(Please excise any and all typos. Autocorrect can be very illiterate.)
Modern Cosmology is Not Science It is Mythology
Modern Cosmology is used for cultural manipulation purposes.
The idea that the Moon is a rock that magically can orbit the Earth is not science. It is speculation with no basis in reality despite the media and University Disney/NASA Cartoon noise of the last century. All of that imagery are what artifacts of a religion look like. The moving pictures of brave spacemen and so-called "scientific" theories are used to reinforce social order more so than being examples of actual science. The Moon and other celestial phenomena can be better modeled not as physical objects but in terms of wave interference (feedback). Without getting too off an a tangent, the Moon might be best described as a polarity effect. To use the imprecisely defined modern terms, the Moon is a field effect that gets canceled out when it approaches the Sun. The same can be said for the planets. Comet tails orient themselves relative to the Sun. The Sun as the anode in a vacuum tube is an apt analogy with demonstrable support.
Please watch this video before reading the article below. This video shows us exactly what the article below explains. Math is a wonderful tool. 3d modeling and animation programs allow us to visually represent ideas in motion that would have been impossible a century ago.
The modern 3d animation program is simply a way to visualize mathematical equations and concepts. It is a useful tool for learning math and physics. This allows us to actually see the result of the mathematics,
The center point around which the model of the Moon will rotate is moved to the center of the model of the Earth. If this point was left where it was, the model of the Moon would spin like a top, but by moving the center point over to the center of the "Earth" the "Moon" now orbits the "Earth".
This is exactly what Nikola Tesla describes in the article reproduced below. Above is a modern demonstration of what he was explaining. It is well worth reading the work attributed to Nikola Tesla. Ideas matter not personas. All of these figures have public relations personas and sometimes it might be more of a question of the proportion of lie to truth rather than the person being a completely fake front. In other words there might just be a difference between a Donald Trump and a Nikola Tesla but one has to actually have read or have seen the work attributed to both men to even begin to understand what that might be. With Trump we can watch numerous performances from his long career as obvious paid shill and mascot, game show host, fraternity brother kind of guy, but he might actually know something about the Hotel business, despite all the cartoon noise.
With Nikola Tesla one could plug something into an outlet in their homes or perhaps tune in a radio station or use the internet to look up and read for themselves the man in his own words. Einstein and Newton and all the rest are all worth reading in what are supposed to be their own words. Ideas matter and truth gets mixed in with propaganda. One simply has to self educate. This isn't about hero worship this is about ideas. I happen to think that the ideas found in the work attributed to Nikola Tesla worth reading and considering. Parts of his autobiography reads like fiction to me and God knows there is such a long and obvious history of media fakery and photo manipulation that it is wise to consider all of these figures we are offered suspect. Critical thinking requires we ignore the cult of personality and focusing on ideas and whether or not these ideas can be, or have been demonstrated. Countless nameless engineers toiled and toil behind the scenes to actually get the patents of people like Nikola Tesla mass produced and working. These people get little to no credit.
The Moon is not an Apple.
For me this says that the Moon is not likely to be a physical body like a rock or apple.
Famous Scientific Illusions
Written specially for the Electrical Experimenter
"I. The Illusion of the Axial Rotation of the Moon.
It is well known since the discovery of Galileo that the moon, in travelling thru space, always turns the same face towards the earth. This is explained by stating that while passing once around its mother-planet the lunar globe performs just one revolution on its axis. The spinning motion of a heavenly body must necessarily undergo modifications in the course of time, being either retarded by resistances internal or external, or accelerated owing to shrinkage and other causes. An unalterable rotational velocity thru all phases of planetary evolution is manifestly impossible. What wonder, then, that at this very instant of its long existence our satellite should revolve exactly so, and not faster or slower. But many astronomers have accepted as a physical fact that such rotation takes place. It does not, but only appears so; it is an illusion, a most surprising one, too."
"I will endeavor to make this clear by reference to Fig. 1, in which Erepresents the earth and M the moon. The movement thru space is such that the arrow, firmly attached to the latter, always occupies the position indicated with reference to the earth. If one imagines himself as looking down on the orbital plane and follows the motion he will become convinced that the moon does turn on its axis as it travels around. But in this very act the observer will have deceived himself. To make the delusion complete let him take a washer similarly marked and supporting it rotatably in the center, carry it around a stationary object, constantly keeping the arrow pointing towards the latter. Tho to his bodily vision the disk will revolve on its axis, such movement does not exist. He can dispel the illusion at once by holding the washer fixedly while going around. He will now readily see that the supposed axial rotation is only apparent, the impression being produced by successive changes of position in space."
"But more convincing proofs can be given that the moon does not, and cannot revolve on its axis. With this object in view attention is called to Fig. 2, in which both the satellite, M, and earth, E, are shown embedded in a solid mass, M1, (indicated by stippling) and supposed to rotate so as to impact to the moon its normal translatory velocity. Evidently, if the lunar globe could rotate as commonly believed, this would be equally true of any other portion of mass M1, as the sphere M2, shown in dotted lines, and then the part common to both bodies would have to turn simultaneously in opposite directions. This can be experimentally illustrated in the manner suggested by using instead of one, two overlapping rotatable washers, as may be conveniently represented by circles Mand M2, and carrying them around a center as E, so that the plain and dotted arrows are always pointing towards the same center. No further argument is needed to demonstrate that the two gyrations cannot co-exist or even be pictured in the imagination and reconciled in a purely abstract sense.
The truth is, the so-called “axial rotation” of the moon is a phenomenon deceptive alike to the eye and mind and devoid of physical meaning. It has nothing in common with real mass revolution characterized by effects positive and unmistakable. Volumes have been written on the subject and many erroneous arguments advanced in support of the notion. Thus, it is reasoned, that if the planet did not turn on its axis it would expose the whole surface to terrestrial view; as only one-half is visible, it must revolve. The first statement is true but the logic of the second is defective, for it admits of only one alternative. The conclusion is not justified as the same appearance can also be produced in another way. The moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one.
The unfailing test of the spinning of a mass is, however, the existence of energy of motion. The moon is not possest of such vis viva. If it were the case then a revolving body as M1 would contain mechanical energy other than that of which we have experimental evidence. Irrespective of this so exact a coincidence between the axial and orbital periods is, in itself, immensely improbable for this is not the permanent condition towards which the system is tending. Any axial rotation of a mass left to itself, retarded by forces external or internal, must cease. Even admitting its perfect control by tides the coincidence would still be miraculous. But when we remember that most of the satellites exhibit this peculiarity, the probability becomes infinitestimal.
Three theories have been advanced for the origin of the moon. According to the oldest suggested by the great German philosopher Kant, and developed by Laplace in his monumental treatise “Mécanique Céleste,” the planets have been thrown off from larger central masses by centrifugal force. Nearly forty years ago Prof. George H. Darwin in a masterful essay on tidal friction furnished mathematical proofs, deemed unrefutable, that the moon had separated from the earth. Recently this established theory has been attacked by Prof. T. J. J. See in a remarkable work on the “Evolution of the Stellar Systems,” in which he propounds the view that centrifugal force was altogether inadequate to bring about the separation and that all planets, including the moon, have come from the depths of space and have been captured. Still a third hypothesis of unknown origin exists which has been examined and commented upon by Prof. W. H. Pickering in “Popular Astronomy of 1907,” and according to which the moon was torn from the earth when the later was partially solidified, this accounting for the continents which might not have been formed otherwise.
Undoubtedly planets and satellites have originated in both ways and, in my opinion, it is not difficult to ascertain the character of their birth. The following conclusions can be safely drawn:
1. A heavenly body thrown off from a larger one cannot rotate on its axis. The mass, rendered fluid by the combined action of heat and pressure, upon the reduction of the latter immediately stiffens, being at the same time deformed by gravitational pull. The shape becomes permanent upon cooling and solidification and the smaller mass continues to move about the larger one as tho it were rigidly connected to it except for pendular swings or librations due to varying orbital velocity. Such motion precludes the possibility of axial rotation in the strictly physical sense. The moon has never spun around as is well demonstrated by the fact that the most precise measurements have failed to show any measurable flattening in form.
2. If a planetary body in its orbital movement turns the same side towards the central mass this is a positive proof that it has been separated from the latter and is a true satellite.
3. A planet revolving on its axis in its passage around another cannot have been thrown off from the same but must have been captured."
Obviously the Mainstream model of the Universe is very flawed and has been for a long time.
Heliocentric ideas weren't the only ones that could be considered. Back when the above article was written, there was no NASA to look to for any sort of so-called evidence that could prove Heliocentric ideas correct. Nikola Tesla does not publicly mention any other possibility, which is odd, considering how logical and critical his thinking seems to be. In any case people can simply make mistakes and of course people lie to others and even themselves. Sometimes human nature is the sole reason for ignorance. Sometimes not wanting to be labeled crazy is another, as are financial considerations. The fact is Nikola Tesla believed in the old school Heliocentric model like everyone else back then seemed to, at least in print and that is all we can go by.
What We Can Demonstrate:
We live in an electric universe that would seem to be far more limited than the one sold by the Thunderbolts (Electric Universe & NASA Apologists Project). The Earth's magnetic field has no real explanation and only theories are offered to explain this Natural phenomena. Please watch these two vides. Please note the ideas presented here are mine and not the the ideas of Theoria Apophasis at all.
VIDEO 3 Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism THE COFFIN NAIL OF PROOF for Magnetic Vortex!
The Sun as an anode The Earth as a cathode Kind of Idea or "Theory"
The idea would be that the Sun (and other celestial bodies) are the result of a Natural "electromagnetic" type of phenomena. The ionosphere is an region the atmosphere that is electrically conductive. The celestial phenomena might be best described and modeled with vacuum tube based demonstrations. This we can demonstrate unlike Newton's daydream belief based orbital mechanics thought experiment. This idea is that the Sun is a secondary phenomena that is the result of a powerful field like effect much like what Theoria Apophasis is demonstrating in his video above. What I am thinking of is a geocentric model that is essentially the one of Ptolemy. There is good reason why this model is the more valid and demonstrable one. (Of course it doesn't matter who Ptolemy was or wasn't, ideas matter.) By the way, I do not mean to imply that every aspect of the Ptolemaic model is correct. I am stating that it is the better model than the Heliocentric one.
What we see in the sky would then be the result of a sophisticated interactions of "fields".
The Bodies in The Heavens Are Just Projections
"While the fact that we base planetarium projectors on the Ptolemaic model of the universe that was developed almost 2,000 years ago may seem impressive, a better test of the model is how long the model was accepted by society. In this case, the Ptolemaic model was not seriously challenged for over 1,300 years. When and why it finally needed to be replaced will be described in the next subunit."
LUNAR PROBLEMS: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE MOON IS A PHYSICAL OBJECT
The Moon is more like a light source than an object reflecting light from the Sun. The photographic images of the Moon we are presented with are always highly filtered to create the NASA like rock image we have been indoctrinated to accept as real. In the same manner models of the solar system deceive us into ignoring all the empty space and scale and proportion. When we look up the Moon (during the night) with our eyes we see a light source. If we look through a telescope we see a light source. The Moon might be better described as an X-Ray like radiation effect. The Earth would then be the source of this "radioactive" type of reflection. What I am getting at is something along the lines of cymatics.
During the day the moon looks a bit different as the blue sky cancels out much of the Moon's luminance.
What we call Suns, Stars, Moons, Planets & all the rest of the celestial phenomena might be best described as magnetic based phenomena, to simplify things.
Consider the Earth's magnetic field and what the video above is showing us. What I am saying is that the Earth is like the center of the neodymium magnet and the Sun is like the edge. The Earth's magnetic field represents just the center of a larger phenomena that includes the Sun and the Moon and the rest of the celestial "bodies",
These are just ideas of course.