gets planets and comets trajectories right every goddamn time ?

Amazing, isn't it?

No one else, not Galilei, not Newton, not Flamsteed or Cassini, nor Euler or Lagrange has ever bothered to check up on Kepler's data.

With the exception of Dr. Dohahue, no other scientist has bothered to verify the claims made by Kepler.

So, the official chronology of history invites us to accept an unbelievable thing: how could Kepler get away with something like this?

Dr. Donahue discovered that Kepler FAKED/FORGED/FALSIFIED each and every set of data in his Nova Astronomia.

The claims made by Kepler are totally false: no elliptical orbit was ever discovered at all.


There is also not enough detail to determine if they are circular or slightly elliptical.

You still don't get it.

Dr. Rhys Taylor features a galactic orbit with helices on a right cylinder.

The galactic orbit has to be bounded by some sort of regular geometrical figure: otherwise, the orbits will either be unbounded or they will collide with each other.

It is as simple as this.

The claim that the orbits would follow an elliptical cylinder are false.

Kepler's first law of motion is a PLANAR TWO DIMENSIONAL LAW.

What is needed is a THREE DIMENSIONAL VERSION OF THE KEPLERIAN FIRST LAW.


Furthermore, Newton's law of attractive gravitation is a STATIC GRAVITATIONAL LAW which cannot explain the helical orbit of the planets bounded to a right cylinder.

What is needed is a NEW GRAVITATIONAL LAW WHICH IS DYNAMIC.


Kepler's first law of orbital motion coupled with Newton's law of attractive gravitation ARE TOTALLY USELESS TO DESCRIBE THE GALACTIC ORBIT.

That is why this thread is called "the death of heliocentricity", which it is.


Both Copernicus and Kepler claimed that the SOLAR SYSTEM IS STATIC, that is, there is no galactic orbit at all.

That is why they put forth, in the official chronology of history, A TWO DIMENSIONAL PLANAR MODEL.

Newton provided A STATIC GRAVITATIONAL LAW.


But the galactic orbit needs both a THREE DIMENSIONAL KEPLERIAN LAW which does not feature an ellipse, and a DYNAMIC GRAVITATIONAL LAW.


Generations of students have been offered the WRONG and FALSE information. There is no such thing as an elliptical orbit for the Earth around the Sun.



« Last Edit: January 23, 2018, 12:01:22 AM by sandokhan »

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 928
  • Physical Comedian
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #82 on: January 22, 2018, 10:03:24 PM »


Generations of students have been offered the WRONG and FALSE information. There is no such thing as an elliptical orbit for the Earth around the Sun.

It sure as hell isn't making triangles.
Nullius in Verba

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #83 on: January 23, 2018, 12:10:35 AM »
"Johannes Kepler’s great book, Astronomia Nova, a work of unexaggerably great importance for mankind. Kepler created modern science with this work, which breaks from the view that the complete perfection of the heavens have nothing to do with the physical causes that operate down here in the earthly domain. His book, subtitled Astronomy Based on Causes departs the mathematical world of previous astronomers, and creates the new field of astrophysics.

One of the most significant books in the history of astronomy, the Astronomia nova contributed valuable insight into the movement of the planets. This included the first mention of the planets' elliptical paths."

Right.

However...


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776670#msg1776670

Kepler published his first law of planetary motion based on the data gathered by Tycho
Brahe in 1609. The law states that planets orbit the sun in ellipses with the sun at one focus.

“Almost 400 years later, William H. Donahue undertook the task of translating
Kepler’s 1609 Astronomia Nova into the English New Astronomy (Donahue 1992)
when in the course of his work he redid many of Kepler’s calculations, he was
startled to find some fundamental inconsistencies with Kepler’s reporting of these
same calculations (Donahue 1988)."

“After detailed computational arguments Donahue concluded the results
reported by Kepler . . . were not at all based on Brahe’s observational data; rather
they were fabricated on the basis of Kepler’s determination that Mars’s orbit was elliptical.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS KEPLER'S FIRST ORBITAL LAW.

Kepler FAKED/FORGED/FALSIFIED the entire set of data.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776680#msg1776680



http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1988JHA....19..217D

Kepler's fabricated figures, by W.H. Donahue

The scholar, William H. Donahue, said the evidence of Kepler's scientific fakery is contained in an elaborate chart he presented to support his theory.


Kepler's first "law" of orbital motion is totally FAKE!


The fabricated data appear in calculated positions for the planet Mars, which Kepler used as a case study for all planetary motion. Kepler claimed the calculations gave his elliptical theory an independent check. But in fact they did nothing of the kind.

''He fudged things,'' Dr. Donahue said, adding that Kepler was never challenged by a contemporary. A pivotal presentation of data to support the elliptical theory was ''a fraud, a complete fabrication,'' Dr. Donahue wrote in his paper. ''It has nothing in common with the computations from which it was supposedly generated.''


A FRAUD AND A COMPLETE FABRICATION.

The very foundation of modern science, the most significant work in astronomy ever published, turns out to be a total fakery and forgery.





« Last Edit: January 23, 2018, 12:13:54 AM by sandokhan »


*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #85 on: January 23, 2018, 01:08:18 AM »
Nope. You ignoring the justification doesn't magically make it disappear.
I have explained how the scales make it impossible.
Not one time. 
Again, you ignoring it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
The scales involved makes it impossible to see what you want in an accurate depiction.

Again, I will be ignoring your baseless dismissals.

You asked for the motion of the solar system through the galaxy. That is a model of the galaxy, not the solar system.
No it is not.
This type of reply is a perfect example of your inability to understand and comprehend the English language.
No, this is a perfect example of your stupidity, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
A model of the solar system would just show the solar system, nothing else. It would not show the motion of the solar system relative to anything.

An example, if you wanted a model of a planet orbiting the sun, this would be a model of the solar system (or part thereof), not the planet.
Similarly, a model of the solar system moving through the galaxy is a model of the galaxy (or part thereof) not the solar system.

Or it shows people haven't bothered making a CGI rendering.
Try again.
I do not need to try again, when I was correct in my first statement.
What a shame you weren't correct in your first statement, so you do need to try again.

No, I meant what I wrote the first time, so allow me to repeat it
No need to repeat it. I was providing an honest translation of your lies.

Another admission pursuit of truth has no utility in your life.
Nope. Another admission that you not getting what you want doesn't make everyone else wrong, and another example of your dishonest and complete disregard for the truth.

As if rocks possess intelligence...
They possess more than you. Do you know why? They don't say the stupid shit you do.
You clearly have no intelligence at all.


Me making the claim is not a reason to dismiss it. Try again.
Actually, as demonstrated by earlier analysis, it is the ultimate reason to dismiss it.
There you go showing a complete lack of intelligence and a complete inability to make any kind of rational analysis.
An argument/claim does not stand on the basis of the person making it.

Where have I been defending inaccurate models?
By laying claim no models depicting the Sun in motion, with planets in tow, can be rendered.
There you go completely not understanding again.
Saying they can't be rendered is not defending inaccurate models.

And by essentially stating, "what is present is close enough..."
There you go lying again.
I said what already exists is good enough for you as you aren't asking for reality (nor even a rendering of reality). You are asking for a fiction.
As such, I conclude any old crap is good enough for you as you aren't interested in the truth. No CGI rendering like this will be good enough for me as it will be unable to show it due to the scales involved.

Do you mean where I pointed out several flaws in them?
Where?
Go back and read my comments.
Here is a link to an example:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73943.msg2011843#msg2011843

Already know...
Is that you not having any idea what it actually means and just thinking you know, or an admission that you are blatantly lying as you know I am not defending these incorrect models?

Claiming to have explained and actually doing so are two entirely different propositions.
Similarly, pretending I haven't and me actually not having done it are 2 entirely different scenarios. You pretending I haven't doesn't magically make it disappear.

No. You are conflating a CGI rendering with the math behind it.
No, you were conflating CGI in the movies with that of science textbooks...
Nope.
The CGI rendering is the output. It is the rendered image/video. This is not the math behind it.

Again, I think my version of events to be more accurate...
Likely because you are completely delusional, unable to see reality and have no concern for the truth.

With only your words as evidence...
Yes my words regarding what my argument is, including the argument itself, unlike your claims regarding what my argument is which only has your lies as evidence.

What would you use to determine what someone's argument is, the argument, or someone else's lies about it?

Not on your life, you poor broken sot...
Then how am I meant to have one on you?

Purpose of the request: Analyze the rendering for fidelity to the known laws of motion, universal gravitation, etc.
So you are asking for entirely dishonest reasons as you know the rendering will be inaccurate as you have asked for an inaccurate rendering?


*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #86 on: January 23, 2018, 01:13:47 AM »
Amazing, isn't it?
No one else, not Galilei, not Newton, not Flamsteed or Cassini, nor Euler or Lagrange has ever bothered to check up on Kepler's data.
No it isn't. That you expect people to believe your delusional BS is.

How about you try providing evidence of your insane claims? And no, copying and pasting mountains of BS is not evidence.

You still don't get it.

Dr. Rhys Taylor features a galactic orbit with helices on a right cylinder.
No, you seem to be the one that doesn't get it (like most things). I showed that that claim of yours was pure BS.

The galactic orbit has to be bounded by some sort of regular geometrical figure:
There you go with your baseless claims again. Prove it or get lost.

Kepler's first law of motion is a PLANAR TWO DIMENSIONAL LAW.

What is needed is a THREE DIMENSIONAL VERSION OF THE KEPLERIAN FIRST LAW.
Nope.
Why should that be needed?

I will skip the rest of your crap until you are capable of making an argument yourself without just linking to or copying and pasting mountains of crap.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #87 on: January 23, 2018, 01:44:12 AM »
W. Donahue: Kepler's Fabricated Figures

''He fudged things,'' Dr. Donahue said, adding that Kepler was never challenged by a contemporary. A pivotal presentation of data to support the elliptical theory was ''a fraud, a complete fabrication,'' Dr. Donahue wrote in his paper. ''It has nothing in common with the computations from which it was supposedly generated.''


A FRAUD AND A COMPLETE FABRICATION.

The very foundation of modern science, the most significant work in astronomy ever published, turns out to be a total fakery and forgery.


Kepler's Nova Astronomia is a work of FICTION.

Kepler introduced the elliptical hypothesis without any scientific inquiry at all.

He simply invented the figures to fit his belief.


I showed that that claim of yours was pure BS.

You are delusional again.

You showed nothing of the kind.

It is not my claim, it is the OFFICIAL VIEWPOINT of the astronomical community.

Dr. Rhys Taylor:



Dr. Taylor:

The most basic notion that the planets trace helical paths through space is perfectly correct.

Can you read English?

You have just been shown to be in complete ignorance of the topic discussed in this thread.


These helices HAVE TO BE BOUNDED BY A REGULAR GEOMETRICAL FIGURE.

Otherwise, the orbits would either be unbounded, or else they would collide with each other.

Can you not understand this much?

Take a look at the image provided by Dr. Taylor. The orbits are bounded by the sides of right cylinder. They have to be. Otherwise, they would be unbounded. Or, they would collide with each other.

Why should that be needed?

Because Kepler's first law turns out to be a total fraud.

Because it has been discovered that the orbital path of the galactic orbit is A THREE DIMENSIONAL FIGURE.

Kepler's first law applies to planar motion, a two dimensional figure.

They are mutually exclusive.

What you need is a new three dimensional keplerian law.

And a dynamical gravitational law which can explain the helices.


And this dynamical gravitational law has to explain the defiance of Newcomb's constant.



"Calculated precession rates over the last 100 years show increasing precession rates which produce a declining precession cycle period.

The precession rate goes up each year. The Astronomical Almanac gives a rate of 50.2564 (arc seconds) for the year 1900. In that year, the top astronomer in America, Simon Newcomb, used a constant of .000222 as the amount the precession rate will increase per year. The actual constant increase since that time is closer to .000330 (about 50 % higher than expected) and it is increasing exponentially (faster each year)."

"The fact of the matter is the gravity of the Sun and Moon have been very stable for
millions of years [according to the official theory of astrophysics] and there should be no reason in the lunisolar model for this significant upward trend in the wobble rate. If  anything it might be expected to slightly “decrease” under lunisolar theory as the Moon moves a fraction of an inch farther from Earth each year and as the Sun burns up a small fraction of its mass each year. But frankly these amounts are so negligible relative to the mass and scale involved that the precession rate should be noticeably stable year after year – if these masses are indeed the cause of the wobble. Lunisolar theorists not only need to find new inputs to the precession formula for the sake of accuracy, they need to offset these slight diminishments in gravitational forces and come up with larger effects in the opposite direction."

Newton's garbage law of attractive gravitation is DEFIED ON A MONUMENTAL COSMIC SCALE BY DARK FLOW AS WELL:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936995#msg1936995


The official viewpoint of modern astronomy has no science behind it, it is simply taking the scientific community into uncharted territory, as no explanation is available for the solar system's galactic orbit.

Both Kepler's first law of orbital motion and Newton's law of attractive gravitation cannot describe the galactic orbit.

Yet, generations of students have been forced to accept this failed and false view.


*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #88 on: January 23, 2018, 02:37:05 AM »
Sandy, stop just repeating the same refuted crap.

I have provided the gif rather than the single frame you provided which clearly shows the plane of the planetary orbits is tilted w.r.t. the path the sun takes.

The crap you are spouting is pure nonsense.

Now either rationally respond to what has been said, addressing it properly, making arguments yourself and backing them up, or get lost.

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #89 on: January 23, 2018, 02:37:22 AM »
The one that questions the purpose of your request for such a rendering.
Oh, that was an argument?

Pardon me!

Purpose of the request: Analyze the rendering for fidelity to the known laws of motion, universal gravitation, etc.
Why get hung up on the rendering when it's the math that's the important part?  Renderings (especially at the scales involved) are really only useful for illustrative purposes.
Agree to disagree Opus.

Renderings of this sort would be reliant on the math.

As far as all the objections to out-of-scale or impossible to show because of scale?

I believe those objections to be bupkus also also and here is why...

I could see a rendered image of the Sun on a large monitor, let us say the image taking up a half inch of the available space.

Now we all know science ascribes a size of approximately 860,000 miles in diameter to the Sun and science ascribes a mass of 1.989 × 10^30 kg.

That mass and size could be ascribed to the Sun as an object in a CGI simulation without changing the rendered size.

So, the Sun would behave as science purports in its movements.