The SSSS - early musings - 2013>2015

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.
agraposo
Member
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:48 pm

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by agraposo »

We should remember that these ancient planetary models (ptolemaic, copernican, tychonic) all used epicycles, deferents, equants and so on, to explain the observed planetary motions. Here we can play with animations to help visualize how these models are all equivalent. The animations can be seen in the web browser, or better downloaded as a flash player animation.

Ancient Planetary Model Animations

But beware with epicycles! Even a very strange orbit can be explained with a sufficient number of epicycles, in this case 1,000!


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVuU2YCwHjw

Humanity had to wait for Kepler's laws of planetary motion to get rid of these epicycles.
Last edited by agraposo on Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
agraposo
Member
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:48 pm

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by agraposo »

More beautiful animations, in this case from the Planetario di Milano, downloadable as avi files.

http://www.mogi-vice.com/Pagine/Downloads.html

See for example the aberration of light video as a physical evidence of the movement of the Earth.

Image
http://www.mogi-vice.com/Scaricamento/A ... schema.zip
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

Thanks for keeping us up to date on all the things we could look up for ourselves. But be careful about how you frame it on this web site, if you please.
See for example the aberration of light video as a physical evidence of the movement of the Earth.
You failed to word this properly, I think, given all that we have discussed. Aberration is not only strange to cite on this site as "physical evidence of the movement of the Earth" alone because it is merely evidence of movement of two light 'sources'/objects (and it could simply be reversed with the cosmos rotating around a still Earth, or anywhere in between those two extremes) but these experiments in particular recall Airy's evidence that the cosmos is indeed "spinning" and the Earth is still (relative to what we call today a Machian framework, given what we know/don't know about light).

I don't mind the thread-spamming so much since it enlightens those who are too lazy to look up these things for themselves about where we stand, but try not to sound so haughty about agreeing with mainstream beliefs and framing clearly mainstream-supported science as superior, would you? It's depressing. I feel like I'm being preached at by a missionary in Spain, on a Sunday, with the church bells ringing.
agraposo
Member
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:48 pm

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by agraposo »

hoi.polloi wrote:
See for example the aberration of light video as a physical evidence of the movement of the Earth.
You failed to word this properly.
I don't think my sentence is true, as I don't think the priests believe that all what they say in the church is true. :)
But it is cumbersome to write the sentence like this:

See for example the "alleged" aberration of light video as an "alleged" physical evidence of the "alleged" movement of the Earth.

Simon can correct me, but the discussion in this thread has been basically geometric. With the complex example of the epicycles, which has occupied so many great minds in the history of Astronomy, from Apollonius of Perga to Tycho, I have emphasized the complete equivalence of the geocentric and heliocentric world systems, as long as the observational data can be explained by both systems.

Whether modern experiments of parallax, aberration or others demonstrate which one is correct, is another thing. If we can't make such experiments by ourselves, and we don't trust what have been done by others, then we are in a dead-end discussion.

What do you think, for example, of the Cepheid variable stars as indicators of the distance to the stars? Even amateur astronomers can measure the apparent brightness and period of variable stars and deduce its distance:
This enables astronomers to determine distances:

Find the period.
This gives the luminosity.
Measure the apparent brightness.
Determine the distance from the luminosity and brightness.
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/MilkyWay/cepheid.html
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by simonshack »

*

Dear Agraposo,

Let me ask you not to 'rush' this discourse - and please avoid adding more issues and complexity to it than we can handle at a time. I am still patiently digging through all the historical background behind the "socio-political" framework which have determined the current, universally-accepted Copernican system (in spite of its many problems) and how some 'untouchable', pseudo-scientific dogmas came to be established back in the 1600's. I don't think our readers need to be reminded, at every turn, of the load of 'established' astronomical knowledge available - or how 1000 epicycles might as well explain how Homer Simpson's silhouette was designed.

To be sure, it has emerged so far (in my slow, ongoing studies) that without Kepler and Newton, this dude Copernicus's quite novel, 'revolutionary' and shocking idea (Earth revolving around the Sun rather than the other way round) would never have lasted long. To be sure, for untold millenia, before the church-backed Copernicus popped up on the scene, EVERYONE agreed that the Sun orbited the Earth (with perhaps one notable ancient exception, Aristarchus of Samos). I happen to believe that Tycho Brahe was no fool - and was only steps away from proving his case for good - only to get poisoned by his rat-faced, insanely ambitious assistant Johannes Kepler. Tycho was undeniably the world's top astronomer back then - so allow me to keep testing out his theories without undue distractions - and allow me to keep calling my tentative, Brahe-supportive / corrective thesis "the SSSS", ok? Galileo? Well, he was very much an oddball, since his work actually supported Tycho's geocentric model - on paper, that is. In public, on the other hand, he voiced his support for Copernicus and his heliocentric theory - so let's leave this senseless, double-faced Galileo bloke aside for now.

I will soon be expounding some remarkable facts regarding Mars which, of course, was the planet which occupied practically all of Kepler's mind for years on end. In fact, As we will see, Kepler practically founded ALL of his 'Laws of Planetary Motion' on his studies of Mars alone. Tycho Brahe notoriously disliked Kepler, so in order to keep him busy, he handed him the thankless task of working out Mars's most puzzling and apparently inexplicable celestial motions.

But I will get to Mars later. For now, Agraposo, I have a question for you concerning Mercury:


A QUESTION ABOUT MERCURY


Here's what we 'know' about Mercury (according to official data):

- Mercury has a most eccentric orbit - which means it is supposedly very elliptical (0.2 against Earth's mere 0,0167).
- Mercury's orbital speed allegedly accelerates by over 50% as it proceeds from aphelion to perihelion.
- Mercury's orbit is wildly offset in relation to the Earth-Sun distances (Mercury aphelion: 70mil km / Mercury perihelion 46 mil km) whereas (Earth aphelion: 152mil km / Earth perihelion: 147mil km).
- Mercury's orbit is tilted by 7° versus Earth's orbit.

Yet, the two periods of Mercury's TRANSITS (the rare occasions in which we can see Mercury passing in front of the Sun) are separated by almost precisely 6 months. They occur either in the first days of May or in the first days of November - (give or take two or three days).
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/transit/ca ... talog.html

So the question is: HOW can this possibly occur in the Copernican system? How can Earth re-align on precise and consistent 6-month cycles with Mercury on one side and the other of their very different orbits? Here is a diagram from the University of Georgia, where they have traced the 'funny' orbit of Mercury (central green circle) versus the Earth (outer circle):
Image
http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/EMAT6680Fa09 ... rcury.html

Whether you understand the full scope of this question or not, I will let you ponder about it. To be sure, if (as the Tycho-SSSS model proposes) Mercury revolves around the Sun in a SEPARATE SYSTEM which itself revolves around the Earth, this occurence is fully explainable. In the Copernican model, it would have to be an absurdly extraordinary coincidence! There is no equivalence between the Copernican and the Tychonian model in this particular case.
agraposo
Member
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:48 pm

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by agraposo »

simonshack wrote: Yet, the two periods of Mercury's TRANSITS (the rare occasions in which we can see Mercury passing in front of the Sun) are separated by almost precisely 6 months. They occur either in the first days of May or in the first days of November - (give or take two or three days).[/b] http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/transit/ca ... talog.html

So the question is: HOW can this possibly occur in the Copernican system? How can Earth re-align on precise and consistent 6-month cycles with Mercury on one side and the other of their very different orbits?
From the Earth we see the Sun in the ecliptic plane, we can only see an object in front of the Sun when the Earth crosses the object's orbital plane, this only happens two times per year, for Mercury and Venus as well. When there is a coincidence between the plane crossing and a conjunction we see the transit (13 times per century for Mercury, and about two times per century for Venus).

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/transit/ca ... talog.html
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by simonshack »

agraposo wrote: When there is a coincidence between the plane crossing and a conjunction we see the transit (13 times per century for Mercury, and about two times per century for Venus).
Oh, fine. But I'm afraid you did not answer my question. Also, let's leave Venus alone for now.

My question was: HOW can Mercury (given its totally offset orbit vis-à-vis Earth's orbit) transit in front of the Sun at near-perfect intervals of 6 months of our calendar days - whenever they occur - allegedly due to the Earth/Mercury orbit nodes crossing paths? Doesn't this suggest to you that it is Mercury which orbits around Earth - and not vice versa?
agraposo
Member
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:48 pm

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by agraposo »

simonshack wrote: My question was: HOW can Mercury (given its totally offset orbit vis-à-vis Earth's orbit) transit in front of the Sun at near-perfect intervals of 6 months of our calendar days - whenever they occur - allegedly due to the Earth/Mercury orbit nodes crossing paths? Doesn't this suggest to you that it is Mercury which orbits around Earth - and not vice versa?
Mercury crosses the ecliptic plane two times during its orbit, it doesn´t matter if its orbit is circular, elliptic, square, triangular, ... Let's name these points A (ascending) and D (descending). It is evident that the line A-S-D is a straight line (S stands for Sun), that is point A is at the opposite side of point D.
Conjunction can only happen if the line E-D-S (E stands for Earth, S for Sun) is a straight one, or the line E-A-S is also straight. From the Earth's point of view, a transit occurs. If the transit E-A-S is in May, the transit E-D-S is in November (after 3, 7, 10 or 13 years), because six months is the time it takes the Earth to travel to the opposite side of its orbit.

Initial position:
Image

transit after 3,5 years:
Image

transit after 13 years:
Image

transit after 16,5 years:
Image

http://www.venus-transit.de/TransitMotion/
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by simonshack »

*
Agraposo,
Thanks for that link with interesting diagrams such as this one - showing the peculiar, highly complex path of Mercury over 4 years - and a total of 13 node passages across our ecliptic:
"The next figure traces the geocentric path of Venus starting from an inferior conjunction (transit) over a time interval of 4 years, ending by a superior conjunction (Venus is behind the Sun). There are 13 node passages of Venus:"
Image
See, this is my point: since the transits of Mercury in front of the Sun occur only in the first days of May or the first days of November (at almost precise "6-month intervals" of our calendar - although on different years) I find it very hard to believe that the above Mercury path would - coincidentally - perfectly 'mirror itself' from two opposed sides of Earth's (Copernicus-alleged) orbit around the Sun. This, of course, if we all accept the fact(?) that Mercury's orbit is wildly different / offset from Earth's orbit. That Mercury's highly complex motions would converge into "evenly-spaced-6-month transits" observable from either side of Earth's orbit (in May and November) - strikes me as highly implausible.

Instead, this would all be easily explainable - and far more likely - in the Tychonian model, as of my below illustration:

Image

In this model, with Mercury (and Venus) revolving around the Sun - and all three around Earth - Mercury's November orbit would not be a 'mirrored' orbit of its May orbit : it would quite simply be the very same, peculiar Mercury orbit - seen from Earth at opposed (by 180°) vantage points. Admittedly, the 'inferior' and 'superior' transits would be explained by the 23,5° tilt - in both the Copernican and the SSSS models. However, we have to ask ourselves why Mercury's (and Venus's) orbit seems to be 'locked' with the Sun's orbit- as if it were one of its satellites - whereas Earth appears to roll away on its own, separate plane - as if unconnected to its surrounding celestial bodies.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by simonshack »

*

Is Kepler's Second Law just an optical illusion?


Before I go any further into this pleasant astronomical 'investigation', I need to get this thought off my mind. It's been puzzling me for some time now - and I might just as well share it with you. It has to do with Kepler's Second Law of Planetary Motion, which basically says that (all) the planets' orbital speeds will increase or decrease - depending on their orbital progression nearer or further away from the Sun ("in their elliptical orbits" and all that stuff... But I'll get to that controversial ellipse issue later).

Here's a link to one of the countless sources which assures you that this is indeed the case. I mean, hey - even kids can get it, right? : <_<
http://kids.britannica.com/comptons/art ... e-speed-of

Without further ado, I'll just post this graphic of mine. I hope it illustrates this particular issue in a clear, easily comprehensible manner:

Image

It certainly is an issue worth exploring - since Newton 's "Universal Gravitional Laws" were derived pretty much directly from Kepler's!

**************
The readers of this thread will remember this animated gif which I posted previously - regarding the "mysterious retrograde motion":

Image

In other words, the question is: since Kepler's relied integrally on the celestial observations / annotations of Tycho Brahe (which surely must have suggested a gradually accelerating / then decelerating motion of the so-called "inner planets" Mercury and Venus, for instance), might Kepler's conclusions possibly have been fundamentally flawed - due to the NATURAL / IMMUTABLE laws of optics and perspective ?
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by simonshack »

*

Is the "WAR ON MARS" finally over?

Dear, esteemed and patient readers,

Please allow me to happily contend, until proof to the contrary, that I may have solved the longstanding Mars orbit riddle once and for all and, in so doing, effectively proven Tycho Brahe right - and Kepler/Copernicus wrong. In any case, I hope you will read on - and spend a little time assessing it all out for yourselves. To be sure, this matter doesn't require any major astronomical knowledge/ background in order to be processed and understood. In any case, I hope my best efforts to illustrate this matter will enable laymen and laywomen alike to wrap their heads around this issue.

Kepler used to call his relentless struggle (to make sense out of Tycho Brahe's Mars observations) his "war on Mars". The 'enemy', in Kepler's increasingly frustrated mind, became Mars itself - or rather its hopelessly elusive orbit which kept sending him back to the drawing board for years on end. After five full years of computations, his orbital path of Mars would still be off by a troublesome 8°. Why, oh why all this mind-boggling complexity - if Mars were just a planet simply spinning around /'behind' Earth in a wider orbit? Why did it take so long for Kepler to make sense out of Tycho's annotations - if Mars simply revolves around our planet in one circle - as of the Copernican model ? Well, this is indeed deemed to be a mystery - even by veteran Kepler-experts and biographers!

Personally, I can now imagine precisely why he got confused - due to the 'spirograph-pattern' of Mars, alternating circular and seemingly 'elliptical' sets of positions of its path (please see my below diagrams depicting the 15-year Mars cycle). Anyhow, Kepler was nonplussed and exhausted, but he wasn't going to give up. So here's how he 'solved' it: to make his contentions match up with Tycho's observations, he squished, notched squeezed and twisted BOTH Earth's orbit (our visual frame of reference) AND the Mars orbit - eventually turning them both into ellipses. This is a bit like a poker player playing both sides of the cards - and defining the outcome of the game at will. He finally declared triumphantly that the Copernican heliocentric model now matched up with Tycho's (famously accurate) observations. A treacherous clown, if there ever was one...

Here's how classic, astronomical academia now relates how Kepler came about his conclusions about Mars:

"Observing Mars at two different times separated by 1.881 years (or 687 days) , would give two different lines of sight along which Mars could lie. The intersection of those to lines would give Mars' actual location. By doing this for many different pairs of observations, each separated by 1.881 years (or 687 days) , Kepler was able to determine that the shape of Mars' orbit was an ellipse, with the Sun at one focus."
https://wesfiles.wesleyan.edu/courses/a ... 03lec3.htm

Kepler's 'winner' elliptical model (at left) and Tycho's 'loser', circular model (at right). Which one looks "craziest" ?
It would seem that, if there ever was a "war" - it was an abstract, geometrical war between circles and ellipses!
ImageImage

Of course, the geoheliocentric model that Tycho had in mind was quite different. Tycho's intuitive model (which was basically correct, as I will hereafter demonstrate) had the Sun revolving around Earth, and Mars's orbit seemingly intersecting the Sun's orbit - but he couldn't quite explain Mars's curious, fluctuating motions across the celestial sphere - over the years/decades. In fact, it appears that neither Tycho nor Kepler had any notion (or dismissed the importance) of Mars's 15-year cycle - which the ancient Maya people were well aware about. But let's now get to the crux of the matter - and why Kepler got it all wrong (either due to honest ineptness - or to purposely sabotage Tycho's work).


THE SIDEREAL AND SYNODIC PERIODS OF MARS

Let me just remind everyone of the meaning of these two periods:

The SYNODIC period is the time it takes for two celestial bodies to re-align with each other after one 'turn' of their respective revolving motions. In the case of Mars and the Sun (as seen from Earth), this period is said to fluctuate between around 780 days or so - but I have performed my own calculations of a recent / current 15-year cycle (2003 > 2018) which gave me an average of 778,1 days.

The SIDEREAL period is the time that it takes for a planet to complete a full orbit against the background stars. In the case of Mars, it is 687 days (or more precisely, 686,9). Both the astronomical academia and myself agree with that. However, for some unfathomable reason, what they tell us about the SIDEREAL period of Mars is that it is "impossible to measure directly"!
"We do not have a fixed frame of reference, so it is impossible to measure the sidereal period directly."
http://astro.unl.edu/naap/ssm/modeling2.html
Well, firstly (and this is just an apéritif to my latest findings), I think that I've found out why they claim this false / unfathomable thing - and why the issue of Mars's SIDEREAL period appears to be shunned like the plague by all mainstream astronomy sites, books and forums.

Let's take a look at a classic depiction of the COPERNICAN MODEL - and try to imagine how Mars and Earth could possibly re-align with the same star after 687 days. To be sure, Earth would need 732 days (2 X 366) to return to / re-align with the same star:

Image

As you can easily see, it is clearly utterly IMPOSSIBLE for Earth and Mars to re-align with the same star after 687 days - in the COPERNICAN MODEL, that is ! So, you may ask, do Mars and Earth ACTUALLY return in the same spot after 687 days - in reality? Yes, they do! Indeed, in the Tycho/SSSS model - which I keep refining day by day - the 687-day SIDEREAL period of Mars is both easily demonstrable AND in full agreement with the actual, fully-documented empirical observations of our skies:

Image
Source of the two above screenshots > THE NEAVE INTERACTIVE PLANETARIUM : http://neave.com/planetarium/

But now it all gets even more exciting, folks (well, I hope you're a little bit excited, anyway - heh!). Here's what extremely simple arithmetics tell us: the combined SIDEREAL and SYNODIC periods (686,9 + 778,1) add up to the exact figure of 1465 days. If we now divide 1465 by 4, we get the precise figure of 366,25. Sounds familiar, huh? Yes, this is the time it takes for the Earth Sun to revolve once around the Sun Earth... Thus, the Sun's revolution appears to be PERFECTLY SYNCHRONIZED with Mars's revolutions! Let me illustrate this for you - and remember that TYCHO was adamant about his model NOT implying that the Sun and Mars would EVER collide - and was rightly most annoyed / pissed off with his many contemporaries who failed to understand his well-researched concept :

Image
[I will have to re-design this diagram in the future with better relative orbit proportions. My circles also look like ellipses - however, they may turn out to be almost perfect, precessing circles in a revised version. Please just bear with my limited means right now - as this lonely research of mine progresses.]


MARS IN OPPOSITION - a verification of the Tycho/SSSS theory


So, you may ask, does the Tycho/SSSS model also jive with the observational data of Mars's oppositions? (this is when Mars drifts closest to Earth and in opposed direction to the Sun, every 778 days or so). Well, yes: in the below diagram, I have placed inside my model four successive opposition years (2003, 2005, 2007, 2010). They indeed all match up with available, fully-documented observational data of the background constellations visible on those dates :

Image

Here are some screenshots of the available observations of the Mars oppositions - and their background constellations:
Image


*******************
Now, here's my challenge for all aspiring debunkers - and assorted defenders of the COPERNICAN MODEL:

1: Explain why we can see Mars re-aligning with Earth in front of the same star/constellation within a 687-day time period.
2: Develop your conceptual theory as to exactly WHY 1 sidereal period + 1 synodic period of Mars would add up to exactly 4 years (366,25 X 4) - IN THE COPERNICAN MODEL (where the orbits of Sun and Mars have NO apparent correlation). You may claim it is only a haphazard, coincidental fact. If so, expound your own philosophical view of the occurence of extraordinary coincidences such as this.

Good luck! :)

---------
about MARS'S CYCLES:
http://www.maa.org/publications/periodi ... ry-periods



**********
EDIT TO CORRECT: Oops - I was wrong about the sidereal period of MARS being actually observable from Earth every 687 days. The real, observable sidereal period of MARS is actually 708 days - on average. I will make up for this error in the future - I promise !
:)
Libero
Member
Posts: 333
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by Libero »

Simon,

I haven't been following all of your math exactly, but isn't 366.25 * 4 equivalent in days to 4 years (365*4) + 1 leap + 4 extras?
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by simonshack »

*

THE PRECESSION ISSUE

I feel compelled to add a little note about the precession issue. It is generally recognized (FWIW) that the solar system slowly precesses - i.e. swivels around itself (see below solar barycenter diagram). At this time of my limited astronomical knowledge, I feel comfortable with espousing this contention. It does sound logical to me that the entire solar system very slowly rotates / moves about in a counter-clockwise motion as seen from our "Northern Star" (Polaris) in 24.000 or so. Polaris eventually gets replaced by Vega, we are told (after 12.000 years) - yet we will thereafter RETURN under Polaris after another 12.000 years ! So the starfield never ever moves, it seems. What's the deal with that - since we are also told that all galaxies are in perpetual motion, at different and tremendous speeds?

Image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar ... center.svg
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by simonshack »

Libero wrote:Simon,
I haven't been following all of your math exactly, but isn't 366.25 * 4 equivalent in days to 4 years (365*4) + 1 leap + 4 extras?
Dear Libero,

It seems to be an undeniable fact (if we believe that our planet rotates at all - which I do) that the Earth makes 366 rotations in the course of one year. Why we see the Sun rising only 365 times is, in my view, due to the fact that the Sun revolves ONCE around us each year (in the same direction as our planet's rotation). This will obviously subtract ONE SOLAR APPARITION from our total of 366 SIDEREAL DAYS.

This French WIKI page (which oddly has no English version) clearly states:
"la Terre effectue sur elle même un tour de plus c'est-à-dire 366,2422 tours sur elle-même"
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jour_sid%C3%A9ral

"the Earth performs on itself one more turn, that is to say 366,2422 turns on itself"
In the TYCHO/SSSS model, this means that 366,2422 is the time period in which the Sun completes ONE revolution around Earth.

The leap year (with its "February 29" - which occurs every four years) was introduced by Pope Gregorius XIII (counseled by Copernicus) with his Gregorian Calendar which we all follow today. It is meant, I suppose (but I'm still scratching my head about it) to somehow make up for this 366/365 discrepancy - so as to regulate the recurrence of our seasons, apparently. Incidentally - and funnily enough - the Gregorian calendar was promulgated from the Villa Mondragone, which I can view from the roof of my house...

Image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_Mondragone

Here's a classic 'explanation' for the 366 versus 365 day issue:
Image
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1904PA.....12..649B
Libero
Member
Posts: 333
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: The SSSS

Unread post by Libero »

I see where you are coming from now and thanks much for the explanation.

If anything it appears like you are doing a heck of a job disproving the Copernican theory. Since the math so far seems to and can apparently support both your model along with the Koreshan theory, it must eventually become a simple matter to decide whether one believes that the 'universe' in infinite and exists outside the earth or finite and contained within the earth (Believe me, I never could imagine uttering those words before in my life! :D ) Based upon what I can physically examine or verify in front of me... the construct of cells and one celled organisms, natural items that are produced from the earth, etc, I feel I am personally leaning one way over the other at this point. But I'll take that discussion back to the Universe that Isn't topic.

Call me a fruit, nut or vegetable and hey, it may actually be a compliment. :P
Locked