Carl Sagan's Cosmos: The Book

 

COSMOS by Carl Sagan

If you read between the lines and pay attention to the apologetics and obvious fallacies, you can see how modern mainstream astronomy. astrophysics and general cosmology is nothing but ad hoc patched fantasy. If it were not for the numerous images of nuclear blasts, fake footage of huge rockets, and NASA and other international space fakery, nobody would believe in any of the absurd claims of modern science concerning both outer space and even the imagined empty inner space of atomic theory. Mainstream science is a house of glass cards built on quite a shaky foundation. The joke is the criticism of the geocentric model had to do with the fallacious  claim that the geocentric model was too complicated. Consider that in context of how Copernicus' flaws became opportunity for Kepler to show off his genius and when his flaws became obvious Einstein came in to ad hoc patch the works, and when his failings were found the big banged, quantum, multiverse dark mattered, mess was born. Peer reviewed experiments that supposedly show these theories correct are not as advertised. In fact the peer reviewed experiments turn out to be little more than propaganda artifacts.  

The model of Ptolemy was and still is used as the basis for the projectors used for planetariums; these older projectors seem to be being replaced with newer computer simulations that bring the audience on a virtual tour of the solar system rather than reproducing the natural and real phenomena we can actually observe. This kind of obvious illogical mental bait and switch between demonstrable reality and fanciful model is perhaps the foundational hallmark of what is considered to be modern reasoning. Down can be defined as up as long as peer reviewed process agrees.

Future articles will quote from this resource and will explain in detail why modern cosmology is flawed and why the geocentric model is the better one. Future articles will explain what I mean about Einstein patching Kepler (and Newton) and so on. There's a lot of information here and it almost seems like Sagan wanted us to read between the lines. The book is a better resource than the television series. The television series itself has some special effect production value that would have been impressive for the time period. The series is obviously a propaganda artifact.


Late Twentieth Century Mythology For Maturing Minds of All Ages But Especially The Young

How many of us grew up thinking this guy was telling us how it really was? How many of us still believe we can one day wait on a line for a rocket ride into the sky, when we can't even wait on a line for a NASA vomit comet ride, a jet pack ride or even a Back To The Future, Guinness World Record breaking hoverboard ride? How many of us truly buy into what we see on screens? How many of us believe physically impossible things are not so?

The Cosmos series use of early green screen style set effects are interesting and impressive for the time period.


This Almost Seems Like A NASA Insider Joke

"The series is notable for its groundbreaking use of special effects, which allow Sagan to seemingly walk through environments that are actually models rather than full-sized sets."

source: Cosmos: A Personal Voyage - Wikipedia

COSMOS (1980) Ep 1  source: Nina S.

Cosmos: Significant Television Programming

"Cosmos: A Personal Voyage is a thirteen-part television series written by Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan, and Steven Soter, with Sagan as presenter. It was executive-produced by Adrian Malone, produced by David Kennard, Geoffrey Haines-Stiles, and Gregory Andorfer, and directed by the producers, David Oyster, Richard Wells, Tom Weidlinger, and others. It covers a wide range of scientific subjects, including the origin of life and a perspective of our place in the universe.

The series was first broadcast by the Public Broadcasting Service in 1980, and was the most widely watched series in the history of American public television until The Civil War (1990). As of 2009, it was still the most widely watched PBS series in the world.  It won two Emmys and a Peabody Award, and has since been broadcast in more than 60 countries and seen by over 500 million people.  A book was also published to accompany the series.

Cosmos: A Personal Voyage has been considered highly significant since its broadcast; David Itzkoff of The New York Times described it as "a watershed moment for science-themed television programming". "

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos:_A_Personal_Voyage


The Fixed Stars & Criticism of The Heliocentric Model

I do not necessarily agree with the Tycho Brahe version of geocentric theory, but I do agree with this very valid criticism. Please note the actual measurement of stellar parallax is not what one would be led to believe. It is minute. One of the next articles in this series will explain this further. Please note that even with an assumed parallax, common sense and reason show us that there is a problem here.

In any case this is posted here to show how absurd modern Astronomy is. The "Fixed Stars" Are a HUGE problem. The response to Brahe's criticism is a religious one.

"Copernicans offered a religious response to Tycho's geometry"

"Copernicans offered a religious response to Tycho's geometry: titanic, distant stars might seem unreasonable, but they were not, for the Creator could make his creations that large if He wanted."

"With respect to the stars, Tycho also believed that if the Earth orbited the Sun annually there should be an observable stellar parallax over any period of six months, during which the angular orientation of a given star would change thanks to Earth's changing position. (This parallax does exist, but is so small it was not detected until 1838, when Friedrich Bessel discovered a parallax of 0.314 arcseconds of the star 61 Cygni.) The Copernican explanation for this lack of parallax was that the stars were such a great distance from Earth that Earth's orbit was almost insignificant by comparison. "

"However, Tycho noted that this explanation introduced another problem: Stars as seen by the naked eye appear small, but of some size, with more prominent stars such as Vega appearing larger than lesser stars such as Polaris, which in turn appear larger than many others. Tycho had determined that a typical star measured approximately a minute of arc in size, with more prominent ones being two or three times as large. In writing to Christoph Rothmann, a Copernican astronomer, Tycho used basic geometry to show that, assuming a small parallax that just escaped detection, the distance to the stars in the Copernican system would have to be 700 times greater than the distance from the sun to Saturn. Moreover, the only way the stars could be so distant and still appear the sizes they do in the sky would be if even average stars were gigantic — at least as big as the orbit of the Earth, and of course vastly larger than the sun. And, Tycho said, the more prominent stars would have to be even larger still. And what if the parallax was even smaller than anyone thought, so the stars were yet more distant? Then they would all have to be even larger still  Tycho said, "Deduce these things geometrically if you like, and you will see how many absurdities (not to mention others) accompany this assumption [of the motion of the earth] by inference."

"Copernicans offered a religious response to Tycho's geometry: titanic, distant stars might seem unreasonable, but they were not, for the Creator could make his creations that large if He wanted."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe

2.2 The Tychonic cosmological model

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_stars