The Ptolemaic Planetary model
"As an indication of exactly how good the Ptolemaic model is, modern planetariums are built using gears and motors that essentially reproduce the Ptolemaic model for the appearance of the sky as viewed from a stationary Earth. In the planetarium projector, motors and gears provide uniform motion of the heavenly bodies. One motor moves the planet projector around in a big circle, which in this case is the deferent, and another gear or motor takes the place of the epicycle."
Ptolemaic Planetary model source: rufjunk
Great Shades of Plato's Cave!
Astronomy = Astrology
Modern cosmology is a contradictory patchwork of ideas that originate as a result of the need to mathematically "prove" the Sun was the center of the Universe. This was a religious and mystical concept. The early Astronomers were, by definition, alchemically minded men who were relgiiously inclined to believe in very strange things. Astronomy is the older and original word, astrology is a subsequent term that was created some two centuries after the term astronomy was coined. Astronomers were traditional royal court employees who were tasked with looking up at the ultimate Platonic Shadow Cave projection with the intent of divining the future and perhaps even the past. Today the mathematically armed radio telescope astronomer massages all empirical observation through the magically scripted peer reviewed mainstream modeling process. Naturallly occurring radio background noise becomes magical evidence for the balloon like expansion of the cartoon universe.
Epicycles Are Artifacts:
Planets rise in the east and set in the west like all celestial bodies.
Much noise is made over the Ptolemaic Model's use of the "epicycle". This is really much ado about nothing. This is just a feature of the model and one that was and is very useful. The mainstream promoted and parroted mantra is that the Heliocentric model was more elegant. As it turns out, this is not an accurate statement at all. This is in fact just apologetic marketing. If the heliocentric model were both correct and more elegant it would have not needed centuries of continuous ad hoc guess work to keep it going.
The epicycle is just a construct. It is an element of a model and should not be confused with the reality or even with exact observations. If one went out every night to observe the so-called "retrograde" motions of the planets, one would not see the planet move backwards like we see in the video above. One would notice that the planet was not showing up in a certain part of the sky at the expected time. Instead the planet would lag or lead, much like the Sun during solstices and other times of the year. The planet still rises in the east and sets in the west and no retrograde motion would be directly observable.
In other words if God blew the Sun out like a candle, we would be able to observe the planets rise in the east and set in the west like all celestial phenomena. We would not notice planets moving backwards. The planets would appear to be speeding up or slowing down and otherwise altering their positions in a merry go round Saturn ring like manner. The retrograde motion is the result of looking at the sky at the same time every night and is not the result of an observation of the true motions of the planets around the Earth.
Heliocentric Thinking Means Look Up Instead of Under Your Feet:
We are supposed to think the Sun is the source of the Earth and the rest of the planets in the Solar System. We are not supposed to consider the possible truth under our own feet that we tend to overlook. We are not supposed to consider we are the children of the Earth. We are part of the Earth like an apple is part of the tree. We are not really supposed to consider that idea, are we?
The Earth is The Real Demonstrable "Frame of Reference"
The heliocentric based trained mind would have us all forget that all observation of the heavens is from the very real and seemingly absolute vantage point of Terra Firma and nowhere else. We have been conditioned to believe otherwise with the use of solar system models. The truth is we can only observe all celestial bodies rise and set around the Earth and not the Sun. The concept of these bodies orbiting the Sun is one that is not based in empirical reality at all. This "scientific" prejudice is the result of some kind of religious alchemical like Sun worship and obviously not the result of real demonstrable science. Centuries of cultural conditioning has convinced many of us that down is up and up is down. Too many confuse the model with the reality. Too many confuse art with nature.
Newton Was Wrong
Orbital Mechanics Are Not Equal To Gravity
Despite Sir Isaac Newton's Alchemically induced vapor inspired "thought experiments", gravity cannot logically explain the observed phenomena of the celestial bodies. Newton could do no real experiment to prove his ideas. His orbital equation illogically balances a fixed velocity value with an ever increasing one. This is obvious logical fallacy.
Newton's concept for orbital mechanics is logically flawed. Apples are not like the Moon. Apples fall back to the Earth and the Moon never does. Demonstrable ballistic physics proves Newton's cannonball thought experiment for the folly it is. Newton famously had some kind of "three body problem". There are other flaws as well. We would not have a multiverse of black holes and dark energy nonsense, with quantum measured minutiae, were the basic Sun centered cosmos correct. Einstein would not be considered the sainted genius he is, if Newton and the rest were correct. NASA fakery does not prove Newton and the rest wrong, common sense and logic does. NASA and other fake space programs are supposed to be the real experiments that proved the mainstream patchwork cosmology right. The fact that NASA and the rest are Hollywood production studios simply proves that humanity cannot achieve the kinds of stupendous feats needed to prove which metaphysical ideas make more sense and which do not. We have to rely on our own individual reasoning for that. Of course your individual results might vary.
Was (historical) Flat Earth noise an attempt to drown out a geocentric truth?
Today Flat Earth looks like some kind of YouTube based marketing/propaganda scheme. Back in the late 1800's or so, Flat Earth looks like a way to make criticism of the heliocentric model seem mad. Between Flat Earth and late 19th century Concave Earth "theories", one has to wonder. Both those "theories" seem to end up being more complicated not less. Walls of ice and an inside out world only create more problems and ad hoc fun, not less; and we still end up faced with the same profound mystery. We can't prove any of the really metaphysical ideas many of us seem to love proclaiming as verifiable "scientific" truth. This all seems like this might all be noise designed to get people to avoid looking at the long thought discredited basic unmoving geocentric Earth model. Or perhaps basic human nature drives many of us to seek and claim we found the ultimate truths we can never logically verify.
The Earth's Imagined Axial Tilt That Points To The "Fixed Stars" Is A Problem For the Heliocentric Model
You cannot just tie a ball to a string and model the basic heliocentric concepts. It will not work. If you study this history of the subject of Astronomy you will find out that it is a religion that is built on a series of ad hoc explanations that rely on the illogical use of mathematical equations.
Parts of the basic heliocentric model make sense and other parts do not. One cannot simply build a model of the solar system that does not require engineering a way for the Earth to always tilt towards one direction. You need to put the Earth on a track.
The fact that the Fixed stars are indeed seemingly fixed and we have consistent constellations is a huge problem for a three dimensional Universe of galaxies which was not the Sun centered Universe of Newton and friends. Once people introduced galaxies they also had to introduce the idea of an inflating balloon universe. Otherwise how do you explain how the Earth can move around the cosmos and the Fixed Stars can retain the constellations we have seengingly known "forever"? As the Earth travels around the Sun, how could the constellations not exhibit parallax? Consider the relative distances between the stars in the mainstream model and you can see that this is illogical. If one star is say 10 light years from the Earth and another nearby star is thought to be twice that distance, we would logically expect to notice the very real and naturally demonstrable phenomena of parallax. We would expect to see an ever changing sky of stars, a constantly morphing sky. We would not logically expect to witness the seeming universe of fixed constellations we always do. Compound all the imagined motions of the complex patchwork mainstream model of the cosmos and you might begin to see the problem. The Earth is imagined to travel from one side of the imagined solar system to the other and back again and yet nobody could ever measure any real parallax, All mainstream talk of such measure is peer reviewed propaganda. (See article index for more.)
Blowing Up A Balloon Universe To Patch Newton's Patchwork
Kepler has to patch the failings of Copernicus. Newton made clever use of mathematics and demonstrable physical principle to craft a astronomical mythology that was used to define the bounds of reason for centuries. Einstein and the rest of the relativists were needed to further patch the model as it became clear that no experiment could ever show that the Earth moved around the Sun.
Sir Isaac and company would find the modern Big Bang Balloon cosmology insane.
No Experiment Ever Really Showed The Earth Spins: Illogically Premised Mathematical Equation Is Proof of Nothing
The Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment, which supposedly "proved" the Earth spins on its imagined axis, is another example of apologetics backed with illogical math sold as "science". The area of the experimental apparatus is illogically used as a value in the mathematical equation to derive the predetermined desired result. Michelson would seem to be compensating for his failure to detect the motion of the Earth around the Sun. The use of the measurement for the area cannot be used to measure a difference in light paths for a Sagnac style experiment. All a Sagnac style experiment would seem to measure is the relative "blue" and "red" shifts. Things like the legendary speed of light are more mythical idea than most know. (See article index for more.)
Planets rise in the east and set in the west like all celestial bodies.
We do not know nor can we seem to actually prove what the celestial bodies actually are. We can speculate based upon what we can observe and demonstrate. The Moon looks like a crystalline glowing sphere and the Sun looks like a bright white vibrating circle. Planets and stars look like gaseous, ionized bits of light. For all we know the lights in the sky are just natural electrical phenomena that is occurring as a result of complex radio-wave like (or natural radiation) activity in areas of the atmosphere that are electrically active, like the ionosphere. We might be witnessing what amounts to a complex naturally occurring electrochemical field effect related to the Earth's demonstrable magnetic field. This is just speculation and is not a belief system, by the way.
Don't Want To Rain On Your Electrical Shade Charade Parade
Water is able to be polarized. Perhaps phenomena like the tides can be possibly explained as a result of the seeming electrochemical nature of existence. Water is very electrically conductive and is the source of all life, after all. There seems to be a good argument to be made for the validity of the electric universe idea. This would seem to be something to consider, at least.
Let's Get Radio "Active"
Understanding Radio Telescopes: Dr John Morgan source: Curtin University
Life On A Wire: The Geocentric Electric Earth Model
FYI: Geographic North is really Magnetic South, Santa's famous home is really located at the (magnetic) South Pole.
Epicycles might be a clever way of emulating a more complex type of electrochemical field interaction. The Earth might be better described and modeled as an active electrical circuit and capacitor of sorts. The Earth's magnetic field and the tides might be clues that the nature of existence might be better described as "electrical".
Could celestial phenomena be better described in what we would call "electrical" terms?
Is the observable celestial phenomena the result of complex electrical current interactions? Is such an idea worth considering?
Physical Science 6.8a - Electric Current and Magnetic Fields source: Derek Owens
The Sun Supposedly Emits Radio Waves
FYI: Nikola Tesla claimed to have picked up a radio signal from Mars when he was out in Colorado Springs.
Radio Telescopes source: Canada Science and Technology Museum
The Electric Universe Radio Arc Lamp Echo Chamber Feedback Loop Model
Light is clearly an electrochemical phenomena.
From lightning to light bulbs to jelly fish and glow in the dark sticks. Light would seem best described as electrochemical in nature.
Spark gaps used to be used to create early radio broadcasts.This was before the age of mass produced vacuum tubes and then subsequent transistor circuitry. Spark gaps and arc lamps used to be the cutting edge electrical or "electronic" technology. The early Hertz radio experiments involved spark gap transmitters and receivers. Could the Sun and other celestial phenomena be some kind of naturally occurring electrical sparks?
The Earth seems to be the source of all sorts of radiation. Can the heavenly bodies be some kind of feedback phenomena? An electrical echo chamber of sorts? Is the Sun an electrical anode and the Earth a cathode?
Is it possible that the Earth sings an electrical song?
Could The Celestial Lights Be Some Kind of Long Lasting Electrical Sprites?
"Upper-atmospheric lightning or ionospheric lightning are terms sometimes used by researchers to refer to a family of short-lived electrical-breakdown phenomena that occur well above the altitudes of normal lightning and storm clouds. Upper-atmospheric lightning is believed to be electrically induced forms of luminous plasma. The preferred usage is transient luminous event (TLE), because the various types of electrical-discharge phenomena in the upper atmosphere lack several characteristics of the more familiar tropospheric lightning."