THE "CHATBOX"

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
fbenario
Member
Posts: 2241
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by fbenario » Sat Apr 23, 2016 1:00 am

simonshack wrote:Please feel free to have another go at my "missing thing" quiz!
The North Star?
Halley's Comet?

By the way, have you seen that the noxious Neil deGrasse Tyson is now proposing that the universe might be a simulation? Who knows what he is going on about.

https://beta.finance.yahoo.com/news/nei ... 00649.html

pov603
Member
Posts: 848
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by pov603 » Sat Apr 23, 2016 7:17 am

The Earth's tilt and/or 'wobble' to account for (as pointed out by someone else) seasons and/or analema?

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6967
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by simonshack » Sat Apr 23, 2016 8:51 am

Dear Fbenario: nope, the "missing thing" is not an object.
Dear Pov603: nope, the "missing thing" is not a tilt nor a wobble (nor the analemma, which is the peculiar trajectory that the sun traces in our skies over a year).

Come on, folks - do have a go at it. I'll leave the "missing thing" quiz running for another day.

See, the answer is delightfully simple, but - and that's a VERY BIG 'but' : after all, untold numbers of hard-working (pre-Copernican) astronomers have overlooked this glaring little "logically missing thing" for centuries, nay, millennia. So don't feel bad if you don't solve this quiz within today!

HonestlyNow
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by HonestlyNow » Sat Apr 23, 2016 12:33 pm

simonshack wrote:WHAT thing would seem to be 'logically missing' - in the above cosmic model depicting 8 of our system's celestial bodies ?
simonshack wrote:. . . untold numbers of hard-working (pre-Copernican) astronomers have overlooked this glaring little "logically missing thing" for centuries, nay, millennia.
Heliocentrism.

scud
Member
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by scud » Sat Apr 23, 2016 6:56 pm

Sir, sir, I know sir!

Yes Johnson what is it?

I think it's 'gravity' sir.

(should Johnson prove to be correct he favours Moretti...in bottles).

starfish prime
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 4:36 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by starfish prime » Sat Apr 23, 2016 8:28 pm

scud wrote:Sir, sir, I know sir!

Yes Johnson what is it?

I think it's 'gravity' sir.

(should Johnson prove to be correct he favours Moretti...in bottles).
Damn, beat me to it!

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sat Apr 23, 2016 11:55 pm

I don't think that's it, but I think if you take a look at the SSSS thread, it may begin to dawn on you. :)

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6967
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by simonshack » Sun Apr 24, 2016 1:31 am

Dear HonestlyNow: no, the little "logically missing thing" in that diagram is not heliocentrism.
Dear Scud and Starfish Prime: no, the little "logically missing thing" in that diagram is not gravity.
Dear Hoi: no, nothing in my old SSSS thread suggests any sort of answer to this present quiz.

The simple answer to this "what is logically missing?" quiz is:

ALL but ONE of the 8 celestial bodies depicted in this diagram have an orbit!

Image

That's right: EARTH has no orbit in the above diagram. Why would that be? Aren't all celestial bodies supposed to have orbits?

Earth most certainly has an orbit - yet it does not revolve around the Sun.

As I will thoroughly expound in my upcoming TYCHO-SSSS model, Earth most certainly has an orbit of its own. Stay tuned.

Flabbergasted
Moderator
Posts: 911
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Sun Apr 24, 2016 1:36 pm

simonshack wrote:[...] Earth most certainly has an orbit - yet it does not revolve around the sun.
Everything that revolves, revolves around a center. If that center is invisible, then ...
Image

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sun Apr 24, 2016 2:27 pm

Flabbergasted, you are quite close indeed. I don't know what Simon considers 'correct' here aside from an actual diagram of his model but the Great Cycle will be a big part of it. You may just have to scale a few orbits — with one result in particular — to give us another key characteristic of the new SSSS! But no more "spoilers" ... right?!
simonshack wrote:Dear HonestlyNow: no, the little "logically missing thing" in that diagram is not heliocentrism.
...
Dear Hoi: no, nothing in my old SSSS thread suggests any sort of answer to this present quiz.
Au contraire, dear Simon! You've been focused on an "alternative" movement for Earth since the beginning! That's all I meant by a hint. But perhaps I can be considered a 'cheater' for having something very close to your present model explained to me by your very self so even temporary 'solutions' from the original SSSS thread seem very evocative to me of a 'suggestion' about how to approach the problem of "star movement" in the history of your models, such as this now obsolete idea:

Image

... it's just that it has evolved into something more complex and yet simpler at the same time. And you have even kept the interesting and solid principles of circles, orbits around so-called "empty space" and many other timeless 'problems' that finally make sense with your elegant solutions.

Although I am not the host of your game, HonestlyNow was close for bringing up "heliocentrism", since it's related in at least one kind of "Louis Caroll"-like logic: both the pop quiz picture and the concept of "heliocentrism" evade the center of Earth's orbit! B)

It has been very fun and interesting to witness your model evolving, and — as you said — getting tested by various questions. I am confident that what you have now is more cohesive than what children subjected to NASA-riddled text books are getting from their local "knowledge authorities". I think you may even change text books yourself!

Though, knowing the perps, they will find someone to swoop in and claim they've been working on the problem for a long time and unveil it through a NASA quirk like a "new observation from the ISS" or "orbit calculating satellite" or some other goofy palaver. Anything to avoid shaking the confidence of the follower-type people in the shadow-puppetmaster hoaxy old technofascist science priesthood.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6967
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by simonshack » Sun Apr 24, 2016 5:12 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:
Au contraire, dear Simon! You've been focused on an "alternative" movement for Earth since the beginning! That's all I meant by a hint..
Ah mais oui, bien sûr! I'd almost forgotten about that ol' tentative little Earth orbit which I came up with - as I laboriously tried to make sense of the analemma... (it sure had me banging my head on the walls for a long while). I have a feeling you'll love my definitive / demonstrative explanation for the occurence of the analemma : see, there's yet another, crucial aspect to it which I still hadn't noticed / worked out - when you last visited me in Frascati. It has to do with "prolate trochoids" - I'll say that much. And no, that isn't a paleontological term for some sort of extinct dino, don't worry!... :P

For those interested in the analemma 'phenomenon', here's the currently-accepted, 'academic' explanation for its occurence:
http://www.15minutefun.com/post/2735/th ... -analemma/

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sun Apr 24, 2016 8:20 pm

simonshack wrote:For those interested in the analemma 'phenomenon', here's the currently-accepted, 'academic' explanation for its occurence:
http://www.15minutefun.com/post/2735/th ... -analemma/
Where's Maat's 'head smack' emoji when you need it?

All that computer animation and circular "not a circle" reasoning narrated by some young eager voice who doesn't understand it themselves is embarrassing! Why isn't there a warning on all these things labeled "TED"? Something like: TED productions are reviewed by the following self-appointed peers: [insert list of staff]

Why aren't any TED talks cited properly anyway? It's just meant to be "Welp! Good luck finding out for yourself if we're totally full of shit!"

Although the article itself is little more than 'funny', some of it captures my feeling after watching about 99% of the TED things out there:
sixteen minutes later I’m aware of only three things: the talk was awesome, I can’t remember anything of substance from the talk, and I’m now watching a weirdly artificial standing ovation
- http://www.newstatesman.com/martin-robb ... -ted-talks

I very much look forward to your model's explanation Simon. We've got to do better than TED if we're going to solve problems on this planet!

Farcevalue
Member
Posts: 390
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:21 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Farcevalue » Sun Apr 24, 2016 11:51 pm

I had the thought lately that according to the "Big Bang" theory, as I understand it at least, that the inception singularity which caused everything to suddenly explode into being created an ever expanding vortex that is revolving around the center point of the genesis (I am perfectly comfortable using the word"genesis" in this particular explanation of how we got here).

Who's to say the Earth can't be at the center, for argument's sake? I mean, there HAS to be a center somewhere, it could as well be here.

Of course, that's just me musing. Anything that requires a telescope or radiometer is better left to more diligent minds like those of sirs Brahe and Shack.

Seneca
Member
Posts: 490
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Seneca » Mon Apr 25, 2016 11:41 am

Farcevalue wrote:I had the thought lately that according to the "Big Bang" theory, as I understand it at least, that the inception singularity which caused everything to suddenly explode into being created an ever expanding vortex that is revolving around the center point of the genesis (I am perfectly comfortable using the word"genesis" in this particular explanation of how we got here).

Who's to say the Earth can't be at the center, for argument's sake? I mean, there HAS to be a center somewhere, it could as well be here.

Of course, that's just me musing. Anything that requires a telescope or radiometer is better left to more diligent minds like those of sirs Brahe and Shack.
The "Big Bang" theory is a bit more complicated than you are currently understanding it. The model used is not that of an explosion (which has a center) but an expanding raisin bread. (A real expanding raisin bread still has a center but not in their model.)
The theory doesn't make much sense to me anyhow.

Mickey
Member
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 4:24 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Mickey » Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:17 pm

simonshack wrote:*
Dearest Cluesforum members & readers,
I hope you'll all forgive me for my rather extended 'office leave' - due to a series of some wonderful (my trip to India) and most unpleasant occupations (having to sort out dire family affairs) which have kept me busy in recent weeks. Anyways, I'm back - and thankfully - in good form & spirit.
Wow didn't see a trip to India coming ! Hope you had some great fun, although Bangalore is very crowded and chaotic :wub: Are you back in Italy? If not I would definitely recommend going to some other cities and smaller towns to get a real taste of India. Did you discuss 911 fakery with Dr. Rao? What was his take on it?

@Gopi , welcome to Cluesforum. Didn't know another desi had joined the forum. There was someone else who had joined in 2013/14, but he made an angry exit for reasons unknown. You have actually gone a lot further than a lot of us here in meeting Simon in person :) Curious to know if you follow Indian media and are aware of fakeries there as well (some have been touched upon in this forum).

Now that the OJ research for me is over, I am personally following the noise around "encryption" that is being pushed around (Apple "case"). Just another foundation for taking rights away ...

Post Reply