Originally Written By Thomas Perez. December 7, 2018 at 8:53PM. Copyright 2018. Updated 2020.
Section 1: The Planets
What is a Planet? What makes a planet, a planet? When we look up into the night sky, they appear to only look like stars. So why all the fuss? What makes these specific group of stars different from the others; so much so that they are classified as solid objects, and hence not stars, and thus warranting robotic missions to investigate these “wandering stars.”
According to the Smithsonian; “Five planets – Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn were known to the ancients. To the unaided eye, these planets appear starlike. However, the planets moved relative to the stars. For this reason they were called wandering stars. Our word “planet” comes from the Greek word planetes, meaning “wanderer.”
While knowledge of the wandering stars predates history and is common to most civilizations, the word planet dates back to ancient Greece. Most Greeks believed the Earth to be stationary and at the center of the universe in accordance with the geocentric model and that the objects in the sky, and indeed the sky itself, revolved around it (an exception was Aristarchus of Samos, who put forward an early version of heliocentrism). Greek astronomers employed the term asteres planetai (ἀστέρες πλανῆται), “wandering stars.”
Moreover, according to ‘Merriam Webster Dictionary’ and ‘World Sources’; the word “Planet goes back to ancient Greek – planēt – (literally, “wanderer”), which is derived from “planasthai,” a Greek verb which means “to wander.” The name “planet” was originally applied to any of seven visible celestial bodies which appeared to move independently of the fixed stars – the Sun, the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. In the 17th century, “planet” began to be used specifically of the rocky or gaseous bodies that orbit around the Sun – a definition which excluded the Moon and, obviously, the Sun, but included the Earth and, as they were discovered, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. In 2006, the IAU (the International Astronomical Union) developed a narrower definition of “planet,” effectively demoting Pluto to the status of a “dwarf planet,” a celestial body that is spherical and orbits the Sun but is not large enough to disturb other objects from its orbit.”
“Words For Our Modern Age: Especially words derived from Latin and Greek sources”. Wordsources.info. Retrieved 2007-07-23.
However, in 2005 the definition of what constitutes a planet was shaken with the discovery of Eris – a dwarf “planet” named after the Greek goddess of strife and discord. The discovery of Eris forced the IAU to act on a definition (of what constitutes a planet – T. Perez). In October 2005, a group of only 19 IAU members, which had already been working on a definition since the discovery of Sedns (a large, but minor planet – T. Perez) in 2003, narrowed their choices to a shortlist of three, using approval voting to come to some form of an agreement (as to what exactly is a planet – T.Perez). The definitions were:
1. “The object must be in orbit around the Sun.”
2. “The object must be massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity. More specifically, its own gravity should pull it into a shape defined by hydrostatic equilibrium”
3. “It must have cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.”
“IAU 2006 General Assembly: Resolutions 5 and 6” (PDF). IAU. August 24, 2006.
“IAU 2006 General Assembly: Result of the IAU Resolution votes”. International Astronomical Union (News Release – IAU0603). August 24, 2006. Retrieved June 15, 2008.
Other sources cite similar definitions…
1. “A planet is any object in orbit around the Sun with a diameter greater than 2000 km. (eleven votes in favour)”
2. “A planet is any object in orbit around the Sun whose shape is stable due to its own gravity. (eight votes in favour)”
3. “A planet is any object in orbit around the Sun that is dominant in its immediate neighbourhood. (six votes in favour)”
McKee, Maggie (2006). “Xena reignites a planet-sized debate”. New Scientist Space. Retrieved 2006-05-25.
Croswell Ken (2006). “The Tenth Planet’s First Anniversary”. Retrieved 2006-05-25.
However, no consensus could be reached as to the true definition of what is a planet as a whole. And since some members of the committee could not reach an agreement, they took their definitions to the entire IAU to vote upon at the General Assembly meeting on August 2006 in Prague. A final draft was worked out that combined elements from the two of three proposals. This combination created a medial classification between “planet” and “rock” – hence the new parlance called “small Solar System body” – dwarf planets. They demoted Pluto, putting it in this smaller system, along with Ceres and Eris. It is known that 424 astronomers took part in the final vote.
“IAU General Assembly Newspaper”(PDF). 2006-08-24. Retrieved 2007-03-03.
The Final IAU Resolution on the Definition of “Planet” Ready for Voting”. IAU (News Release — IAU0602). 2006-08-24. Retrieved 2007-03-02.
The new definition of a planet must be in harmony with the following classifications…
1. “A Planet is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.”
2. “A “dwarf planet” is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.”
3. “All other objects, except satellites, orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as “Small Solar System Bodies.”
Robert Roy Britt (2006). “Pluto demoted in highly controversial definition.” Space.com. Retrieved 2006-08-24.
“IAU 2006 General Assembly: Resolutions 5 and 6” (PDF). IAU. 2006-08-24. Retrieved 2009-06-23.
“IAU 2006 General Assembly: Result of the IAU Resolution votes” (Press release). International Astronomical Union (News Release – IAU0603). 2006-08-24. Retrieved 2007-12-31. (orig link Archived 2007-01-03 at the Wayback Machine.)
The term “cleared the neighborhood” means that the object in question have become gravitationally dominant, and there are no other bodies of comparable size other than its natural satellites or those otherwise under its gravitational influence. A large body that meets the other criteria for a planet but has not cleared its neighborhood is classified as a dwarf planet. This includes Pluto, which is constrained in its orbit by the gravity of Neptune and shares its orbital neighbourhood with Juniper Belt objects.
Pluto is a “dwarf planet” by the above definition and is recognized as the prototype of a new category of trans-Neptunian objects. Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNO) make up classic and resonant objects of the Kuiper belt – scattered discs and detached objects. They all orbit beyond Neptune, but are supposedly kept in place by Neptune’s gravity – and as such, are not considered true planets by the conventional sense of the word. And because of this, they are considered a part of the Solar System that orbits the Sun at a greater average distance than Neptune; sednoids being the distant ones. They are usually grouped with the detached objects.
A sednoid is a TNO with a perihelion greater than 50 AU and a semi-major axis greater than 150 AU. But they have no interaction with the planets. However, astronomer Scott Sheppard believes them to be inner Oort cloud objects. But Oort clouds (or Hill Mountains) are said to be 2,000 AU’s away. But with reference to the definitions in numbers 1 and 2, we will note that the two definitions are clearly dependant upon the concept of gravity and it’s influence of shaping “spherical” objects (shapes), and the AU. More on gravity and the AU later.
However, ongoing controversy still exists in what constitutes a planet. “Despite the IAU’s declaration, a number of critics remain unconvinced. The definition is seen by some as arbitrary and confusing. A number of Pluto-as-planet proponents, in particular Allen Stern, head of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto, have circulated a petition among astronomers to alter the definition. Stern’s claim is that, since less than 5 percent of astronomers voted for it, the decision was not representative of the entire astronomical community.”
Robert Roy Britt (2006). “Pluto: Down But Maybe Not Out”. Space.com. Retrieved 2006-08-24.
Moreover, several ambiguities remain. “Alen Stern objects that “it is impossible and contrived to put a dividing line between dwarf planets and planets,” and that since neither Earth, Mars, Jupiter, nor Neptune have entirely cleared their regions of debris, none could properly be considered planets under the IAU definition.” Adding to this we also have the likes of “Mark Sykes, director of the Planetary Science Institute in Tucson, Arizona, and organiser of the petition, believes that the definition does not categorize a planet by composition or formation, but, effectively, by its location. He believes that a Mars-sized or larger object beyond the orbit of Pluto would not be considered a planet, because he believes that it would not have time to clear its orbit.” (Bold type emphasis by T. Perez).
Paul Rincon (2006-08-25). “Pluto vote ‘hijacked’ in revolt”. BBC News. Retrieved 2007-02-28.
Mark, Sykes (2006-09-08). “Astronomers Prepare to Fight Pluto Demotion” (RealPlayer). Retrieved 2006-10-04.
Mike Brown counters these claims by saying that, far from not having cleared their orbits, the major planets completely control the orbits of the other bodies within their orbital zone. Jupiter may coexist with a large number of small bodies in its orbit (the Trojan asteroids), but these bodies only exist in Jupiter’s orbit because they are in the sway of the planet’s huge gravity. Similarly, Pluto may cross the orbit of Neptune, but Neptune long ago locked Pluto and its attendant Kuiper belt objects, called plutinos, into a 3:2 resonance, I.e., they orbit the Sun twice for every three Neptune orbits. The orbits of these objects are entirely dictated by Neptune’s gravity, and thus, Neptune is gravitationally dominant.
In October 2015, astronomer Jean-Luc Margot of the University of California Los Angeles proposed a metric for orbital zone clearance derived from whether an object can clear an orbital zone of extent 2√3 of its Hill radius in a specific time scale. This metric places a clear dividing line between the dwarf planets and the planets of the solar system. The calculation is based on the mass of the host star, the mass of the body, and the orbital period of the body. An Earth-mass body orbiting a solar-mass star clears its orbit at distances of up to 400 astronomical units the star. A Mars-mass body at the orbit of Pluto clears its orbit. This metric, which leaves Pluto as a dwarf planet, applies to both the Solar System and to extrasolar systems.
Brown also notes, however, that were the “clearing the neighbourhood” criterion to be abandoned, the number of planets in the Solar System could rise from eight to more than 50 with hundreds more potentially to be discovered.
Michael E. Brown (2006). “The Eight Planets”. Caltech. Retrieved 2007-02-21.
Mike Brown. “The Dwarf Planets”. Retrieved 2007-08-04.
Both counter claims are correct according to their respective forms of academia; as in (1) gravity in relation to an objects (2) mass, their (3) AU’s and their (4) respective shapes. But are they correct with respect to their deductive reasoning based on their “one way” consensus of conclusions?
With Reference to Shape
A flat shaped planet will override the above classification of what makes a planet; a planet. But it certainly does not mean that they can not exist. According to an article in Forbes; “In other words, you could make a flat world that was larger than any object in our asteroid belt, and possibly even nearly the size of our Moon.
The phrase “famously” is a bit misleading, wouldn’t you say? Considering that planet classifications were not harmoniously agreed upon, the celebration of its classifications was a bit premature; and hence far long over-due for a fair vote count. Moreover, like we discovered in chapter three disk shaped objects can exist. And as we have learned, disks often become planets, (not perfectly spherical, but oblate). Just how oblate depends on its so-called “spin.” But the majority vote, according to these astronomers, claim that many disk shaped objects do not become, or are not, planets based upon a hasty conclusion in 2006. A vote that many disagreed with. And as we have learned in chapters; one, three and thirteen, the “spin” is based upon the Copernican heliocentric Earth model – which in turn was also voted for by a small minority as the final alleged fact as opposed to the Tychonian system in the 1800’s
And as mentioned above by Sykes; “Mars-sized or larger object beyond the orbit of Pluto would not be considered a planet, because he believes that it would not have time to clear its orbit.” This obviously includes the Earth, since it is reported that the Earth is larger than Mars. It also confirms Browns assumptions that many odd shaped objects, without the criterion of “clearing the neighbourhood” would be considered planets in the Solar System; ranging from the known 8 (Earth included) planets to many more.
So if the criteria of “clearing the neighborhood“ is abandoned, the Earth; whether a spherically oblate object or a flat circular non-rotating disked shaped body, wouldn’t matter since it will be non-conforming to IAU classifications for what constitutes a planet. Moreover, a planet by IAU standards must meet the criteria of all 3 definitions. A planet, including the Earth, can not have 1 or even 2 out of the 3 classifications and expect to be a planet. It must have all or none. So if outside the criteria, then Earth would not be considered a planet at all, but rather just a shape of some sort; most likely flat and circular. However, a recent article by Neil deGrasse Tyson cites “Earth is still round.” But yet, he still can not disprove the flat Earth model as we discussed in chapter thirteen in reference to an article that revealed such by the Washington Post.
With Reference to Gravity: Law or Theory?
When asked the question; “What is the definitive proof there is Gravity;” Simon Bridge, Scientist revealed originally on Quora, and then published on Forbes cited; “There isn’t one. That is not how science works.” Moreover, Bridge continues; “For Einstein gravity, the experiment is the bending of starlight (this is a key distinction between Einstein and Newtonian gravity, which both predict bending of starlight but to different amounts).
However, there are no absolute proofs of these theories only demonstrations that they are the best and simplest models that account for the known facts of Nature and have predictive utility.”
Furthermore, there are several different theories concerning, for lack of a better word, this anomaly. After the Aristotelean concept fell out of favor due to Newtonian gravitational concepts, other contenders with their own antithesis’s of mathematical equations came into view. The following older list of theories confirm this:
- Le Sage’s theory of gravitation (1784) also called LeSage gravity, proposed by Georges-Louis Le Sage, based on a fluid-based explanation where a light gas fills the entire Universe.
- Ritz’s theory of gravitation, Ann. Chem. Phys. 13, 145, (1908) pp. 267–71, Weber-Gauss electrodynamics applied to gravitation. Classical advancement of perihelia.
- Nordström’s theory of gravitation (1912, 1913), an early competitor of general relativity.
- Kaluza Klein theory (1921)
- Whitehead’s theory of gravitation (1922), another early competitor of general relativity.
The following modern lists confirm even more theories concerning this “anomaly.”
- Brans–Dicke theory of gravity (1961)
- Induced gravity (1967), a proposal byAndrei Sakharov according to which general relativity might arise from quantum field theories of matter
- ƒ(R) gravity (1970)
- Horndeski theory (1974)
- Supergravity (1976)
- String theory
- In the modified Newtonian dynamics(MOND) (1981), Mordehai Milgromproposes a modification of Newton’s second law of motion for small accelerations
- The self-creation cosmology theory of gravity (1982) by G.A. Barber in which the Brans-Dicke theory is modified to allow mass creation
- Loop quantum gravity (1988) by Carlo Rovelli, Lee Smolin, and Abhay Ashtekar
- Nonsymmetric gravitational theory (NGT) (1994) by John Moffat
- Conformal gravity
- Tensor–vector–scalar gravity (TeVeS) (2004), a relativistic modification of MOND by Jacob Bekenstein
- Gravity as an entropic force, gravity arising as an emergent phenomenon from the thermodynamic concept of entropy.
- In the superfluid vacuum theory the gravity and curved space-time arise as a collective excitation mode of non-relativistic background superfluid.
- Chameleon theory (2004) by Justin Khouryand Amanda Weltman.
- Pressuron theory (2013) by Olivier Minazzoli and Aurélien Hees.
Of the entire list; at least 10 are in harmony with water as being the first, or at least the primary component of force in movement of shape, mass and perception (as briefly discussed in chapter twelve), the aether (as discussed in chapter two) and a geocentric flat Earth model and/or other such similar shapes in the “heavens;” or as some would call it: “space,” as discussed in earlier chapters. The 10 that I refer to are; the Le Sage’s Theory of Gravitation (1784), Ritz’s Theory of Gravitation (1908) – which demonstrates the aether – and remember, Einstein did not deny the aether. We also have Brans – Dicke Theory of Gravity (1961), String Theory, Self-Creation Cosmology, Conformal Gravity, Gravity as an Entrophic Force, Superfluid Vacuum Theory, Chameleon Theory (2004), and the Pressuron Theory (2013). For further study into these 10 theories, you can simply click the links above.
With reference to the theory of Superfluid Vacuum, you will recall this picture from chapter three. According to mainstream science, this is how the Earth looks without water (our oceans).
Not exactly a perfect “ball,” is it? But nevertheless, round and spherical; courtesy of an artist’s rendition. How flat can this rocky object be without its waters and the traditional theory of gravity? The answer was obviously answered above already. Moreover, when water is actually added, as in the Superfluid theory, a flat model can truly become a reality. It is said that water always seeks it’s level – hence its buoyancy as the theory of Superfluid Vacuum demonstrates below…
It is not so much that objects fall to Earth due to gravities pull, but that the Earth propels itself in an upward fashion by solar wind (the aether), universal acceleration and/or dark matter. The later, dark energy, proposes that the disk of our Earth is lifted by dark energy, an unknown form of energy which, according to globe physicists, makes up about 70% of the universe. The origin of this energy is still unknown. Moreover, the Chameleon Theory postulates dark energy as the true source for this anomaly.
Tiny fountain of atoms sparks big insights into dark energy by Adrian Cho on August 20, 2015. Published at the “American Association for the Advancement of Science”
J Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. D 69, 044026 (2004).
With Reference to AU
What is an AU (Astronomical Unit)? Where did this form of measurement come from, and why does it exist anyway?
“The astronomical unit (abbreviated variously as AU, au, a.u. or ua) is a unit of length roughly equal to the mean distance of the Earth from the Sun. The currently accepted value of the AU is 1.49597870691 x 1011 (± 3) meters (m), which is approximately 150 million kilometers (km) or 93 million miles. This unit has been particularly useful for calculating the distances of planets (Wandering Stars. T. Perez) and other objects in the Solar System, relative to the Earth’s distance from the Sun.”
The encyclopedia also goes on to cite; “Aristarchus of Samos estimated the distance to the Sun to be about 20 times the distance to the Moon, whereas the true ratio is about 390. His estimate was based on the angle between the half moon and the sun, which he calculated to be 87°. According to Eusebius of Caesarea in the Praeparatio Evangelica, Eratosthenes found the distance to the sun to be “σταδιων μυριαδας τετρακοσιας και οκτωκισμυριας” (literally “of stadia myriads 400 and 80000″).” (“Stadia” – bold emphasis by T. Perez).
The latter measurement becoming the foundational ground work for the AU. The problem that I have here with this foundation is that it is founded upon “stadia.” The stadia, believe it or not, is based upon ancient Greek athletic stadiums. “The stadion – Greek; Latin, stadium; formerly also anglicized as stade, was an ancient Greek unit of length, based on the length of a typical sports stadium of the time. According to Herodotus one stadion was equal to 600 Greek feet (podes). However, the length of the foot varied in different parts of the Greek world, and the length of the stadion has been the subject of argument and hypothesis for hundreds of years Various hypothetical equivalent lengths have been proposed, and some have been named.” Among them are: Itinerary, Olympic, Ptolemaic or Attic, Babylonian-Persian and Phoenician-Egyptian.
J. L. Berggren, Alexander Jones (2000). Ptolemy’s Geography: An Annotated Translation of the Theoretical Chapters. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691010427.
Edward Gulbekian (1987). The Origin and Value of the Stadion Unit used by Eratosthenes in the Third Century BC. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 37 (4): 359–363. doi:10.1007/BF00417008
Moreover, according to Newlyn; “…Which measure of the stadion is used can affect the interpretation of ancient texts. For example, the error in the calculation of the Earth’s circumference by Eratosthenes or Posidonius is dependent on which stade is chosen to be appropriate. If you divide the circumference of the earth 40,000,000 meters between 216,000 (60 degrees x 60 minutes x 60 seconds), the result is the measure of a stadium, 185 meters.”
Walkup, Newlyn (2005). “Eratosthenes and the Mystery of the Stades”. The MAA Mathematical Sciences Digital Library. Retrieved 2008-07-29.
Further modifications were made. “At the time the AU was introduced, its actual value was very poorly known, but planetary distances in terms of AU could be determined from heliocentric geometry and Kepler’s laws of planetary motion. The value of the AU was first estimated by Jean Richer and Giovanni Domenico Cassini in 1672. By measuring the parallax of Mar from two locations on the Earth, they arrived at a figure of about 140 million kilometers.” This foundation was also modified by Edmond Halley and Simon Newcomb in 1761 and 1769, and then again in 1874 and 1882, using the transits of Venus, aberrations and parallax. We have already looked into parallax and have proven it to be faulty in chapter two.
With reference to Eratosthenes’ model, his measurements for a Globe Earth can easily be inverted to support a flat Earth model, like it once was in the Chinese book Huainanzi in the 2nd Cent BCE, which we briefly mentioned in our chronological outline “Eratosthenes’ model depends on the assumption that the sun is far away and therefore produces parallel rays of light all over the earth. If the sun is nearby, then shadows will change length even for a flat Earth.
“…The vertical stick casts shadows that grow longer as the stick moves to the left, away from the closest point to the sun. (The Sun is at height h above the earth.) A little trigonometry shows that…
h(tan ∅² – tan ∅¹) = b
Using the values 50 degrees and 60 degrees as measured on the trip, with b=1000 miles, we find that h is approximately 2000 miles. This relatively close Sun would have been quite plausible to the ancients.
Continuing the calculation, we find that a is approximately 2400 miles and the two distances R1 and R2 are approximately 3000 and 3900 miles, respectively.
That is, as we move from Florida to Pennsylvania, our distance from the sun increases by about 30%. As a consequence, the apparent size of the Sun should decrease by 30%. We see no noticeable change in the apparent size of the Sun as we make the trip. We conclude that the flat Earth/near Sun model does not work.”
However, the writers conclusion is faulty. The Sun actually does change size as it rises and sets. The changing of its size is due to perspective as it circles the Earth and goes away from us. It can also be seen circling as it shrinks. There are many videos that show this to be a fact. There is no other way to get a distance for the Sun. Just looking at it from a single point on Earth will not tell you its distance, you must look at it from several points and account for the curvature or non-curvature of the distance between those points.
Moreover, “It is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense medium it appears larger, or magnified, at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or foggy atmosphere. Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame; on going away to many times the distance, the light upon the atmosphere will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and vapour(y) it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset, the Sun’s light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than at mid-day; besides which, the air near the Earth is both more dense, and holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through which the Sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or magnified, as well as modified in color.”
Earth Not a Globe, Samuel Birley Rowbotham
We have already looked at the growth and origins of the heliocentric model, parallax and aberrational discoveries in chapters one and two; and as such, none of them hold water because their foundations are questionable and suspect to say the least. It is therefore fairly obvious that the methods that are used, including their mathematical equations, are only set to theory. And where that theory then eventually becomes scientific law, their version of measurements and calculations seem to validate their theory. Repeat a theory, like gravity, long enough and it becomes a fact – hence “the law of gravity.” Yet, they themselves know it to be still just a theory. And that law(s) eventually finds its way into radio space probes and other mechanical flying objects, seemingly convincing generation after generation of its alleged validity.
They must adhere to these laws because; “This approach makes all results dependent on the gravitational constant.” But again, gravity itself is suspect and it is just a theory. The theory itself works, But only because they create the math to do so. They do so to confirm their foundations. But when one looks at the actual origins of these foundations; like the naming of the planets (“Wandering Stars”) one is, or should be, convinced otherwise.
The Naming of Planets – Our Wandering Stars.
As we have learned above, the word planet actually means “wandering star.” Yet, many in antiquity chose to call, and give, these stars specific pagan names like; Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn and Mercury, etc.
All planets were named after ancient Roman gods, except for the Earth. No one is quite sure why the Earth was named the Earth, though there are speculations; including Biblical and other works of Holy Writ. We do know that the word “Earth” is an English/German word which means “Ground.” It is also interesting to note that the ‘Book of Enoch,’ a non-Canonical Biblical Book (dated 300-200BC overall) records the day when men will use the names of pagan gods to name certain stars. This first happened during the Grecian empire circa 300BC. After the fall of the empire, conquering Rome simply renamed them – that is those that were observable during their days. The citation is found in Enoch Chapter 80.
In verses 6-7, the Book cites;
“6. And many chiefs of the stars shall transgress the order prescribed. And these shall alter their orbits and tasks, and not appear at the seasons prescribed to them.
7. And the whole order of the stars shall be concealed from the sinners, and the thoughts of those on the earth shall err concerning them, [And they shall be altered from all their ways], Yea, they shall err and take them to be gods.”
However, it is said that, “This section of the Book is presumed by some scholars to date somewhere between the 1st Cent’ BCE. to 170 BCE. It contains a text called the “Apocalypse of Weeks” which some scholars believe to have been written at about 167 BCE.” This oracle (prophecy), was written well before 45BCE – a year that saw Julius Caesar hire Sosigenes, an Egyptian astronomer, to work out a new 12 month calendar. Enoch also makes mention of the 12 month calendar, as prescribed by God. A calendar contrary to the Roman pagan calendar. Even our days of the week and months of the year are named after pagan gods. The naming of celestial objects after Roman gods is still practiced today. When no name is given, an object simply remains unnamed, as a number, until a pagan Roman name, or its equivalent in other languages, is given onto it as astronomers see fit.
So if they are truly stars, then when did they become “rocky” or “gaseous giants?” Answer: There are at least 4 ways that this is done. The first way is by sending a fly by robotic ship, the second is by dropping a robotic ship onto its surface; like Mars and Jupiter, the third way is actually sending an astronaut to a surface; like the Moon (but this, the Apollo Missions, have always been a debatable question), and the fourth is by looking through a telescope on Earth. However, “In almost every case, whether it is an instrument actually on the planet, or a telescope looking up from the Earth, scientists use some variation of an instrument called a spectrometer.”
The Spectrometer and the Planets (Wandering Stars)
“A spectrometer is a scientific instrument used to separate and measure spectral components of a physical phenomenon.” (Wiki) It uses signals. “Spectrometers take a signal from whatever they are looking at and and spread the signal out into its components. Most spectrometers work with light and are a lot like extremely good prisms; they take the light coming from some object and separate it out into its colors. This is useful because it turns out that every element on the periodic table only gives off light of a few certain colors. So if we spread out the light coming from some object and see only certain colors, then we can match those colors to the elements that produce them.”
The following picture from ‘Periodic Table’ shows us the different colors of the table.
But the following picture shows the Periodic Table with different colors. Moreover, one can choose any color.
“In chemistry, the CPK coloring is a popular color convention for distinguishing atoms of different chemical elements in molecular models. The scheme is named after the CPK molecular models designed by chemists Robert Cory and Linus Pauling, and improved by Walter Koltun.” (Wiki) The following two pictures show its colors. (Wiki)
The above pictures confirm what I just wrote; “One can choose any color” for any element. “There is no standard set of colors used to identify element groups or other properties. Colors are selected based on how well the text shows up against them, but mostly it’s just a matter of personal preference. You can find periodic tables in a variety of color schemes.”
To be more precise, astronomers use the instrument called the optical spectrometer which utilizes the electromagnetic spectrum, measures light intensity and wavelengths; and all of this is matched and compared to chosen colors inserted in the spectrometer itself – that is the colors of the Periodic Table. BUT what are their colors? Answer: There are none. Elements are given colors by men (scientists, chemists and astronomers). In actuality, and therefore if, objects give off certain conformational characteristics, are not those confirmations based upon any given chosen color? Yes, they are. For more on spectrometers; their history and how they work, click the two links below…
Therefore, the information that we receive concerning our Wandering Stars are invalid and are hence circumstantially influenced by exterior means outside of the spectrometer itself. And as such, we can not ascertain for a certainty what our Wandering Stars are made up of rockey surfaces and various gaseous elements are merely poor hypothetical conclusions that have no basis in fact, since spectrums of light are just randomly chosen.
However, in reference to robotic landings and their pictures allegedly showing rocky surfaces seem to all indicate the validity of the spectrometer. However, it must be understood that; “The first spectroscope was invented in 1859 by the German chemist Robert Wilhelm Bunsen and the German physicist Gustav Robert Kirchhoff. It was used to identify materials that emit light when heated.” Moreover, Today, they are entirely automated and controlled by a computer, and the measurement of spectral lines is done using a photodetector.
If such robotic rover landings are the things of reality, certainly the confirmation of spectrometer findings are not. And if they are not, then the images, I say, are an elaborate hoax. And since the color spectrum can be chosen to suit an anticipated color of a particular object in space, then images that are downloaded into the system can also be digitally enhanced or altered. NASA admits to actually doing this.
“Getting the colors right is not an exact science,” says Bell. “Giving an approximate view of what we’d see if we were there involves an artistic, visionary element as well – after all, no one’s ever been there before. However, great pains are taken to be as accurate as possible, short of going there ourselves.
To give people a sense of being on Mars, scientists combine views through telescopes, data from past Mars missions, and new information from the current mission to create a color-balanced, uniform scene. Color-corrected mosaics simulate the view a person would see if all the images in the mosaic were taken on the same day, at the same moment.
In addition, the rovers can take three pictures in a row of the same surface area on Mars using three different primary color filters – red, green, and blue – to make one color image. “It works a little like an inkjet color printer, which combines primary colors to create various shades on paper,” explains Eric De Jong, Lead for the Solar System Visualization Team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. “Then, we can tweak the color just like you can adjust the color balance on a TV screen at home.” – NASA, JPL
Furthermore, there are many reputable pictures that confirm this. For I.e., we have amateur photographs of Mars (and other Wandering Stars) that do not match those given to us by NASA.
Here is another picture by an amateur with a better telescope.
And now here is NASA’s version of Mars, as taken directly from their website, and one from the BBC.
The following picture depicts NASA’s CGI enhancements and add-ons of our wondering stars (minus the Earth. Earth is not a wondering star; and therefore should not be called a planet). But they believe it moves and have classified it as such. But this is not the case.
Clearly anybody can tell that these images are either altered, computer generated, or even worse; matte paintings. Or they could be color coded filtered Periodic Table colors at their worst. Enhancing the argument for an elaborate hoax, is the fact that NASA’s base of operations pertaining to their Mars Rover programs are actually rehearsed and practised at an isolated island called ‘Devons Island’ in Canada. Many believe that all of the alleged photos taken supposedly on Mars are really taken on Devon’s Island. The following pictures demonstrates this.
The media called it the “Mars rat,” but this is actually an arctic lemming and it is commonly found on – you guessed it – Devon Island.
The next two pictures contain two identical landscapes.
There are other pictures of confirmation, but I decided to only share these. However, mainstream discredits the “Mars Rat” as pareidolia. Pareidolia is the tendency for incorrect perception of a stimulus as an object, pattern or meaning known to the observer. Common examples are perceived images of animals, faces, or objects in cloud formations, or lunar pareidolia like the Man in the Moon or the Moon rabbit (Wiki).
The mechanics, measurements, the AU’s and the definitions involved in finding out more about Wandering Stars, are the same methods used to measure distant fixed non-wandering stars. Except in this case, the measurement is allegedly to large of a number to write down when finding the distance between anything beyond the Sun or outer Solar System. In other words, the AU is no longer a practical means of measurement. They need a larger unit: The Lightyear.
Section 2: The Stars: Our Fixed Non-Wandering Stars
According to mainstream science, the closet star besides the Sun is Alpha Centauri. “There are two main stars that make up Alpha Centauri, they are Alpha Centaur A and Alpha Centauri B, which form a binary pair. They are an average of 4.3 light-years from Earth. The third star is Proxima Centaur. It is about 4.22 light-years from Earth and is the closest star other than the Sun.”
“It’s the nearest star system to our sun at 4.3 light-years away. That’s about 25 trillion miles (40 trillion km) away from Earth – nearly 300,000 times the distance from the Earth to the Sun. Or it can be written as 2.528 x 10¹³ miles.”
These stars, and the others after them, are said to be at vast great distances. They are so far that science created a new form of measurement. A measurement performed based upon what they call a lightyear. BUT what is the lightyear based upon? What is its foundation?
“The dimensions of the cosmos are so large that using familiar units of distance, such as meters or miles, chosen for their utility on Earth, would make little sense. Instead, we measure distance with the speed of light.” …”That unit of length, the distance light goes in a year, is called a lightyear. It measures not time but distances – enormous distances.”
Cosmos, By Carl Sagan. Random House Books, New York; 1980. Pg 5.
The term lightyear was “First known published use was in 1838, the German astronomer Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel (and not the Scottish astronomer Thomas Henderson, as is often mentioned) was the first to use the lightyear as a unit of measurement in astronomy.”
“It is the distance that light can travel in one year. The AU is defined as the average distance between the Earth and the Sun.” (As we have learned already T. Perez).
“One lightyear is almost six trillion miles. And an astronomical unit is the average distance between the Earth and the Sun. So the distance to the Sun is by definition one AU.”
“…While there is no authoritative decision on which year is used, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) recommends the Julian year.”
“The lightyear is most often used when expressing distances to stars and other distances on a galactic scale, especially in non-specialist and popular science publications. The unit most commonly used in professional astrometry is the parsec.” (As opposed to the confusion that the phrase “year” in “lightyear” can entail. T. Perez).
International Astronomical Union, Measuring the Universe: The IAU and Astronomical Units, retrieved 10 November 2013
The method of using this new type of unit was applied to the star 61 Cygni. Bessel used a 6.2-inch (160 mm) heliometer designed by Joseph von Fraunhofer. The heliometer was the first successful measurements of stellar parallax (to determine the distance to a star).
Zeilik, Michael A.; Gregory, Stephan A. (1998). Introductory Astronomy & Astrophysics (4th ed.). Saunders College Publishing.
In those terms, trigonometric calculations based on 61 Cygni’s parallax of 0.314 arc-seconds, showed the distance to the star to be 660000 astronomical units (9.9×1013 km or 6.1×1013 mi). Bessel added that light employs 10.3 years to traverse this distance. Bessel recognized that his readers would enjoy the mental picture of the approximate transit time for light, but he refrained from using the lightyear as a unit.
He may have resented expressing distances in lightyears because it would deteriorate the accuracy of his parallax data due to multiplying with the uncertain parameter of the speed of light. The speed of light was not yet precisely known in 1838; its value changed in 1849 (Fizeau) and 1862 (Foucault). It was not yet considered to be a fundamental constant of nature, and the propagation of light through the aether or space was still difficult to understand and problematic. Nevertheless, the lightyear unit appeared, in 1851 in a German popular astronomical article by Otto Ule. The aether was voted against – though many disagreed with the consensus of voting against the aether, as we have learned in chapter one – and parallax became the accepted standard form of calculation. Later the speed of light became, according to mainstream science, a constant. But this was often challenged in the past and still is. The speed of light may not be constant physicists say. Light doesn’t always travel at the speed of light.
Here is another link in reference to the speed of light. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all
Moreover, a contemporary German popular astronomical book also noticed that lightyear is an odd name. In 1868 an English journal labelled the lightyear as a unit used by the Germans. Eddington called the lightyear an inconvenient and irrelevant unit, which had sometimes crept from popular use into technical investigations.
Diesterweg, Adolph Wilhelm (1855).Populäre Himmelskunde u. astronomische Geographie. p. 250.
The Student and Intellectual Observer of Science, Literature and Art. Retrieved 1 November 2014.
Stellar movements and the structure of the universe”. Retrieved 1 November 2014.
It is blatantly obvious that the accepted forms of mainstream scientific academia is based upon a one sided vote. A “heliocentric only please” model, faulty colors based upon one’s own choosing on how the spectrum of color(s) should look when deciding what a Wandering Star is made of; when they really have no color at all to base what they believe is nickel, iron or rocky, various Greek stadia’s as standardized units which gave birth to the AU, “clearing of neighborhoods” due to the theory of gravity – which has not been proven to even exist and the creation of the lightyear (parsec), etc; are all due to non-conclusive definitions and hyper theoretical suppositions because “it seems to work” in their version. Their version is just too far fetched and, well, quite methodically malicious and manipulative.
Simpler and less complicated calculations can work on a flat Earth and its local celestial bodies just as well. It can work only if; we demand a recount, if we were to return to the basics, do the research, do the math and apply Ockham’s Razor into the mix. And to remember, most importantly, never to fall into the snare of falling dominoes ever again.