Remember me
▼ Content

Heliocentric model is hoax, fraud


Heliocentric model is hoax, fraud30-05-2024 13:19
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1055)
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/23/science/after-400-years-a-challenge-to-kepler-he-fabricated-his-data-scholar-says.html


Dr. Donahue's detective work started as he read the book in Latin and redid Kepler's calculations. ''You can't get the language right if you don't understand what he's describing,'' Dr. Donahue said. But soon he found ''something strange going on.''

In chapter 53 of ''The New Astronomy,'' Kepler outlined a method he said he used to calculate the distances of the Earth and Mars from the Sun. The complex method was based on triangulation, which takes the distance between two points and then calculates the distance to a third by analyzing the angles in the triangle formed by the three points. The resulting distances, calculated for a variety of different dates, traced the geometry of planetary motions and gave hints that the orbits were far from circular.

Kepler cited these calculations as independent proof of the correctness of his claim for elliptical orbits. His findings were displayed in a large chart.

But when Dr. Donahue started working through the method to make sure he understood the basis for Kepler's chart, he found his numbers disagreeing with those of the great astronomer. After repeatedly getting the wrong answers for the numbers displayed on Kepler's chart, Dr. Donahue started trying other methods. Finally, he realized that the numbers in the chart had been generated not by independent calculations based on triangulated planetary positions, but by calculations using the area law itself.

''He was claiming that those positions came from the earlier theory,'' Dr. Donahue said. ''But actually all of them were generated from the ellipse.
''



I made the important parts bold and beautiful for those who can not read long texts.
As you can see Keppler was a simple fraud.

He was hired as a math assistant for Tycho Brahe to find solutions for Mars peculiar behavior but Brahe soon died( one year later after the hiring) and Keppler took all the workings of the Brahe and turned all of it upside down to instead push his heliocentric agenda.

You may ask what are the conzequenzes of such discoveries that Keppler was a fraud, fudger and faker. Of course the heliocentrism is on the verge of collapse. The astronomical observations do not support heliocentrism. Tycho Brahe, the greatest and most accurate astonomer of his day, did not support heliocentrism. Because it did not comply with observations. Simple as that.
30-05-2024 19:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
Xadoman wrote:
As you can see Keppler was a simple fraud.

Blatant lie.
Xadoman wrote:
He was hired as a math assistant for Tycho Brahe

Blatant lie.
Xadoman wrote:
to find solutions for Mars peculiar behavior

Blatant lie. Tycho never investigated why Mars behaved the way it did.
Xadoman wrote:
but Brahe soon died( one year later after the hiring)

No such hiring.
Xadoman wrote:
and Keppler took all the workings of the Brahe and turned all of it upside down to instead push his heliocentric agenda.

No 'agenda'.

Kepler's laws have not yet been falsified. Argument from randU fallacies.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-05-2024 23:28
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1055)
ITN denies history.

Ok, here are some quotes and links:

https://chandra.harvard.edu/edu/formal/icecore/The_Astronomers_Tycho_Brahe_and_Johannes_Kepler.pdf

Kepler became interested in science and mathematics when in school at about the age of
18. He was not particularly interested in astronomy until 1600 when Kepler met Tycho
Brahe in Prague, and Tycho asked him to be his assistant. Tycho would pay him well.



During Kepler's time in Prague working as Tycho's assistant, they fought continuously, because Tycho refused to share his meticulous observations with Kepler. These were observations
which Kepler desperately needed for his continuing quest to establish the true orbital motions of the planets. After Tycho's Kepler's Astronomica Nova, 1906death, Kepler stole the data in order to continue his calculations.


And we also know that he actually did not used the data. He cooked a chart showing some data from his own formulas. Basically he used his formula to "prove" his formula. That is a perfect example of circular theory fallacy.


In spite of this, Tycho's painstaking and detailed observational data of the planet Mars, combined with Kepler's mathematical genius, allowed Kepler to derive the three laws of planetary motion
.

And we known now that Kepler fudged data to push his theories.
31-05-2024 00:18
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1055)
Here are some more quotes:

In fact, 85% of the stars in the Milky Way galaxy are not single stars, like the Sun, but multiple star systems,binaries or triplets.


Clearly, binary systems are anything but rare, as believed only a century ago. For instance, we know today that the 20 stars closest to Earth are, in all probability, 'locked' in binary systems. Now, a most significant aspect to consider is that many of those 20 stars were discovered to be binary/multiple systems as recently as this last half-decade (2015-2020), showing how diffcult it can be to detect stellar companions, let alone determine what sort of orbital relationship they have with their host star. This naturally raises the question:
How many other distant stars held to be single stars are, in reality, double stars?


As a matter of fact, the percentage of stars observed (or determined by spectrometry) to be locked in binary systems has been rapidly increasing in later years thanks to advanced spectrometers and so-called adaptive optics (based on the Shack-Hartmann principle). The latter technological advancement has spectacularly improved the ability to detect and reveal double stars formerly believed to be single stars. Of course, the difficulty resides in the fact that double stars are always relatively close to each other and/or that the 'junior'
companion can sometimes be extremely small (such as the tiny Sirius B, which is only about 0.5% the size of Sirius A).



In fact, Alvan Clark's discovery in 1862 of the midget Sirius B caused a stir among the 19th century scientific community, since it was totally unexpected under Newton's gravitational theories that a tiny body like Sirius B—reckoned to be slightly smaller than Earth—could possibly be gravitationally bound to such a huge body as Sirius A.
Incredibly enough, the pesky riddle was eventually 'resolved' (explained away) by astrophysicists, claiming, in the absence of any conceivable experimental verification and in what must be one of the most flagrant ad hoc postulations in the history of science, that the mass/density/gravitational attraction (call it what you
will) of the tiny Sirius B must be about 400000 times larger than that of Earth. In other words, we are asked to believe that Sirius B's atoms are somehow 'packed' 400 thousand times tighter than our earthly atoms.
Ironically though, one of Sir Isaac's most hallowed precepts is that the laws of physics are unvarying and homogeneous across the universe.
01-06-2024 06:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
Xadoman wrote:
ITN denies history.

You are describing yourself. You cannot blame your problem on anybody else.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-06-2024 06:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
Xadoman wrote:
Here are some more quotes:

In fact, 85% of the stars in the Milky Way galaxy are not single stars, like the Sun, but multiple star systems,binaries or triplets.


Clearly, binary systems are anything but rare, as believed only a century ago. For instance, we know today that the 20 stars closest to Earth are, in all probability, 'locked' in binary systems. Now, a most significant aspect to consider is that many of those 20 stars were discovered to be binary/multiple systems as recently as this last half-decade (2015-2020), showing how diffcult it can be to detect stellar companions, let alone determine what sort of orbital relationship they have with their host star. This naturally raises the question:
How many other distant stars held to be single stars are, in reality, double stars?


As a matter of fact, the percentage of stars observed (or determined by spectrometry) to be locked in binary systems has been rapidly increasing in later years thanks to advanced spectrometers and so-called adaptive optics (based on the Shack-Hartmann principle). The latter technological advancement has spectacularly improved the ability to detect and reveal double stars formerly believed to be single stars. Of course, the difficulty resides in the fact that double stars are always relatively close to each other and/or that the 'junior'
companion can sometimes be extremely small (such as the tiny Sirius B, which is only about 0.5% the size of Sirius A).



In fact, Alvan Clark's discovery in 1862 of the midget Sirius B caused a stir among the 19th century scientific community, since it was totally unexpected under Newton's gravitational theories that a tiny body like Sirius B—reckoned to be slightly smaller than Earth—could possibly be gravitationally bound to such a huge body as Sirius A.
Incredibly enough, the pesky riddle was eventually 'resolved' (explained away) by astrophysicists, claiming, in the absence of any conceivable experimental verification and in what must be one of the most flagrant ad hoc postulations in the history of science, that the mass/density/gravitational attraction (call it what you
will) of the tiny Sirius B must be about 400000 times larger than that of Earth. In other words, we are asked to believe that Sirius B's atoms are somehow 'packed' 400 thousand times tighter than our earthly atoms.
Ironically though, one of Sir Isaac's most hallowed precepts is that the laws of physics are unvarying and homogeneous across the universe.

Spamming fiction isn't going to work.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-06-2024 13:01
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1055)
Spamming fiction isn't going to work.


Not fiction. Most stars turn out to be binary systems. Our sun and Mars form a binary star system.
01-06-2024 23:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
Xadoman wrote:
Spamming fiction isn't going to work.


Not fiction. Most stars turn out to be binary systems. Our sun and Mars form a binary star system.

Mars is not a star. Redefinition fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-06-2024 09:13
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1055)
A quote from another forum:

I have pointed out the fact that the vast majority of the stars in our skies (85% and counting) are double / or multiple binary systems. Moreover, I have highlighted the facts that the very brightest star in our sky, Sirius, is composed of the large Sirius A and the tiny Sirius B, that the latter is 204X smaller than its host (Sirius A) - and that Mars is [coincidentally?] also 204X smaller than its host (our Sun). Consequently, there can be no offhand rejection (due to Mars being "too small")* of the notion that Mars is the Sun's binary companion.

*Mind you, most astronomers will tell you that - according to Newtonian computations - Sirius B (which is reckoned to be slightly smaller than Earth) must be 400,000X heavier than Earth, so that's why it can be "gravitationally bound" with the huge Sirius A. However, we can be sure that no one has ever put Sirius B on a scale to verify its weight!

Another common objection that most people will have is: "but, but... Mars is not a star, it's a planet!" Well, no one can deny that Mars is the ONLY "planet" in our Solar System which is reddish / orange - just like the most common celestial bodies in our universe, i.e. the so-called red dwarfs.
Hmm, wait a minute... Could Mars perhaps --- be an old (orange) "red dwarf"?

Edited on 03-06-2024 09:19
03-06-2024 09:23
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1055)
Another quote from another forum:

I can now hear someone objecting: "But hey, Sirius B isn't a red dwarf, it's supposed to be a WHITE dwarf!"
True, but white dwarfs are reckoned to be simply younger celestial bodies... which eventually will turn into red dwarfs



Btw, where is Swanny?
03-06-2024 09:27
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1055)
Another quote:


Consider this: the discovery of a companion of our NEARMOST STAR was announced as recently as August 2016!
Proxima Centauri B: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri_b
Then, in November 2018, it was announced that the Barnard's star (a nearby star that moves faster than any other) also has a companion!
Barnard's star B: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnard%27s_Star_b

If the companions of these two NEARBY stars were only detected as recently as 2016/2018, what does this tell us?

To underline the gist of my line of reasoning, let me quote a short paragraph from Chapter 1 of my TYCHOS book:

"If it eventually emerges that 100% of our visible stars are locked in binary systems, our "lonely" single-star system (as per the Copernican model), would stand out as a uniquely exceptional, one-of-a-kind cosmic anomaly. It therefore stands to reason, from a purely statistical perspective, that our own star (the Sun) is likely to be part of a binary system."



Another quote:

"Our Sun is a solitary star, all on its ownsome, which makes it something of an oddball. But there's evidence to suggest that it did have a binary twin, once upon a time. Recent research suggests that most, if not all, stars are born with a binary twin. (We already knew the Solar System is a total weirdo. The placement of the planets appears out of whack compared to other systems, and it's missing the most common planet in the galaxy, the super-Earth.)" [url]https://www.sciencealert.com/we-may-hav ... -twin-star[/url]
03-06-2024 17:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
Xadoman wrote:
A quote from another forum:

I have pointed out the fact that the vast majority of the stars in our skies (85% and counting) are double / or multiple binary systems. Moreover, I have highlighted the facts that the very brightest star in our sky, Sirius, is composed of the large Sirius A and the tiny Sirius B, that the latter is 204X smaller than its host (Sirius A) - and that Mars is [coincidentally?] also 204X smaller than its host (our Sun). Consequently, there can be no offhand rejection (due to Mars being "too small")* of the notion that Mars is the Sun's binary companion.

*Mind you, most astronomers will tell you that - according to Newtonian computations - Sirius B (which is reckoned to be slightly smaller than Earth) must be 400,000X heavier than Earth, so that's why it can be "gravitationally bound" with the huge Sirius A. However, we can be sure that no one has ever put Sirius B on a scale to verify its weight!

Another common objection that most people will have is: "but, but... Mars is not a star, it's a planet!" Well, no one can deny that Mars is the ONLY "planet" in our Solar System which is reddish / orange - just like the most common celestial bodies in our universe, i.e. the so-called red dwarfs.
Hmm, wait a minute... Could Mars perhaps --- be an old (orange) "red dwarf"?

No. Insufficient mass.

Mars is a planet, not much bigger than our Moon.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 03-06-2024 17:59
03-06-2024 18:09
keepit
★★★★★
(3286)
Could zadoman be talking about a dyson sphere in some aspect or was it some other poster that was talking like that?
03-06-2024 18:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
keepit wrote:
Could zadoman be talking about a dyson sphere in some aspect or was it some other poster that was talking like that?

1) How do you build a Dyson sphere without it collapsing into the star, keepit?
2) Why would anyone build a Dyson sphere around Mars?? It's not a star!


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-06-2024 19:40
keepit
★★★★★
(3286)
itn,
I don't know how to build a dyson sphere. It seems like a major piece of work but many cosmologists have shown an interest. I wasn't thinking anyone would build one around mars. I'm not really sure which poster brought up ideas that resembled a dyson sphere. The thing that i recalled was some one talking about a glass sphere surrounding the earth. Admittedly a dyson sphere is a stretch from something surroundng mars.
The thing about a DS is that it would surround a star and would accumulate energy from the star and be used by people. It's very far out thinking which interested people like michio kaku who often thinks in terms far advanced civilizations.
03-06-2024 20:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22183)
keepit wrote:
itn,
I don't know how to build a dyson sphere.

Obviously.
keepit wrote:
It seems like a major piece of work

It is not possible.
keepit wrote:
but many cosmologists have shown an interest.

It is not possible.
keepit wrote:
I wasn't thinking anyone would build one around mars. I'm not really sure which poster brought up ideas that resembled a dyson sphere. The thing that i recalled was some one talking about a glass sphere surrounding the earth. Admittedly a dyson sphere is a stretch from something surroundng mars.

Not enough energy to make that much glass, and our trips to the Moon and other planets wouldn't have been possible. The first meteor to come along would've broken the glass.
keepit wrote:
The thing about a DS is that it would surround a star and would accumulate energy from the star and be used by people. It's very far out thinking which interested people like michio kaku who often thinks in terms far advanced civilizations.

The Earth already receives abundant energy from the Sun.

A Dysan sphere is not a battery. It does not accumulate energy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-06-2024 20:58
keepit
★★★★★
(3286)
Google it.
03-06-2024 21:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14652)
keepit wrote: itn, I don't know how to build a dyson sphere.

This much is obvious. A Dyson sphere is a hypothetical sphere built around a star at its center. Humans would prefer a dysan sphere of radius equivalent to the earth's average distance to the sun.

i.e. a sphere around Mars would not be a Dyson sphere.


keepit wrote: It seems like a major piece of work

It's an impossible piece of work. Where would one get enough material to build a hollow sphere centered around the sun of radius 150 million km and roughly one-earth thick? Nevermind the logistics and transportation to actually construct the sphere.

keepit wrote: ... but many cosmologists have shown an interest.

Not a single professional ping-pong player has shown any interest.

keepit wrote: I wasn't thinking anyone would build one around mars.

Perhaps you thought this because Mars is not a star.
03-06-2024 22:46
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1055)
No. Insufficient mass.

Mars is a planet, not much bigger than our Moon.



A quote:


Moreover, I have highlighted the facts that the very brightest star in our sky, Sirius, is composed of the large Sirius A and the tiny Sirius B, that the latter is 204X smaller than its host (Sirius A) - and that Mars is [coincidentally?] also 204X smaller than its host (our Sun). Consequently, there can be no offhand rejection (due to Mars being "too small")* of the notion that Mars is the Sun's binary companion.
03-06-2024 22:47
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2999)
keepit wrote: It seems like a major piece of work

IBdaMann wrote:
It's an impossible piece of work. Where would one get enough material to build a hollow sphere centered around the sun of radius 150 million km and roughly one-earth thick? Nevermind the logistics and transportation to actually construct the sphere.



Now hang on just a minute. You're a damn Republican and terrified of change and innovation.

Sven has done the scientific research and I've got an awesome set of tools.

My hardware store is also fantastic. They only stock half of what I need and only print dollars when they go into debt a little.

The only logistics to overcome is getting through the Van Allens. Ralph is working through it.

After that, we'll be making hay in the mangrove.


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
Edited on 03-06-2024 23:20
03-06-2024 22:56
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1055)
A quote:

Tycho's proposed 'geo-heliocentric' model had the orbits of the Sun and Mars intersecting - much like the vast majority of our visible star systems. In other words, he had correctly (yet unwittingly) interpreted the binary nature of our solar system. Since no binary star system had yet been observed in his time, Tycho had no way of making sense of his own observations. He then made a most horrendous mistake – i.e. when he entrusted the young Kepler to solve the baffling yet crucial & all-important behavior of Mars. The rest of this tragic 'mishap' (which has set back humankind's cosmo-logical knowledge by 400+ years) is recounted in due detail in my book, "the TYCHOS model" .
04-06-2024 00:01
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1055)
Some quotes:

The very first objection that opponents of my TYCHOS model submit to me is that Mars is far-too-small-a-celestial-body to be our Sun's "dance partner". They argue that it would gravely contradict Newton's gravitational Laws - and that if this were the case, Mars would immediately crash into the Sun. Besides, they say, "Mars is a planet - not a star! And hey, binary double stars are composed of two stars - not of a star and a planet!"



Well, it is a matter of historical record that when the first binary star systems were discovered (not so long ago), our world's astronomers were totally stumped: the extremely small size of some of these newly-detected companion stars (which they kept finding thanks to powerful modern telescopes) made no sense at all - that is, within the framework of Sir Isaac Newton's gravitational "Laws". For instance, here's what none other than astronomer Royal Sir Arthur Eddington had to say - following the discovery of Sirius B (the tiny binary companion of Sirius A):

"We learn about the stars by receiving and interpreting the messages which their light brings to us. The message of the Companion of Sirius when it was decoded ran: 'I am composed of material 3,000 times denser than anything you have ever come across; a ton of my material would be a little nugget that you could put in a matchbox.' What reply can one make to such a message? The reply which most of us made in 1914 was—"Shut up. Don't talk nonsense." (Sir Arthur Eddington) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_dwarf



In fact, as these small binary companions were discovered, Newton's "Laws" were, once more, in grave danger of catastrophic collapse. Eventually though - and to make a long story short - the whole question was "settled" by what must be the most egregious case (in science history) of "backwards reasoning" or, if you will, of "confirmation bias". The ad hoc 'resolution of the mystery' went as follows: if Sirius B is so very small [its diameter is almost equal to Earth's diameter] then it must be made of extraordinarily dense matter! Today - and to be sure -astronomy students are actually taught that a sugar cube on Sirius B would weigh some 1000 kg - because the forces of gravity on Sirius B are 400,000X stronger than on planet Earth! Hence, Sirius B would be "heavier" than our Sun! That's right, we are told that the atoms composing Sirius B are "packed four-hundred-thousand times tighter" than our earthly atoms... I trust that anyone (graced with earnest brain matter) can see what they (our world's most revered scientists) did there - in the name of their sacrosanct and untouchable "Science God", Sir Isaac Newton.

Edited on 04-06-2024 00:03
04-06-2024 00:08
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1055)
Another quote:

Before proceeding, let me just remind my readers that some years ago - as mentioned in my TYCHOS book - I decided to compare the relative sizes (diameters) of Sirius A versus Sirius B with those of our Sun versus Mars. It turned out that Sirius B is 0.4888% of the size of Sirius A - and that Mars is 0.4881% of the size of the Sun. Ergo, the four of them are proportionally alike.
04-06-2024 01:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14652)
GasGuzzler wrote: Now hang on just a minute. You're a damn Republican and terrified of change and innovation.

I'm not a Republican. I told you, I'm a Gemini.

GasGuzzler wrote: Sven has done the scientific research and I've got an awesome set of tools.

There is no such thing as scientific tools. Sven never could build a Dyson sphere and chew gum at the same time. If you're thinking that you're just going to waltz into your local hardware store and get a pre-fab Dyson, don't be surprised when you find out they're on back-order. Everybody's building Dyson spheres for the "challenge" ... made easier because tmiddles blabbed and told everyone the temperature of Venus.

GasGuzzler wrote: My hardware store is also fantastic.

Your hardware store sells the the Chinese knock-offs "Dimsum spheres" full of pot stickers.

GasGuzzler wrote: They only stock half of what I need and only print dollars when they go into debt a little.

They'd be more successful with something better than 60-dpi printer.

GasGuzzler wrote:The only logistics to overcome is getting through the Van Allens.

But this gets into ozone depletion and the inverse square law. The tropopause allows for this.

GasGuzzler wrote: Ralph is working through it.

At least we can count on Ralph. He's got white privilege to spare.

GasGuzzler wrote: After that, we'll be making hay in the mangrove.

Watch out for the arsenic and the hexavalent chromium. You don't want that funky winkerbean in your Dimsum sphere.
04-06-2024 06:14
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2999)
Damn near killed me again.


Mind if I quote you on this for my signiture line? Must have!
Watch out for the arsenic and the hexavalent chromium. You don't want that funky winkerbean in your Dimsum sphere.

Edited on 04-06-2024 06:17
04-06-2024 08:52
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1055)
A quote:


In Tycho Brahe's times (16th century), NO double stars were known - or had ever been determined. Only about 50 years after Brahe's death, the Italian (tychonic) astronomer Giovanni Battista Riccioli, using a telescope, discovered that Mizar was a double star. However, it wasn't until about a century later that William Herschel formally announced his discovery of what he described as "binary sidereal systems" :

"In 1797, Herschel measured many of the systems again, and discovered changes in their relative positions that could not be attributed to the parallax caused by the Earth's orbit. He waited until 1802 to announce the hypothesis that the two stars might be "binary sidereal systems" orbiting under mutual gravitational attraction, a hypothesis he confirmed in 1803 in his Account of the Changes that have happened, during the last Twenty-five Years, in the relative Situation of Double-stars; with an Investigation of the Cause to which they are owing. In all, Herschel discovered over 800 confirmed double or multiple star systems, almost all of them physical rather than optical pairs. His theoretical and observational work provided the foundation for modern binary star astronomy."[url] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Herschel[/url]
04-06-2024 08:57
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1055)
A quote:

"It was at one time considered that a variable star was in all probability a body, a portion of whose surface had been relatively darkened in some manner akin to that in which sun spots mar the face of the sun; and that when its axial rotation brought the less illuminated portions in turn towards us, we witnessed a consequent diminution in the star's general brightness. (...) The scale on which it varies in brightness is very great, for it changes from the second to the ninth magnitude. For the other leading type of variable star, Algol, of which mention has already been made, is the best instance. The shortness of the period in which the changes of brightness in such stars go their round, is the chief characteristic of this latter class. The period of Algol is a little under three days. This star when at its brightest is of about the second magnitude, and when least bright is reduced to below the third magnitude; from which it follows that its light, when at the minimum, is only about one-third of what it is when at the maximum. It seems definitely proved by means of the spectroscope that variables of this kind are merely binary stars, too close to be separated by the telescope, which, as a consequence of their orbits chancing to be edgewise towards us, eclipse each other in turn time after time."
(...)
"Since the companion of Algol is often spoken of as a dark body, it were well here to point out that we have no evidence at all that it is entirely devoid of light. We have already found, in dealing with spectroscopic binaries, that when one of the component stars is below a certain magnitude its spectrum will not be seen; so one is left in the glorious uncertainty as to whether the body in question is absolutely dark, or darkish, or faint, or indeed only just out of range of the spectroscope."



As it is, a little-known fact (among lay people) is that many so-called "stars" do NOT shine with their own light. For instance, red dwarfs (by far the most common type of "star" in our universe) can be so faint, dim and darkish as to be invisible / undetectable by even our largest modern telescopes. In the TYCHOS model, of course, this would be the case for Mars (the Sun's binary companion) which in fact exhibits the characteristic orange hue associated with red dwarfs. It bears reminding the reader here that Mars is only about 0.5% the size of the Sun - and that Sirius B (the small companion of our very brightest star in the skies, SIRIUS) is also about 0.5% the size of its far larger partner, Sirius A. In fact, the discovery of the tiny Sirius B (by Alvan Clark, in 1862) caused a stir among the science community of the times, since it was totally unexpected - under Newton's gravitational theories - that such a small body (Sirius B is reckoned to be slightly smaller than Earth) could possibly be gravitationally bound to such a large body as Sirius A. Incredibly enough, this major riddle was eventually "resolved" by our world's top astrophysicists who (in what must be one of the crudest instances of ad hoc argumentation in science history) simply decided - in spite of the lack of any conceivable experimental verification - that the mass /or density of Sirius B must be quite exceptional (i.e. about "400,000 X larger than the mass of Earth", as we are told!).
04-06-2024 09:03
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1055)
A quote:

In the 1980's, one of the world's top experts in double / binary stars, Wulff Heintz, announced at the end of his illustrious career that at least 85% of all the stars in our skies must be double / binary stars (leaving us to wonder whether the remaining 15% are single, "bachelor" stars - like our Sun is believed to be). Now, this announcement was made almost 40 years ago; since then, there has been a continuous and uninterrupted flow of new detections of binary companions revolving around larger host stars (formerly believed to be single stars), thanks to technological advancements such as Adaptive Optics. In fact, in later years we have all heard in the news media about new so-called "exoplanets" being discovered - almost on a weekly basis. Rarely though, if at all, do such announcements mention that some of those so-called "exoplanets" might be (formerly unseen) binary companions of larger stars. The reason for this may be - in my humble yet fairly informed opinion - that the growing realization that perhaps ALL stars (without exception) are "locked" in double/binary systems is kept under wraps. Obviously, there could be no more horrifying prospect for Copernican /mainstream astronomers than having to admit that ALL the stars in our skies are, in fact, double stars revolving around their common center of mass (i.e. around nothing - in most cases! As of the TYCHOS, Earth has been captured in the middle of that "nothing". After all, planet Earth does have SOMETHING special to it, does it not?). If critics of my work can argue that I could be blinded by confirmation bias (when proposing that ALL the stars are double / binary systems), the very same can be said of mainstream astronomers who appear to keep classifying stars into diverse categories - presumably to distract (subconsciously?) our attention to the "abhorrent" notion that ALL stars are double/binary, as this would spell the end of the heliocentric theory.
04-06-2024 09:11
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1055)
Another quote:

In 2016 (yes, only three years ago!), it was announced that a binary companion of Proxima Centauri - our NEARMOST star! - had been discovered. The newly-detected body is now called "Proxima B". This very recent discovery effectively goes to show just how difficult it is, even for our most advanced 21st century instruments, to detect a binary companion to any given star. (Note: please do not confuse Proxima Centauri with Alpha Centauri [A & B], which is the long-known and much bigger binary system located slightly further away than the Proxima binary system).

Then, in 2018 (yes, only last year!!), it was announced that a companion of the Barnard's star - our 2nd NEARMOST star! - had been discovered. The Barnard's star is the fastest-moving star in our skies and, as you can read in my earlier writeup (linked at the top of this post), it was the subject of a bitter controversy between Peter Van de Kamp and Wulff Heintz back in the 1980's. Van de Kamp was convinced he had seen the (recently confirmed) Barnard's star companion - but Wulff Heintz would have nothing of it. Vigorous efforts were spent to discredit Van de Kamp's discovery (claiming that it had to do with the improper cleaning of his telescope lenses!), yet Van de Kamp's observational work has now finally been vindicated. In my earlier writeup, you may also read how both ESA and NASA (in 2007 and 2010) decided to shut down (???) their search programs for Barnard's companion, due to ..."lack of funding". Yeah, right.

In light of all this, wouldn't it be perfectly reasonable to assume that the remaining 15% of NON-binary stars (as estimated by Wulff Heintz back in the 1980's, as he concluded that 85% of our stars must be double/binary systems) are just "still-to-be-detected" binary stars? That the reason for this remaining 15% is only due to the difficulty of detecting these smaller and dimmer companions? And that we will, in due time - and thanks to improved future technology - discover one fine day that ALL the stars in our skies, bar none, have a binary companion?

In any case, here is the situation we have today, ladies and gents: practically ALL of our nearmost stars (or "neighborhood stars") are now known to have a binary companion. However, astronomers are still classifying many stars (those not yet officially recognized as Binary Stars) as "Variable Stars" or as "Flare Stars". So what exactly, you may ask, are Variable Stars and Flare Stars? Well, let's see what Wikipedia can tell us about them:
VARIABLE STARS
A variable star is a star whose brightness as seen from Earth (its apparent magnitude) fluctuates.
This variation may be caused by a change in emitted light or by something partly blocking the light, so variable stars are classified as either:

- Intrinsic variables, whose luminosity actually changes; for example, because the star periodically swells and shrinks. :huh:

- Extrinsic variables, whose apparent changes in brightness are due to changes in the amount of their light that can reach Earth; for example, because the star has an orbiting companion that sometimes eclipses it.

Many, possibly most, stars have at least some variation in luminosity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_star
(I have to say that the first option - stars that "periodically swell and shrink" - sounds terribly outlandish to me!)
FLARE STARS
A flare star is a variable star that becomes very much brighter unpredictably for a few minutes at a time.
Most flare stars are dim red dwarfs, although less massive (lighter) brown dwarfs might also be able to flare. The more massive (heavier) RS Canum Venaticorum variables (RS CVn) are also known to flare, but scientists understand that a companion star in a binary system causes these flares. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flare_star
Thus, in both cases (Variable and Flare stars) we see that the best / or least bizarre explanation is that these stars are, quite simply, binary star systems whose brightness periodically dips due to one of them obscuring the other. There is no need to classify them as anything else but double/binary stars. And this is where we reach the underlying gist of my present dissertation:

If ALL the stars in our skies have a binary companion that revolves around them, why would our Sun NOT have a binary companion?

Indeed, the vast majority of the stars in our skies (as of current knowledge) have LOCAL orbits of their own. By "LOCAL orbits", I refer to the observed fact that they all revolve around each other (around their common barycenter) in relatively short orbital periods - ranging from a few hours, days, months or up to a few dozen years, at the most. That's right, this means that if you gaze at any given star at night, you can be practically certain that it revolves around a smaller companion in a relatively short amount of time (e.g. our current "North star" binary system composed of Polaris A and Polaris B revolve around each other in 29.6 years). The core question (dictated by plain logic) therefore becomes:

WHY WOULD OUR SUN NOT HAVE SUCH A LOCAL ORBIT - BUT IS INSTEAD BELIEVED TO ONLY HAVE A HUGE, 240-MILLION-YEAR ORBIT?

Edited on 04-06-2024 09:15
04-06-2024 09:19
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1055)
A quote:


This most "momentous" problem (pun intended) concerns the missing angular momentum of our Sun. As it is, the Sun is believed to make up 99% of our Solar System - yet it is calculated (under the heliocentric model's paradigm) that it only has 1% of our system's total Angular Momentum! Now, I wish to make it clear that this is by no means one of my own findings / realizations; it has been debated for decades by numerous astrophysicists, since it constitutes a glaring contradiction of the most established and all-important laws of conservation of momentum - as defined and unanimously accepted in academic circles.

"The angular momentum problem is a problem in astrophysics identified by Leon Mestel in 1965."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum_problem

Edited on 04-06-2024 09:20
04-06-2024 15:35
James_
★★★★★
(2273)
Xadoman wrote:
A quote:


This most "momentous" problem (pun intended) concerns the missing angular momentum of our Sun. As it is, the Sun is believed to make up 99% of our Solar System - yet it is calculated (under the heliocentric model's paradigm) that it only has 1% of our system's total Angular Momentum! Now, I wish to make it clear that this is by no means one of my own findings / realizations; it has been debated for decades by numerous astrophysicists, since it constitutes a glaring contradiction of the most established and all-important laws of conservation of momentum - as defined and unanimously accepted in academic circles.

"The angular momentum problem is a problem in astrophysics identified by Leon Mestel in 1965."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum_problem




I think I solved this problem. The issue is if people understand what math and science have been saying all these years. It's possible that when Newton accused Leibniz of plagiarism that the scandal interfered with his work on gravity.




Join the debate Heliocentric model is hoax, fraud:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Space travel is hoax3316-04-2024 23:24
Nukes are hoax1412-03-2024 16:06
The Global Warming Fraud17325-02-2024 21:47
Election fraud proven and the election was overturned, the FBI will not investigate003-11-2023 19:36
Back-testing the climate model(s)1107-08-2023 05:09
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact