THE DERAILING ROOM

[simonshack]

Dear John Gault (and all),

Please be patient as I soon will, hopefully, find the time and courage to present a preliminary outline of my humble proposal for an alternative solar system which I have been dabbling with - on and off - in my spare time. I have jokingly called it the "SSSS" (Simon Shack's Solar System) - just to give it a name. As it happens, some of your observations appear to jive with it - so thanks for reviving my interest in pursuing this 'crazy' endeavour. I have long been hesitant to submit it - and still am - but I might as well take the plunge and test it out, with the help of all the bright minds on this forum. I will be totally open-minded to criticism as I certainly have no pretense to be correct about it all - so please consider it more of an intellectual exercise than anything else. If it fails miserably and can promptly be dismissed by solid, empirical, astrophysical evidence - I will gracefully abandon it and apologize for wasting everyone's time.

There is, perhaps, nothing more daunting than challenging Copernicus, Galileo and all - so please be kind with me as I go along refining my SSSS model which - I hasten to say - is nothing overly outlandish or revolutionary, as it is more of a 'reconfiguration' of the sun / earth orbit geometry. So far, I have found it useful to resolve a few aberrations which have bothered/puzzled me with the heliocentric model - yet it does take into account and even 'accomodates' for most if not all the established astronomical knowledge and observations (that I know of).

[Maat]

All changes in solar declination are the result of a corresponding orbital motion.

No, this is NA$A's claim.

All changes in orbital motion result in a corresponding change in the solar declination.

Again, this is NA$A's claim.


What you obviously are trying to say is that the decimal places missing from the calculator do not show you the fraction of a degree difference there is in the formula. They round off the number to the nearest hundredth of a degree, which is your only basis for claiming the degree doesn't change, you blowhard, playing-dumb, fake moron.

The change in solar declination SHOULD move like the hand of a watch – smoothly and continuously IF the heliocentric model were correct. It is not.

You're setting up a bogus condition (A): the Sun should behave like a watch. (No, it should behave like the Sun.)
And then setting up a bogus definition of that condition (B): a watch moves smoothly. (No, watches have jerky, halty motions.)
Then you claim the heliocentric model is true only under the condition that the bogus condition A and definition B are indeed bogus.

Which means you are actually claiming that heliocentricity is correct. Because your false statements are false.
Then you are claiming, independently of both of your conditions, that the heliocentric model is false.

Essentially, you have just declared that heliocentricity is correct and the proof that it's false ... is that it's false.

And you have done so very poorly.

So there is indeed an enormous problem with both your presentation and your logic.

---

Instead of pointing out the numerous problems with a spinning Earth model, you use circular logic to make anyone questioning the spinning Earth model sound like a nutcase. You make twisted Lewis Caroll-ish logic statements backhandedly supporting NA$A (they are wrong, unless false things are false) and construct damnations upon your house of cards.

But you haven't actually disproven the math of the solar declination, nor questioned any of NA$A's claims. You have merely hoped to catch us peering into your lack of comprehension, snagging us on some idiotic thing you hoped we would imagine because of your ass-lickingly pompous speech, and then have your NA$A pals play 'gotcha' on the idiocy you set up as useless bait.

The only thing you have proven useful for on this forum is showing everyone just how far NA$A is willing to go to pay shills for keyboard mashing attempts to derail serious investigation into their fraud. Good bye. Good riddance.

Your a smart man.

'Grammatical declination' too

Ah, it's always a pleasure to watch you work, Hoi! Another deftly exposed; dissected and ejected back into the turdosphere of NA$Asshole nincompoopery

[simonshack]

*

Dear Hoi and Maat,

Please allow me to explain why I will reinstate - for the time being - John Gault's membership. He certainly did not provide any tangible evidence as to his complaint regarding the questionable solar declination figures as available on official, online calculators. But this is not a reason for him to get banned. He may just be pointing out something that requires to be investigated - although he is not able to expound it in any rational, understandable manner.

Let me just try and have a go at this - with my forthcoming "SSSS" solar system model.

[I, Gestalta]

His recurring usage of pseudo-tautological platitudes and his insistence on discussing a matter with Hoi via e-mail seem pretty telling. I'm just saying.

[fbenario]

His recurring usage of pseudo-tautological platitudes and his insistence on discussing a matter with Hoi via e-mail seem pretty telling.

... as does his/its arrogance, smugness, and perfunctory and conclusory "logic". One of the most off-putting shills from which we have suffered.

[hoi.polloi]

Dear Hoi and Maat,

Please allow me to explain why I will reinstate - for the time being - John Gault's membership. He certainly did not provide any tangible evidence as to his complaint regarding the questionable solar declination figures as available on official, online calculators. But this is not a reason for him to get banned. He may just be pointing out something that requires to be investigated - although he is not able to expound it in any rational, understandable manner.

Simon, need I remind you of the multiple instances where you have fallen for someone's shill behavior just because they act enthusiastic about the research? The fact that he cannot expound anything in a rational or understandable manner is exactly why we don't need his ilk on the forum. You seem to be blinded by this, so allow me to remind you again:

Steven Warran.

Equinox.

Brian S Staveley.

ozzybinoswald.

D.Duck.

If you want support for your intelligent model, you will want it from intelligent people who can actually critique it intelligently. I don't understand your decision and I hope you respect I will not tolerate this john gault clown one iota. Therefore, I will continue to ban him as he continues to show total disrespect for logic. I am giving your tolerance of him one chance. Or I quit.

I have faith that you respond to questions much more magnanimously than any of the aforementioned employees from the Jim Henson workshop, and if your attempt to bring back john gault is some kind of shield because you are nervous about your own model being critiqued, please don't. Everyone has a great deal of respect for your logic and intelligence, and you don't need the protection of such buffoons. You will have the protection of the satisfaction of being right or starting an intelligent debate.

I cannot say the same for anything john gault has accomplished when specifically requested to do so over and over.

Please have faith in yourself and don't use shills as shields for your lack of confidence.

[Maat]

*

Dear Hoi and Maat,

Please allow me to explain why I will reinstate - for the time being - John Gault's membership. He certainly did not provide any tangible evidence as to his complaint regarding the questionable solar declination figures as available on official, online calculators. But this is not a reason for him to get banned. He may just be pointing out something that requires to be investigated - although he is not able to expound it in any rational, understandable manner.

Let me just try and have a go at this - with my forthcoming "SSSS" solar system model.

Sorry Simon, I don't follow — I thought he was banned for being an obnoxiously provocative troll I hope this isn't just because gault argued & trolled the Kooky Club fakery fakers (Webfairy, Fetzer, Baker, Carter & Haupt) while supposedly promoting September Clues back in January 2010. If it is, then why did he start insulting and trolling us with the same contemptuous MO if he really respected you and your research?

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/pla ... sage/12673

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/pla ... ssage/7629

What's his performance about then, 'old habits die hard', or, was that message board stuff a deliberate game-plan set-up to ingratiate himself with you?

You know his name is literally mud — and we all know how difficult it is to separate shit from clay once it's mixed!

Anyway, I hope you'll consider those of us who genuinely respect and admire you first; like me, I believe Hoi only has your and the forum's best interests at heart. So when any situations arise that we might disagree about, please always remember that.

[simonshack]

*
Dear Maat and Hoi, your points are well taken and I will preventively re-suspend John Gault for now and ask him to communicate with me - if he so wishes - ( via personal e-mail at simonshack[at]libero.it ) - so as not to subject the forum readers to more of his nebulous posts and vacuous ways. I owe you both an explanation - or at least a hint - as to my motives for hesitating a bit on this matter: it has to do with Gault's mentioning of a few puzzling aspects of the Earth/Sun relative motions (in the heliocentric model) which I will address in my forthcoming "SSSS" theory - which has been on my drawing board for quite a while. Now, since it may resolve some questions raised (albeit groundlessly so) by Gault, I was reluctant to appear as abruptly suspending him (myself) in order to 'steal his ideas'. This, of course, is not the case as my SSSS - let me just state this for the record - has been in the works for well over a year. So with this said, I hope you'll both appreciate the little quandary which caused me to waver somewhat on this occasion. To be sure, it has nothing to do with Mr Mud's ingratiating ways (past or present) nor with any need for his support/protection or any lack of confidence on my part. On my side - and needless to say - rest assured that I fully appreciate your concerns about keeping trolls at bay and, most of all, your invaluable assistance and counseling at all times!

[hoi.polloi]

I can vouch for the fact that you told me about this model you've had in the works long before john gault started dodging science questions in the ISS thread. No confusion on that for me.

In fact, I have the feeling that if your model is anywhere close to the truth (or they wanted you to believe it was) they would have prepared people like john gault to taint your imagination. Or at the very least, because they know we are a forum of thinking persons now questioning mainstream cosmology they would have sent someone to specifically "muddy the waters" on the potential for a revelation actually worth the rhetoric "JG" was spewing.

That is my own personal opinion and I will happily leave your interaction with him/her/it/them private. Thank you for respecting our intolerance of the john gault clutter. I am with Maat; it is in the best interests of the forum.

[I, Gestalta]

Dear Simon,

At the expense of tempting you to prematurely present your findings re your research into alternative cosmological models, I would like to voice my curiosity as to a few relevant particulars which have, lately, been tickling my brain:

1.) Does your research include or encompass red shift quantization (as well as the opposing hypotheses/interpretations therein)?

2.) Does your research include Setterfield's findings regarding the proposed gradual decline in the speed of light (and opposing hypotheses/interpretations)?

3.) Does your research include the possibility that the data we are told to have come from satellites is made up out of thin air, or perhaps retrieved by ground-based telescopes?

Again, if you feel that you would be jumping the gun in answering these questions at length, then I will accept yes-or-no responses. However, my questions are two-pronged, and not limited solely to my niggling curiosities:

If you are unfamiliar with any of the above lines of thinking (which I honestly doubt, considering that this research is at least a year in the making), I am throwing them out there for you to chew on. Personally, I'm still not quite sure what to make of the conclusions drawn (by either side) from the aforementioned data, since much of the data retrieved from radio-astronomical experiments is purported to come from telescopes/satellites which I do not think exist. It's murky territory, for certain.

For instance, my understanding of the math shelled out by dark matter/dark energy nerds is that it makes sense to itself (like a guitar tuned to perfect fourths, but not tuned to any harmonic standard like a-440, etc). However, since I do not believe that the W-Map satellite ever existed, I feel that I must either disregard the model altogether (which is where I've been for a while, actually), or try to understand how such data could be retrieved by a ground-based telescope of some sort, and we are simply being lied to about the means (very unlikely, in my opinion).

So many freaking layers!

[simonshack]

Dear Simon,

At the expense of tempting you to prematurely present your findings re your research into alternative cosmological models, I would like to voice my curiosity as to a few relevant particulars which have, lately, been tickling my brain:

1.) Does your research include or encompass red shift quantization (as well as the opposing hypotheses/interpretations therein)?

2.) Does your research include Setterfield's findings regarding the proposed gradual decline in the speed of light (and opposing hypotheses/interpretations)?

3.) Does your research include the possibility that the data we are told to have come from satellites is made up out of thin air, or perhaps retrieved by ground-based telescopes?

Dear I, Gestalta,

No, my research does not include either red shift quantization nor Barry Setterfield theories nor any satellite data - since I do not believe in the very existence of man-made satellites at this juncture.

All I am using is empirical observations which anyone should be able to verify for themselves - with the use of old-fashioned instruments such as telescopes and the like. Admittedly, I also use digitally-stored data which I should ideally verify for myself - given an adequate budget and time, travelling from location to location around the world - yet it is observational data that anyone can consult over the internet, for what it is worth. Anyhow, I trust most astronomers will agree with the fundamental premises of what I will address - such as the solar elevation / declination / basic seasonal precessions (equinoxes/solstices) and so forth - pretty much all of which we have been able to observe from Earth for centuries - ever since the days of Ptolemy and Aristarchus of Samos.

Before I present my tentative SSSS theory, I would recommend everyone to get familiar with the ANALEMMA 'phenomenon' : http://www.analemma.com/Pages/framesPage.html



Thanks for your time!

[Heiwa]

I do not understand the purpose of this thread. I am told to believe that our visible UNIVERSE started with a big bang 14 500 million years ago releasing particles of all kind with plenty energy and mass out of nothing at enormous temperature and pressure. After some time our UNIVERSE cooled down a little and some particles became a very big cloud of hydrogen atoms, H, filling the complete UNIVERSE. Due gravity the hydrogen atoms glued together and pressure and temperature increased in the hydrogen cloud (UNIVERSE) getting smaller and suddenly there was another big bang (maybe 14 000 million years ago?) creating another cloud with all the elements we know in the UNIVERSE, e.g. gold, silver, iron, lead, aluminum, calcium, etc. And then this new UNIVERSE cloud cooled down again here and there, so that 1 000’s of millions of galaxies were formed in UNIVERSE (this is still going on), one of which was the Milky way, which in turn consists of 1000’s of millions of solar systems (a sun with maybe planets). And finally one solar system in the Milky Way galaxy became our solar system with our Sun and Earth… and Moon … and us walking around and US fighting terrorists and listening in on all our communications. I am again told to believe that our solar system came about around 4 353 million years ago when the elements in the Milky Way locally condensed and gathered due gravity; some elements (hydrogen and helium) becoming the Sun and other elements becoming four solid planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars) and four gas planets with some asteroids in between. Our solar system was created pretty fast – maybe 10 million years? - due condensation at certain temperatures and pressures of the elements cloud around 4 353 million years ago. And there we are. Why the planets would rotate around themselves and orbit the Sun is apparently due to the dynamics of the second bang creating all the elements in UNIVERSE and the local condensation 4 352 million years ago in the Milky Way and gravity forces acting on the elements, galaxies and solar systems since and not much to argue about later.
I met a professor last week and he said he had analyzed a piece of aluminum-calcium, Al Ca, found in an asteroid having collided with Earth and having ended up on his desk and he was sure, using lead-lead age determination methods, that this Al Ca piece was formed 4 352 million years ago, when our Solar system (and the asteroid) was created from condensation.
From my terrace here on Earth I can now and then in the night sky see planets Venus and Mars being illuminated by the Sun (they look like stars) and it would appear to me that Venus and Mars orbits the Sun. I assume Earth does the same. Luckily no asteroids have landed on my terrace.

[agraposo]

This is how Tycho Brahe solved the problem of the colliding Mars and Sun

When viewing the diagram of his system, many of his contemporaries objected to the intersection of the sphere of the sun with the sphere of Mars. Some even thought that this meant Mars and the sun might collide! This last concern especially frustrated Tycho, since he thought it was obvious from the diagram that Mars circled the sun at a fixed distance from it so that any collision between them was impossible. Tycho requested that mechanical models of his system be manufactured so that skeptics could see this for themselves. In Tycho’s system, the physical intersection of the sphere of Mars with the sphere of the sun was not a problem, because Tycho, Mästlin, and Rothmann had already convinced themselves that the celestial spheres were not materially real.

http://copernican-revolution.org/chapter-five/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres

[simonshack]

This is how Tycho Brahe solved the problem of the colliding Mars and Sun

And this is how the Copernicans rejected Tycho's appeal to sanity - with regards to what would be the absurd dimensions of the STARS and their alleged distances from Earth - according to the Copernican theories:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1112/1112.1988.pdf


Extracts :
(please do read the full, most informative piece by Christopher Graney)

"The Creator need not makeCreation conform to our notions of reasonableness."

"The greater the King, so much more greater and larger the palace befitting his Majesty. So how great
a palace do you reckon is fitting to GOD?"

Indeed, Copernicus himself had spoken of the stars in such terms: “So vast, without any question, is the divine handiwork of the most excellent Almighty [Copernicus 1543].

However, Tycho was most unreceptive to the use of God to solve the problem of the bigness of stars.

Despite Tycho’s exhortations, Copernicans continued to connect the bigness of stars to the power of God

Btw, Tycho's model never involved a colliding Mars and Sun - as I will soon expound and graphically demonstrate.

[agraposo]

Btw, Tycho's model never involved a colliding Mars and Sun - as I will soon expound and graphically demonstrate.

Just a note, I don´t think Tycho thought that Mars and Sun would collide, but the spheres where they were located.

Are you aware that Tycho rejected the motion of the Earth? For him, the fixed stars sphere is rotating around the Earth, which is located at the center of the Universe.

He just made a mix of the previous models of the Universe!