Earth is not revolving around the Sun!

[ktlight]

"Wonderful new theory that makes a lot of sense!

Ex283trHBgE

[apokalypse]

holy cow! thanks alot, this could be Earth is flat moment again. we thought earth is flat, in modern day we thought Earth is revolve around the Sun and that idea might be wrong aswell.

just found his full video Crossing the Event Horizon, if anyone interested in it here it is...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jml0RmixLIo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaiMA8enrtU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR2iDIiJ5fM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc1AvFhDAEI

[music]

Fits in with my understanding of the science involved, and may also explain or corroborate a lot.

[Calz]

As the solar system itself is traveling it's own path it only makes sense.

The static orbital model as it has been taught could not fit.

[RMorgan]

Well, it all depends on the observer´s point of view.

If you observe the movements of the planets around the sun from a perpendicular position, moving at the same speed, it will look like the classic model.

If you observe the movements of the planets around the sun from a static point of view, it will look like they are moving like a spiral.

It´s the same thing as watching cars passing by on a highway from your porch, or watching the cars passing by from inside a vehicle at the same speed.

You can´t say the classic model is wrong, it´s just a matter of point of view. The observer is always an important factor on physics.

[dAkapacity]

Very bloody interesting !!! I can't say I get everything he's saying... Hope to find more on this. It does resonate with the core of my being and that's allready something :-))

[percival tyro]

Our beautiful Sun, a rotating Yin yang, whizzing through space with the family in tow. Wow! I've got a nice feeling about that.

[Gardener]

It does fit observations on the microcosm too.
DNA.
Growth in nature spirals (chirality), hair grows in a spiral around the skull, beans grow around a pole in always the same way.
Water down the plug hole.
The math of vortices.

g

[WhiteFeather]

The double helix rotation, very cool. Thanks OP.

[Davidallany]

Thank you kt, what a wonderful explanation. Nassim has always something to correct, I love his way of teaching, it's so fresh.

[Russ1959]

Interesting theory, but if this is true, wouldnt the positions of the star constellations change too?

If we have mapped the visible constellations correctly over the centuries then surely there would not be the same alignments?

Just a thought.....

[RMorgan]

Interesting theory, but if this is true, wouldnt the positions of the star constellations change too?

If we have mapped the visible constellations correctly over the centuries then surely there would not be the same alignments?

Just a thought.....

As I´ve said before, on post #5, it´s all matter of the observer´s point of view.

Our solar system is moving, together with the whole universe, at the same expansion rate.

So, the stars are also moving,and, if observed from Earth, they will appear to be at the same position.

[Mad Hatter]

Mad Hatter dons his cynics cap...

So for 'the observer sitting on the porch', everyone of those galaxies, including those billions of light years away, would all have to contract at a perfectly even rate whilst the vision of said observer distorted in an equally crucial manner so that while the entire edifice disappears down the big ol plug hole in the middle, nothing, inlcuding mankinds many shrinking and expanding automagically recalibrating measuring sticks, would upset the observers relevant perspective from the porch thus give the whole game away...!?!!!

M'kay....

IIRC Ed from 'Coral Castle' had a bit to say about this as well...ceptin he reckoned old sol was working a big figure eight off in the distance, equally intriguing, IMHO.

Whatever this guy is on, I just know I wanna try some...;)

[RMorgan]

I´m not saying this guy is right or wrong. Personally, I think most part of his work is worthless. You can see what I´m talking about on this other thread about him:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?32579-Nassim-Haramein-at-Project-Camelots-Awake-Aware-Conference-September-2011&highlight=nassim+haramein

Anyway, there´s other thing we must consider.

We don´t actually see the stars. We only see the light emitted by them and this light travels straight, not in spiral of vortex paths.

Anyway, even on the classic model, all planets on our solar system are spinning around the sun. Do you think the other galaxies and stars and solar systems are static? No, they are spinning around their own suns as well, in a way that their movement creates a pattern, which is recognizable by us as patterns on our skies, that give shape to what we call constellations.

It doesn´t make too much difference if we consider the classic model or Nassim´s model. Things basically work the same way.

[Carmody]

I, not having seen the video..I'm guessing that he's saying that the motion of the sun and the planets is being driven by a secondary aspect, at least secondary aspect from an improper (not fully informed) perspective.

That the motion of the sun and planets in the heavens is due to the outside or external aspects, as part of a dynamic or dynamo system. This fits with the field theories or 'electric universe' model. In that model the system is held via the mutual attraction between the large differentials of voltage charge or ionic charge differential.

It is also true that electric charge potential is one trillion trillion trillion times stronger than 'gravity'..which tells you that there are very high odds, incredibly high odds, that the gravity model is very wrong and that gravity is a secondary effect or force and not a primary one. That voltage is a primary force. Voltage expresses as conjunctive differential between two quantum particles, regrading value and polarization differential. And that matter and space-time is the interconnected differential between them.

Which is the only thing that makes sense in a universe that has massive amounts of charge differential in massive ionic clouds of matter and proto-matter.

Basically giant clouds of ionic, polarized charge differential that is QUANTUM as they are separate quantum particles. Due to their being quantum and 'mass aggregate' in their connectivity ..as a reduction and conclusion in logic from that origin brings you to understanding that voltage influence, properly handled or interpreted as to it's conditions and position/placement in quantum systems, is a base function of the realization of "matter (mass aggregate) time-space".


Regarding proofs of torsional models of/in that ilk or type, here is (ok, two) a recent article(s) from some scientific research that supports that model accurately and independently. OK, three.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-tunnel.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-photon.html


This is the one I speak of. I will probably drag this one or this missive into the lithium thread. Simply as that is the best catch all thread for all this material.:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-vortex-circularly-polarized-luminescence-gelled.html

http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/2011/201141press.gif


Simple stirring can influence light, according to a report presented in the journal Angewandte Chemie by Kunihiko Okano and co-workers. Dye molecules locked in a gel send out “helical” (circularly polarized) light instead of “normal” light if the solution is stirred as it gels

If you hold one end of a rope and swing it up and down with your arm while the other end is tied to a fence, the rope forms a wave. The amplitude oscillates vertically. If you swing the rope left and right instead, the it oscillates horizontally. If the rope runs through a narrow gap between two trees, only the vertical wave can pass through to the end of the rope. Light can also be viewed as a wave.

The oscillation of ordinary light from a light bulb has no preferred direction. It varies in all directions perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the light. As the two trees do with the rope, special glasses, known as polarizing filters, allow only those light waves which oscillate in a specific plane to pass through. The light that passes through is known as linearly polarized light. Another variation is also possible: circularly polarized light. In this case, the light wave oscillates in a helical pattern because the amplitude describes a circle around the axis of propagation. The amplitude can rotate around to the left or the right.

The shape and orientation of molecules can influence the polarization plane of light when it passes through a given substance. It is thus not surprising that some molecules that emit light (luminesce) can give off polarized light. This luminescence can be circularly polarized if the emitting molecules (luminophores) are arranged helically.

The Japanese researchers from the Tokyo University of Science and the Nara Institute of Science and Technology have now found a new twist for emitting circularly polarized light: simply stir. Why does this work? Stirring causes spiral vortexes to form in liquids, which can induce the luminophores to adopt a helical arrangement.

The researchers were even able to preserve the forcibly twisted directionality of the luminescence by causing the solution containing the luminophore molecules, a green rhodamine dye, to gel while being stirred. A gel is formed like the gelatine glaze on a cake. Below a certain temperature the molecules of a gelling agent form a loose network with cavities that contain the other components of the liquid. If the dye solution with a suitable gelling agent is cooled under stirring, the stir-induced spiral arrangement of the luminophores is maintained in the gel. Depending on the direction of stirring, the gel emits left- or right-polarized luminescence. Without stirring, the light emitted is not polarized.

More information: Kunihiko Okano, Circularly Polarized Luminescence of Rhodamine B in a Supramolecular Chiral Medium Formed by a Vortex Flow, Angewandte Chemie International Edition, Permalink to the article:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.201104708/abstract;jsessionid=409A565B93A187CC80F363D239C7C6A8.d01t03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here is where the science went wrong. it involved the scientific and mathematical community taking on a theory and expression from one person, who ended up being responsible for much of our current and basic analytical theories of MHD, and thus the giant charged plasma sheets and similar that make up 99% of the known universe. He won the Nobel prize for it, in 1970.

Upon further analysis via observing actual plasma experiments 'in situ' and then comparing that to the 'heavens', he came to the conclusion that the magnetic model was wrong.. and the dynamic electric model was the correct one. He even said that directly as he was accepting the Nobel prize.

But the science community ignored him, even though he was the winner of the Nobel prize for his discoveries that created the fundamentals for all the math and models that are being used today, regarding the descriptors for the heavens.

http://www.scientificexploration.org/edgescience/edgescience_09.pdf

The kicker is not that voltage differential and polarization differential of said oscillatory functions is not the prime mover but is only evidence of the quantum interactions between particles. For the given particle has it's 'activities' and/or flow...and then their interactives become the descriptor for voltage and this might be accidentally considered a prime mover.

Where the origin of the space-time-matter effect is the realization of quantum differential itself.

Ie, that there is no prime mover, there is only realization of quantum differentials as a comparative. basically, at either end of the quantum wave differential, is a particle. Thus the reality system is both wave and particle, as it is wave anchored at each end by particle or point. Wave is dynamic integrative function... and particle is "static origin/destination point value (emergent differential) setting".

Which I have described as a dual two dimensional torsional spin in and a torsional spin out. Two 2d waves meeting each other and being in *near perfect* balance, but sightly offset, thus the linear unidirectional time, entropy, and thermodynamic 'rules' of such reality and interpretation/observation.

Which Maxwell's original Un-edited treatise on electromagnetics...based on Faraday's experiments with torsionally spun mercury and electricity ---so abundantly illustrated.

It's pretty difficult to prove this analysis wrong when the articles above all say this directly via accredited experiments and proofing that are all entirely unconnected. Ie, independent.

[kersley]

I find this theory a bit odd. if we are constantly moving forward or whatever directions, How then they predict what is to hit or near miss earth?

[RMorgan]

I find this theory a bit odd. if we are constantly moving forward or whatever directions, How then they predict what is to hit or near miss earth?

Because everything else is moving at the same expansion rate as well.

[Lefty Dave]

Greetings all,
Seems to me his explanation says that, NOT ONLY do the planets revolve around the sun, but the solar system revolves as well....around what... I didn't get....unless the implication is ...our solar system revolves within the galaxy, around whatever (black hole?) is there. A bit confusing for this old mind...

[Lettherebelight]

According to the Vedas, this solar sytem is actually geocentric. It depends on your point of perspective. Dimensional planes of existstence are arranged in concentric rings...it's difficult to understand from a 3-D point of view.

Very comprehensively explained in Dr. Richard Thompson's 'Sacred Universe'

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51EFX0CMAWL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

[lightning23]

:closed::closed:

[Maknocktomb]

There is a theory that our sun and others are influenced by a larger star in our region.

[WhiteFeather]

I, not having seen the video..I'm guessing that he's saying that the motion of the sun and the planets is being driven by a secondary aspect, at least secondary aspect from an improper (not fully informed) perspective.

That the motion of the sun and planets in the heavens is due to the outside or external aspects, as part of a dynamic or dynamo system. This fits with the field theories or 'electric universe' model. In that model the system is held via the mutual attraction between the large differentials of voltage charge or ionic charge differential.

It is also true that electric charge potential is one trillion trillion trillion times stronger than 'gravity'..which tells you that there are very high odds, incredibly high odds, that the gravity model is very wrong and that gravity is a secondary effect or force and not a primary one. That voltage is a primary force. Voltage expresses as conjunctive differential between two quantum particles, regrading value and polarization differential. And that matter and space-time is the interconnected differential between them.

Which is the only thing that makes sense in a universe that has massive amounts of charge differential in massive ionic clouds of matter and proto-matter.

Basically giant clouds of ionic, polarized charge differential that is QUANTUM as they are separate quantum particles. Due to their being quantum and 'mass aggregate' in their connectivity ..as a reduction and conclusion in logic from that origin brings you to understanding that voltage influence, properly handled or interpreted as to it's conditions and position/placement in quantum systems, is a base function of the realization of "matter (mass aggregate) time-space".


Regarding proofs of torsional models of/in that ilk or type, here is (ok, two) a recent article(s) from some scientific research that supports that model accurately and independently. OK, three.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-tunnel.html

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-photon.html


This is the one I speak of. I will probably drag this one or this missive into the lithium thread. Simply as that is the best catch all thread for all this material.:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-vortex-circularly-polarized-luminescence-gelled.html

http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/2011/201141press.gif


Simple stirring can influence light, according to a report presented in the journal Angewandte Chemie by Kunihiko Okano and co-workers. Dye molecules locked in a gel send out “helical” (circularly polarized) light instead of “normal” light if the solution is stirred as it gels

If you hold one end of a rope and swing it up and down with your arm while the other end is tied to a fence, the rope forms a wave. The amplitude oscillates vertically. If you swing the rope left and right instead, the it oscillates horizontally. If the rope runs through a narrow gap between two trees, only the vertical wave can pass through to the end of the rope. Light can also be viewed as a wave.

The oscillation of ordinary light from a light bulb has no preferred direction. It varies in all directions perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the light. As the two trees do with the rope, special glasses, known as polarizing filters, allow only those light waves which oscillate in a specific plane to pass through. The light that passes through is known as linearly polarized light. Another variation is also possible: circularly polarized light. In this case, the light wave oscillates in a helical pattern because the amplitude describes a circle around the axis of propagation. The amplitude can rotate around to the left or the right.

The shape and orientation of molecules can influence the polarization plane of light when it passes through a given substance. It is thus not surprising that some molecules that emit light (luminesce) can give off polarized light. This luminescence can be circularly polarized if the emitting molecules (luminophores) are arranged helically.

The Japanese researchers from the Tokyo University of Science and the Nara Institute of Science and Technology have now found a new twist for emitting circularly polarized light: simply stir. Why does this work? Stirring causes spiral vortexes to form in liquids, which can induce the luminophores to adopt a helical arrangement.

The researchers were even able to preserve the forcibly twisted directionality of the luminescence by causing the solution containing the luminophore molecules, a green rhodamine dye, to gel while being stirred. A gel is formed like the gelatine glaze on a cake. Below a certain temperature the molecules of a gelling agent form a loose network with cavities that contain the other components of the liquid. If the dye solution with a suitable gelling agent is cooled under stirring, the stir-induced spiral arrangement of the luminophores is maintained in the gel. Depending on the direction of stirring, the gel emits left- or right-polarized luminescence. Without stirring, the light emitted is not polarized.

More information: Kunihiko Okano, Circularly Polarized Luminescence of Rhodamine B in a Supramolecular Chiral Medium Formed by a Vortex Flow, Angewandte Chemie International Edition, Permalink to the article:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.201104708/abstract;jsessionid=409A565B93A187CC80F363D239C7C6A8.d01t03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here is where the science went wrong. it involved the scientific and mathematical community taking on a theory and expression from one person, who ended up being responsible for much of our current and basic analytical theories of MHD, and thus the giant charged plasma sheets and similar that make up 99% of the known universe. He won the Nobel prize for it, in 1970.

Upon further analysis via observing actual plasma experiments 'in situ' and then comparing that to the 'heavens', he came to the conclusion that the magnetic model was wrong.. and the dynamic electric model was the correct one. He even said that directly as he was accepting the Nobel prize.

But the science community ignored him, even though he was the winner of the Nobel prize for his discoveries that created the fundamentals for all the math and models that are being used today, regarding the descriptors for the heavens.

http://www.scientificexploration.org/edgescience/edgescience_09.pdf

The kicker is not that voltage differential and polarization differential of said oscillatory functions is not the prime mover but is only evidence of the quantum interactions between particles. For the given particle has it's 'activities' and/or flow...and then their interactives become the descriptor for voltage and this might be accidentally considered a prime mover.

Where the origin of the space-time-matter effect is the realization of quantum differential itself.

Ie, that there is no prime mover, there is only realization of quantum differentials as a comparative. basically, at either end of the quantum wave differential, is a particle. Thus the reality system is both wave and particle, as it is wave anchored at each end by particle or point. Wave is dynamic integrative function... and particle is "static origin/destination point value (emergent differential) setting".

Which I have described as a dual two dimensional torsional spin in and a torsional spin out. Two 2d waves meeting each other and being in *near perfect* balance, but sightly offset, thus the linear unidirectional time, entropy, and thermodynamic 'rules' of such reality and interpretation/observation.

Which Maxwell's original Un-edited treatise on electromagnetics...based on Faraday's experiments with torsionally spun mercury and electricity ---so abundantly illustrated.

It's pretty difficult to prove this analysis wrong when the articles above all say this directly via accredited experiments and proofing that are all entirely unconnected. Ie, independent.

Wow, I say no more. Ohh and Thank you, always love your posts Carmody.

[vibrations]

It's the hierarchy of the movements, cycles included in bigger cycles and then all together moving in a bigger one. As we are running around the sun so is the solar system going around the Alcyone in Pleiades, together with a bunch of other solar systems (by same info we are in a seventh orbit) and the orbital time is around 25-26000 years which is also a time in which one generation achieve their mature state...or not.

The point is, everything is in a constant movement, and the basic movement in this Universe is a spiral movement, so there are spirals within the spirals within the spirals.....and so on, who knows if there is the end. Our brain is not developed enough to assimilate the infinity.

[Lettherebelight]

Here is a video Dr. Richard L Thompson made some years ago. An very clever soul, sadly, no longer with us. A remarkable mind, eminent scholar...did research work for Cambridge University.

He passed away under very mysterious circumstances. It is minds such as his that pose a real threat to the powers that seek to control us.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-538297875584368796

[passiglight]

merkaba,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[Lettherebelight]

Our brain is not developed enough to assimilate the infinity.

Along with everything else you said, I couldn't agree with you more!

[Peace of Mind]

It’s been said that when we look into the sky we are actually looking into the past because the light we see coming off of the stars are so far away that we're actually seeing their illumination from decades, hundreds to thousands of years ago….Interesting. It is also said that the Earth spins at tremendous speed. But, if this is all true…how is it that the stars in the sky seem fixated when we are turning so fast, shouldn’t they appear as a blur in the sky? And if we are moving thru space why do all the stars appear to be in/or around the same spot year after year? And how are we to measure speed and distance when the universe is said to be infinite, how is this done? When I measure a desk I have a clear point “A” and a clear point “B” to use as a reference (Or wall to wall). What references are we using in space if it’s infinite and always moving into infinity? I’m not totally sure the methods used is totally accurate…leaving enough space for doubt. hope this makes sense...



Peace

[passiglight]

incidently, i believe the earth rolls in a groove set up by the harmonics given out by the sun and shaped by all of our conscious thought,,,,,,,


we are energy, incidentally

cosmic

[tonton]

If the sun moves we move.its clear.

[vibrations]

It’s been said that when we look into the sky we are actually looking into the past because the light we see coming off of the stars are so far away that we're actually seeing their illumination from decades, hundreds to thousands of years ago….Interesting. It is also said that the Earth spins at tremendous speed. But, if this is all true…how is it that the stars in the sky seem fixated when we are turning so fast, shouldn’t they appear as a blur in the sky? And if we are moving thru space why do all the stars appear to be in/or around the same spot year after year? And how are we to measure speed and distance when the universe is said to be infinite, how is this done? When I measure a desk I have a clear point “A” and a clear point “B” to use as a reference (Or wall to wall). What references are we using in space if it’s infinite and always moving into infinity? I’m not totally sure the methods used is totally accurate…leaving enough space for doubt. hope this makes sense...



Peace

In a first look I would agree with you, but the distances between the celestial bodies are vast. and this distances make us see the Universe as more or less stationary.

[Peace of Mind]

Interesting…

Why don’t they (stars, celestial bodies) appear as a blur in the sky if the Earth is spinning at such astronomical speed? If our brains are not developed enough to comprehend the infinite…how do we place facts on anything we see so far away, especially when our best tools are through telescopes? When we determine reference points in these measurements, how accurate do you believe them to be…based on where (and how) we set up these points? I’m not sure our measurement of light travel is right, nor are the best means for accuracy when space itself is a mystery. We are still learning about Dark matter /energy and it's effects and how and why it distorts light. There is a whole lot of room and potential for error in our analysis. IMO, the best way to know about anything in space is to actually travel out there and do the tests first hand and up close. I don’t see how we can truly identify what’s out there in the far beyond without actually going there. We can look at things here right in front of our faces and still not know anything about it…even with years of research.

Peace

[kersley]

I find this theory a bit odd. if we are constantly moving forward or whatever directions, How then they predict what is to hit or near miss earth?

Because everything else is moving at the same expansion rate as well.
Yes of course. thank you..

[<8>]

Thanks Ktlight..


I spent most of my day looking at Crossing the Event Horizon and i found it very interesting.

P.s..this theory make even sense why all self important people make the triangle sign...:first:

[Sidney]

I am having aa hard time wrapping my head around it. If this were the case, it seems like we would not see the same celestial bodies in the night sky over and over and over. Wouldn't it look completely different every night?

[araucaria]

For you(r) Peace of Mind, the earth is spinning at exactly one revolution per day (that's what a day means), i.e. through fifteen degrees per hour, one degree every four minutes.

Try sitting in the sun next to the shadow of a wall: you can feel this movement as the shadow passes over you.

[Wockey]

Well this will get people thinking - what did the people say when it was proposed the earth was actually round and not flat... I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing - just wondering and keeping an open mind.

[The One]

Well just maybe everthing we know is wrong

Chicken or the egg anyone :bump2:

[Peace of Mind]

For you(r) Peace of Mind, the earth is spinning at exactly one revolution per day (that's what a day means), i.e. through fifteen degrees per hour, one degree every four minutes.

Try sitting in the sun next to the shadow of a wall: you can feel this movement as the shadow passes over you.

I'll make an effort to do that...

And yes I understand this based on the sciences we’ve been taught, but do we really know how fast it’s spinning? If there were no stars or moon in the sky what would we base it on, and how would we determine what time it is (knowing that time is an illusion)? If it takes a few minutes for the suns light to reach Earth and years/millennia for the light of other stars to reach Earth… how accurate are our calculations? Do some of these stars we talk about in the constellations still exist? When I really think deep about all of this (including some thoughts about Dark Matter/Energy), I’m almost compel to believe we can time travel as soon as we leave this rock’s atmosphere and gravitational pull.

When we can only detect a sliver of the actual spectrum of light we leave too much to be contemplated….as of now, our extreme visions have been limited to the infra red/gamma. So, it’s imperative we not only recognize, but respect the notion of dealing with vast distances. Indefinable facts will only leave people wondering. The truth doesn’t come with a manual nor encrypted; when it comes you will know it because it’s a part of you. Lies will have you spending great time searching for pieces of a puzzle…and if put together… the picture would not be what you expected…as you would have figured out what it was before you finished assembling it…..having no need to search for the other pieces…pieces that don’t exist or have true value.

I once saw a Farrakhan vid on the Tube. He claims to have witness Elijah Muhammad in a space ship, saying how he’s still the same as he left, and explaining how these beings have been coming here for eons. What really grabbed my attention in his speech was the part about how these beings were able to go through time. To make his long story short…Out side of the Galaxy time is different…so these beings basically just step away for a minute…sought of like going to the store and back (in Earth’s time), Yes, its an intriguing tale if not anything else..

Anyway, this had me pondering more about time in space and how we establish time by using variables that are probably not even present. There are many theories about the skies, but nothing tops first hand experience. I think our understanding of the universe is imminent and unexpected. Either way we deserve to know, just hope we’re all ready for it…

Kinda wierd how we all give power to things that don't actually exist (like time and money)...one has to wonder if there is something sinister behind all of this...

nice thread by the way :) …pardon me if I'm off topic.

Peace

[grapevine]

So, everything is driving itself forwards out of it's own velocity, from the Big Bang onwards . . . ? This is so exciting because as we are all connected it should follow that our minds are also expanding along with it, which means greater intellect and infinite possibility. Damn, I love this forum! :)

[Carmody]

Well just maybe everthing we know is wrong

Chicken or the egg anyone :bump2:

Rooster!

Rooster came first. Ask any rooster, he'll tell you.

[applejax]

wow...never thought of it that way before. thanks for sharing this! pretty interesting

[Camilo]

Here we find an understanding of why
the Earth & our solar system do not
actually orbit the Sun as taught, "Rather",
We follow or better still, are dragged by
the Sun in a Spiral Pattern through the
universe & time.

This video offers explanations how,
besides spinning on its axis and rotating
as if going 'Around' the Sun, the Earth is
shown to 'Follow' the Sun's movement
through the Milky Way galaxy, in a
continuous Spiral, not a Flat elliptical plane,
thus we find a 3D universe as opposed to
the accepted 2D.

Many of us have been taught about how
the solar system works by viewing a physical
model that has the sun in the middle with the
planets going around and around in a simple
circular orbit without properly accounting for
the motion of the sun (aprox. 450,000 miles
per hour).

Video (under 5 and a half mins):

http://youtu.be/J0gJ9WKpxQU

[Bill Ryan]

-------

Many thanks for this, but this is very old news to any astronomer. The entire galactic (and universal) system is dynamic, and all astronomical bodies are careering around in a continual giant waltz to the cosmic music in which nothing stays stationary, or even orbiting in simple ellipses.

The 'real' movement of the Earth (caveat: "real movement" may be a meaningless statement, unless we reinstate the ether) is really a complex four-dimensional super-spiral. (My own paraphrase! :) )

[rufus7]

Bill question why are we unable to see the the sun from free space, and what is meant by the term free space?

[Bill Ryan]

Bill question why are we unable to see the the sun from free space, and what is meant by the term free space?

"Free space" means "outer space" -- where there's "nothing" (or very little!) there. Like being out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, with no continents, islands or ships in sight.

Of course the sun and stars are visible from outer space. The notion that this is somehow not possible is ludicrous. How do you suppose the light gets here from the other side of the galaxy?

:)

[rufus7]

the video was posted a couple of days ago I believe. The scientist in the video said the sun was hollow and was not visible in free space.

[Bill Ryan]

the video was posted a couple of days ago I believe. The scientist in the video said the sun was hollow and was not visible in free space.

In that case, he's deluded. You heard it here first. (Or maybe not!)

As Jack Sarfatti likes to say, this is not even wrong. :)

(I think you may be talking about Eric Dollard, btw).

Edit to add: I should be a little less caustic, and offer some information to try to assist understanding. I apologize for my frustration at this unhelpful nonsense!

Our being able to see the sun and the stars is because photons emitted from them, a very long distance away, travel across the gulf of space in between and eventually reach our eyes. In the case of non-luminous objects (like the computer keyboard you're looking at right now, or the table it's sitting on, or even your hands), photons simply hit the object and bounce off it. To our eyes, it doesn't matter where the photons originally came from.

That's like one of your friends 10-20 yards away throwing a ball at you, and then you catch it. Saying you can't see the sun and stars in outer space is like saying that the ball doesn't travel from your friend to yourself, but just somehow suddenly appears in your hands.

I appreciate the concept that the ball (or photons) could magically teleport across these distances without being able to be "caught" in the space in between (which is what vision is: "catching the photons as they pass").

But the problem is that this would contravene every carefully conducted scientific experiment ever done about the nature of light, as well as all the deep math ever done about the nature of spacetime, including Relativity, String Theory, and more.

Anyone (including any scientist) can suggest any hypothesis they might dream up, but the procedure of science -- including classified, advanced science, which certainly incorporates hyperdimensional physics and engineering -- is to test these hypotheses against pragmatic experimental procedures. In other words, does this new idea hold up?

We can claim that the Earth is flat (and some people still do this) -- but when we circle the planet from space or on a long haul round-the-world flight, and travel round it in ships (and even ride round it on a bicycle! (http://bikearoundtheworld.typepad.com/)) -- the hypothesis starts to look improbable.

:)

[wolf_rt]

interesting, i had always thought that the planets rotated around the sun on the same plane that the sun travelled through space on.

[Bill Ryan]

interesting, i had always thought that the planets rotated around the sun on the same plane that the sun travelled through space on.

That's absolutely right. But the sun is moving also (round our galaxy, which is like a giant rotating catherine wheel) -- and our galaxy is moving relative to other galaxies... etc etc etc. So absolutely everything is in motion, in many different ways.

When you get up and leave your computer to make a cup of tea or coffee, Planet Earth, which you're standing on, is rotating, once in every 24 hours. The rotating Earth is moving round the sun, the sun is moving round the galaxy, the galaxies themselves are moving relative to one another.. and so on. This motion never stops.

So your trip to turn the kettle on may actually take you many thousands of miles in just a few minutes. Maybe far more than that. One of the great debates in physics has been (and still is, to some extent) whether this absolute motion can be measured against some universally-recognizable background reference, or whether (as Einstein said) everything is relative... hence the name given to his famous theory.

[rufus7]

This sound like your saying that the universe is on a axis and everything in it that spins is spinning at a different rate.

[Bill Ryan]

This sound like your saying that the universe is on a axis and everything in it that spins is spinning at a different rate.

Not that organized. :)

The universe is not on an axis. It's more like a supergiant three-dimensional barn dance with everyone moving about at once in lots of different ways, each with different partners or groups of partners. (Which occasionally change!)

[wolf_rt]

interesting, i had always thought that the planets rotated around the sun on the same plane that the sun travelled through space on.

That's absolutely right.

So if you were to picture a model of the solar system, with the planets revolving around the sun on what is basically a flat plane. Is the sun moving 'up' or sideways?

[Bill Ryan]

interesting, i had always thought that the planets rotated around the sun on the same plane that the sun travelled through space on.

That's absolutely right.

So if you were to picture a model of the solar system, with the planets revolving around the sun on what is basically a flat plane. Is the sun moving 'up' or sideways?

http://www.therlen.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/GalacticVsPlanetPlane.jpg

[Operator]

It's more like a supergiant three-dimensional barn dance with everyone moving about at once in lots of different ways, each with different partners or groups of partners. (Which occasionally change!)

Bill, you must have read my mind again ... ;)

Perhaps a bit inspired by that documentary "Symbols of an alien sky" and models for resonance determined orbits of Stan Deyo
I have been entertaining the thought that in binary star systems planets may actually switch orbits every now and then.
E.g. from one star to another or from one resonance position to another, pretty much like electrons do jump from one
molecule to another or jump from one shell to another (How's that looking like 'as above so below' !!).

The whole Anunnaki/Nibiru saga makes no sense unless that planetary body stayed close to earth for a while. Not just a quick
passage ... (unless of course that proves the story is BS).

Any thoughts on that ?

[Bill Ryan]

It's more like a supergiant three-dimensional barn dance with everyone moving about at once in lots of different ways, each with different partners or groups of partners. (Which occasionally change!)

Bill, you must have read my mind again ... ;)

Perhaps a bit inspired by that documentary "Symbols of an alien sky" and models for resonance determined orbits of Stan Deyo
I have been entertaining the thought that in binary star systems planets may actually switch orbits every now and then.
E.g. from one star to another or from one resonance position to another, pretty much like electrons do jump from one molecule to another or jump from one shell to another (How's that looking like 'as above so below' !!).

The whole Anunnaki/Nibiru saga makes no sense unless that planetary body stayed close to earth for a while. Not just a quick passage ... (unless of course that proves the story is BS).

Any thoughts on that ?

The phenomenon is known in astrophysics as "Planetary Capture". Here are a couple of references:


Capturing Planets (http://phys.org/news/2012-05-capturing-planets.html)
Some Stars Capture Rogue Planets (http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2012/pr201212.html)

[gardunk]

www.esotericonline.net/.../forum/topics/planets-do-not-orbit-the-sun

[Revere]

Not that organized. :)

The universe is not on an axis. It's more like a supergiant three-dimensional barn dance with everyone moving about at once in lots of different ways, each with different partners or groups of partners. (Which occasionally change!)

Bill, great analogy! I love it, did you make that up? Just curious?

-R-

[Aurelius]

my 10 cents...

this is all to do with the frames of reference (position of the observer), standing on earth it appears the planets rotate around the sun in a plane, standing on the sun it appears the planets are following you as you move forward and they are also rotating around you in a vortex (corkscrew) fashion, and not mentioned yet, standing on the galactic central sun, our sun appears to be moving in a vortex (corkscrew) fashion itself with the planets following it (hence the whole above or below the galactic plane story).


in my opinion, the sun is a spherical plasma shell, the light you see comes from this, but peek inside and it appears very dark indeed!

in ancient times, the planet Venus was not recorded, now it is there. craft that have orbited around venues have detected and ion trail on one side, ie. a tail it once had! .. this is supportive of planet capture. although not entirely factually correct, there is truth to this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision)!

in ancient times, even though their underlying solar system model was incorrect, mars was reported as the 2nd planet, now it is the 4th planet from the sun. orbital readjustments as a result of planet capture?




signature:
i had a dog called woggy
who always used to change her mind
if only she thought properly initially
she wouldn't appear so silly
if you could read her mind
what a treasure you would find!
if only we could go back in time and see what she thought
the knowledge you would gain, would leave you somewhat distraught!
nasty people always lookin
oh the burden to avoid someones pokin

[araucaria]

So your trip to turn the kettle on may actually take you many thousands of miles in just a few minutes. Maybe far more than that. One of the great debates in physics has been (and still is, to some extent) whether this absolute motion can be measured against some universally-recognizable background reference, or whether (as Einstein said) everything is relative... hence the name given to his famous theory.

Felix Warburg of the banking family once told Einstein: "everything is relative except relatives, and they, alas, are constant". How's that for a universally-recognizable background reference :)