Sunday, March 30, 2014

THEOREM ON PLANETARY MOTION



  1. Every planet in the Universe is stationary unless a force field is applied
  2. Every star in the Universe is a mini solar system
  3. Every solar system contains a minimum of one planet
  4. The Sun of every solar system, the star revolves about the planets.  The planets do not revolve about the Sun
  5. Every Sun is an artificial source of energy, ie; man made
  6. It is possible to have nine planets in our solar system
  7. The planets rotate about their own axis, thus creating day and night
  8. The planets precess about the other axis, thus creating the seasons
  9. The planetary motion is artificial, ie; man made
  10. The moon is an artificial satellite, ie; man made
  11. The motion of the moon is artificial, ie; man made
  12. Every planet is created by a higher power, ie; a Lord
  13. Every planet consists of a force of gravity
  14. The Sun has no gravity
  15. The Sun is just a light source
  16. Every Sun has to be created to provide light for planets
  17. Without a star, every planet is a black hole
  18. Man created fire; the Sun is nothing more than fire

The basic necessity for the survival of the human civilization is fire!  Man created the Sun!






The central idea to this theory is that God created the planets and life.  There was no big bang.  There will be no big crunch.  There is no expansion of the universe.  This conclusion was arrived upon by the basic premise that life, as distinguished from matter, life with consciousness needed creation.  A greater force needed to intervene.  The hand of great power.  Life could not have come about via the big bang.  Not only am I discrediting Hawkings’ big bang theory, but also Darwins’ theory on evolution.  Evolution is rubbish.  We did not evolve from monkeys.  The great apes might have fancied one of our pretty ladies and raped her to create half breed babies, which might have generated confusion for the great scientists when the bones of these creatures were unearthed, however the fact stands; it is not possible for our bone and genetic structure to evolve!

It’s not possible for a big bang to have occurred or for matter to just coalesce and gravity just form magically.  Gravity needed a creator and it most definitely wasn’t mankind.  When mankind were created and delivered to the planets, it had to have gravity as man had to been able to stand on ground.  There would have been food, as vegetation manages to weed through the most treacherous of terrain.  One might think I’m a Bible basher, however I propose that all the religious literature on offer has as much insight as the big bang theory.  I believe mankind were created on planets with gravity but set in darkness, i.e. no sun.  Mankind were created and delivered to a black hole, a planet without a sun.  God played his part in creation, it is just a matter of how much did he create.  It is possible to envision a world where he created day and night, as the bible preaches, however with all the confusion around the world about religious doctrines, it is more rational to reason sensibly with what is known.  At present there is no factual data about the motions of the planets.  The motions between the sun and the earth is what gives us day, night and the seasons.  There have been theories about planetary motion in the ages, however none of the philosophers had any knowledge of present day rocket science.  With manufacturing in space technologies, the universe has become smaller.  What was once impossible to envision is a possibility today.  I propose that the planets do not rotate about the sun and the planets are stationary unless a force field is applied.  God did not create day and night; that was the ingenuity of mankind in an innovative quest to escape darkness.  Man created fire.  

Man would have survived the darkness and the cold, however as soon as they discovered fire, they would have craved the heat and benefits of light.  Although script would have taken thousands of years to develop, once the language barrier was overcome, from the industrial revolution to the space age, it took only two centuries.  With that in mind, the task of putting a perpetual light bulb in the sky is not impossible, it just would have taken time, inevitable.  That is my hypotheses; man created the sun.  Within the universe, there are millions of planets.  Considering the fact that we really have no data on the age of the universe, man theoretically was created at the beginning of time and since there is no time scale, for time has no boundaries, mankind could have explored the whole universe (although theoretically the universe has no boundaries, only exploration to discover and expand).  If man have conquered rocket science today, there is no evidence that man could not have conquered rocket science centuries, if not millenia ago.  I propose the theory that mankind has already left Earth and exist in harmony with other beings from outer space, on other planets and in space.  The only thing space travel needed was street lamps; the sun was created by mankind.

For a star, the sun, to exist, there must be a reason for creating it.  Mankind didn’t just put light bulbs in the sky to look pretty; they serve a purpose.  They provide light, heat and energy to the planets.  I believe that once one sun was built to provide light, for say, Earth, there was no reason to stop building lights.  One for the day, one for the night, one for the nine planets in close vicinity, and other bulbs for planets who are a little bit distant.  It’s like building space satellites or space shuttles; you don’t just build one and then turn the television on.  The work goes on.  Knowledge grows exponentially and with developments into space technologies, travel through space to the distant planets is not impossible.

There is a lot of confusion about what revolves about what but the fact of the matter is that we will never know unless we travel further out into space to be able to escape the solar orbits and observe from an outside viewpoint.  There was Ptolemy, Aristotle and Copernicus with their brilliant theories about the motions of the planets.  One person thought that the sun and the other planets revolved about Earth.  Someone else thought everything revolved about the sun.  I think everyone got it wrong and I am entitled to my own opinion.  I offered my hypotheses.  The planets do not revolve about the sun.  The sun was created by man and it revolves about the planets.  We could have nine planets in our solar system, with the sun revolving about all of them, while the planets are stationary.  Man created the sun and set it in motion about the planets to create seasonal harmony.

The sun emits light and heat.  These are energy.  Energy is being created inside the sun.  I hypothesize that hydrogen is being fissioned inside the sun.  A nuclear reactor inside the sun.  The sun is no more than an automatic nuclear reactor in motion about the planets.  Mankind needed light, heat and energy and they developed the sun and threw it into space, controlling its’ motion via satellite.  If it’s possible with present day technology, there’s no reason why mankind could not have done it some time in the past.  They could have built rockets and shot them off into space, never to return.  Our ancestors could have left us behind.  It would have been too difficult to take everyone.  Considering the task of the human race living in peace and harmony in present time, it is not impossible to envision a time in the past when mankind were in turmoil, conflict with neighbours.  One group of people managed to escape and left, bombing the aggressors, leaving behind nothing but the pyramids and caves to show supremacy.  Future generations of survivors would never know about the advanced sciences of their ancestral neighbors.

It is not possible for nine planets and all their moons to possess gravity and be in motion at the same time.  There would be a collision.  Planetary motion is currently modelled on the atomic theory.  Apparently the electrons are like the planets, while the sun is the nucleus.  In the atomic theory, the electrons are in haphazard motion about the nucleus, however they never collide because they repel each other.  As for the planets, they all possess gravity and attract each other.  A simplistic model of the universe shows all the planets orbiting the sun on one plane.  In reality the motions of the planets should be like the electrons; orbiting in different planes simultaneously, while constantly changing orbiting planes haphazardly.  With the atomic theory model, the planets will definitely collide.  Then there’s the problem of the forces that cause the planets to orbit in the first place.  If we are to believe current day scientists, this motion is caused by the gravity of the sun.  Apparently it is the sun that causes the planets to orbit, however the gravity of the sun does not suck all the planets into oblivion.  Pure reason dictates that the current theory on planetary motion is flawed!!!

The motions of the planets can be compared to that of the satellites.  The satellites orbiting Earth are affected by the gravity of Earth.  If the satellites did not have propulsion, they would crash to the ground.  The satellites propel on the tangent of the Earth.  The Earth is spherical.  The satellites are in constant free fall.  They are always affected by the gravity of Earth and are always falling toward Earth.  As they propel away from Earth at a low speed on the tangent, they fix themselves into an orbit and never fall to Earth.  The planets motion are similar.  If we were to assume that the planets are in motion about the sun, they would be in constant propulsion about the tangent of the sun.  Let us not forget that the sun has gravity!  Just like the satellites falling into Earths’ gravity, the planets would fall into the gravity of the sun.  The planets don’t magically revolve about the sun.  There are no strings attached for string theory to be valid.  We have circumnavigated the Earth and there are no jets attached to Earth to be able to propel it in the orbit of the sun.  We know nothing about the sun.  We can however assume that it is not Gods’ hand, but a force that is being applied onto the sun to propel it in the orbit of the planets.

It is not rational to assume that all the planets are in motion about the sun.  They would collide.  It is more reasonable to make the grand assumption that all the planets are stationary, while the sun revolves about all the planets.  It is also not rational to think that God left a perpetual machine in the heavens.  It is reasonable to make another grand assumption that mankind with all his thinking abilities created the sun and set it into motion.  The big bang theory does not explain everything; it has holes.  To achieve day and night is possible by applying an electromagnetic field through the centre of the Earth through the magnetic north and south poles, creating motion (rotation about its own axis).  The seasons can be explained by the precession of the planets due to the electromagnetic fields.  As the sun propels itself around the planets, the change in the night sky would also be observed as per the current star maps.  As for the observations of the moving stars that help explain the expanding universe theory; nothing more than light emitting spaceships (in my theory, a large spaceship is no more than a sun).  The big bang and big crunch are no more than nonsense conjured up by nerds like myself to offer some sort of explanation of the Universe.  After all, one cannot call himself an astrophysicist without having all the answers.

Let us consider the age of the universe for a moment.  We have no facts on the matter, however there are the theories of the archeologists and geologists.  Literature of mankind dates the existence of mankind to no more than five thousand years, however the great scientists suggest that Earth has been around for millions of years.  If our scientific data suggests that the Universe existed for millions of years, where is the evidence of mankind?  The big bang theory also theorizes that the Universe existed for millions of years, however Hawking does not provide an explanation for life.  I propose that God created the Universe and life millions of years ago, however there was no evolution.  Mankind was created at the beginning of our time scale with the Universe.  Mankind did not evolve from monkeys, but were created at the same time as monkeys, but with more intelligence.  With this intelligence, mankind developed language.  As Rousseau  suggests, this development of speech took thousands if not millions of years.  Rousseau also suggests that not all mankind would have developed language at the same rate.  I propose that one group of people would have developed language and tools, while other groups would not have been able to get over their petty squabbles over food.  The advanced groups would have developed rocket science and built the sun.  After they managed to control fire, they would have learnt how to live in space, found other inhabited planets and left Earth.

Any theory that addresses the creation of the universe has to acknowledge the component of time.  If we are to believe Hawkings’ big bang theory, the question of time still poses a problem.  Time is a property that is independent of creation.  Time is a scale on which the universe sits on.  At the beginning of the universe, whether it was the big bang or not, the question of time still exists.  The big bang would be a point on the time scale.  Not at the beginning of time though.  Time would exist prior to the big bang.  The question is what existed before the big bang?  Maybe there was another universe that collapsed.  If we are to believe that God created the universe at a particular time, there still lies the problem of what happened before the creation of the universe.  Time still existed.  Maybe God was twiddling his thumbs away for eternity before he figured out how to create the universe.  Then the problem of infinite regress also exists as we question whether or not God had a creator and so on.  To keep this model simple, we will not question Gods’ creation and we will accept St. Augustines’ answer for the matter of time, “he said that time was property of the universe that God created, and that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe”.  As special relativity would predict, time and space could not have existed prior to the creation of planets

Let us consider the motion of light as it affects our concepts of the universe.  Light behaves like a wave.  The same way sound travels, in wave patterns, and is considered a wave, light cannot be considered to be a particle.  Gravity cannot bend light.  That is absurd as there is no matter for gravity to act upon.  Light is not matter as there are no particles being created or destroyed.  It is simply a matter of photons being excited due to a pulse of the electromagnetic field being activated.  For light to travel, there requires the presence of a substance (matter) to exist within space.  The presence of an an ether in space was a necessity to be able to explain the travel of the light from the sun to the planets.  The problem with this theory is that friction would be generated with the contact of the ether and the planets.  The motions of the planets if affected by the ether would eventually come to a stop, as there is no other means of acceleration acting upon the planets.  The planets would not be able to revolve about the sun with the presence of an ether as they do not have any apparent means of propulsion.  It is easier to assume that the planets are stationary in the first place.  

There is a slight discrepancy with our observations of the celestial pole stars and the theories of planetary motion.  Both north and south pole celestial stars appear at the same point throughout the year.  These stars are approximated to be 500 light years away, where one light year is approximated at 10,000 million kilometers.  Lets not forget that the earth is rotating at a precession of 23 degrees.  With this precession and the distance of the earth to the sun at 150 million kilometers, we can approximate that the celestial south star has to be at a distance of 384 million kilometers to be celestial, while there can’t be a northern celestial star due to the 23 degree precession.  The problem is that we are assuming that the earth is revolving around the sun.  If the earth is revolving around the sun with a 23 degree precession, it is impossible to see the the celestial star in the northern sky throughout the year.  If however the earth is considered to be stationary, then and then only can there be stationary celestial stars.


No comments:

Post a Comment