Oh I see. No, the atom bondage thing doesn’t work. …

Comment on Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1) by Wild Heretic.

Oh I see. No, the atom bondage thing doesn’t work. It is precisely that reason that “gravity-as-atom-glue” is invoked which keeps everything together.

Wild Heretic Also Commented

Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)
One possibility (look under “planets”): http://www.wildheretic.com/what-are-the-astronomical-bodies/

Personally, I much prefer the other idea that retrograde motion is caused by speed variation/planet tilt. The idea in my CET is that the sun is the outermost body near the center of the cavity and spins the slowest. The rest are inside the sun’s orbit a little bit closer to the center of the cavity. Sometimes when a planet gets too close to the sun/moon it is attracted/repelled to or from that body (or maybe other planets as well) which slows the planet down, or speeds it up. Something like that.

It has been a while since I looked at Jupiter in Stellarium and got latitude readings at the equator over 5 years, so my mind isn’t fresh on the above theory. I have yet to get the longitude data for Jupiter for example and compare it to the sun’s position.

It isn’t something I am concentrating on right now.


Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)

“Gravity may be a push, but that doesn’t actually matter. Whichever you assume, push or pull, it has the same effect. And it is pretty clear that it is caused by mass.”

How clear? What experiment? Cavendish? Other possible interpretations. Current cosmology is incredibly fragile to the point of a nudge here and a tap there, it falls over. I’ve had enough.

Gravity – observations and theory

“If you negate the velocity given to you by the surface (assuming the Earth is spinning), the surface will spin under you.”

At what altitude do you “negate” the velocity under you by the surface? 99km, 101km? Is it a sudden relative shift from 1 meter to the next, or perhaps over 100m? No info from the space boys and no clarity. It’s just a bogus theoretical concept found not to exist in reality up to at least 39km, and when they eventually sent rockets up there in the 40s they knew the correct earth model and more. They are lying to you.

An isolated system that is spinning will spin forever- no outside force needed. Why did Earth start spinning? The early universe must have been spinning. Why? No idea. But you don’t know how a geocentric universe came into existence either. If you think about it, why shouldn’t things spin? Of all the different speeds and directions the universe could spin in, what are the odds that it would be zero?

It all boils down to a purely abstract concept of “gravity”, which has yet to be detected. Spinning balls forever relies on a big bang theory which goes from bad to worse. What if Newton, as he was sold to you, was wrong and there is no so far undetected force from mass called gravity? It’s all hocus pocus. They have the wrong thought experiment. But they know this. It is we who are the chumps, not they.


Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)

“You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds.
In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that.
What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

They present everything they say as fact, which is bothersome to me, and dishonest.

I thinks this sort of science is philosophical science, there is nothing wrong with that. However the same scientist that study this multiverse theory are claiming that philosophy is dead. There is no need for philosophy, science is the answer they claim. (Stephan Hawking, Lawrence krauss)

The irony. They know this of course. The joke is on us.

The earth and the atmosphere are both spinning at the same rate (according to the heliocentric model) with high speeds at the equator and lesser speeds towards the poles.
Where does the space shuttle reenters earth’s atmosphere and is the space shuttle following the spin of the earth? If not wouldn’t it be impossible to reenter the earth due to the fact that the atmosphere would hit the shuttle with the strength of a tornado? This due to the fact the atmosphere is supposed to be spinning at the same rate as the solid ground on earth.

I wondered about that myself. When does the earth suddenly spin relative to the observer? 100km? So at 70km, 90km 95km, 99km I am spinning with the earth, then at that magic number suddenly the earth is spinning below me. Sounds like a tall theory and not one well explained.


Recent Comments by Wild Heretic

New forum
Thanks Trevin.

I like alternative theories to gravity because I don’t believe in the official narrative. The question is if any of these theories is true or not? I don’t know. At the moment I am sticking with gravity coming from the sun. What that is, I don’t know.

“As another separate thing, I know that gravity is a pull and not a push because of tops; tops can’t spin with their sides as close to the ground as they get without these sides being pushed directly to the ground if gravity is a push. ”

I don’t think wobble matters either way. It’s the angular momentum keeping the top up, isn’t it?


New forum
Gary, you have to sign up and then I will approve you. After approval, you can reply to posts or start threads.


There is glass in the sky
Very difficult question. I don’t know. I assume the creator(s) of this biosphere. What then is the purpose of this biosphere?

The glass could be needed to add extra pressure to keep the flood waters below the earth, and/or to block out some of the harsh sunlight radiation. It seems to be a key component to the biosphere.


Why hide the concave earth?
Monsters Inc is older than this article I think, so I would say they got it from the source, which is Monroe’s books.


Space machines do not orbit the Earth
When you are at Davos, you can ask them.

There are satellites up there IMO, just their deployment is not as we are told. Why? Because they are using heliocentric theory as a cover. Why? I’ll leave you to figure that one out.


Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.