What are the astronomical bodies?

+++
Sun: As already mentioned, the Sun’s light is very nearly the same as a sulfur lamp and meteors show the Sun to be composed primarily of an iron/nickel alloy with a smidgen of cobalt thrown in (invar?). Therefore the Sun is an inducting light bulb.

Moon: At the moment my best guess is that the moon is the back of the Sun. It has the same analemma as the Sun (figure of 8 in the sky over the year), it is roughly the same size, we never get to see the other side of the moon, and light reflections show that the moon is possibly concave therefore the Sun is convex in order to distribute the light more.

The moon isn’t in the exact opposite side of the sky to the Sun all the time throughout the year, but light doesn’t bend upwards as much at night and also varies seasonally which may give a skewered perception of the moon’s apparent position. The different phases of the moon are probably caused by the gegenschein, which is the dark spot of reflected sunlight at the back of the Sun.

Eclipse: I don’t know what causes this. One guess: Because light bends, the Sun’s light also reflects off its backside (the moon). This reflected light also bends in a similar way to the Sun’s own light during the day and so will reflect back on to the front of the Sun and so on. The dark spot (gegenschein) of the moon’s light may be what obscures the Sun.

However, there is a balloon video showing the 14th November 2012 solar eclipse in Australia at 37km altitude where the Sun’s light (radial brightness) is reduced, but far from blocked. Even videos of the March 2015 solar eclipse filmed from a passenger jet shows a reduction in sunlight, but again, not blocked. This points to a solar eclipse being a low altitude phenomenon in some way.

solar eclipse at 30km
The Sun’s light is merely dampened at 37km, not blocked.
solar eclipse at 11km
The Sun’s light is slightly more reduced at 11km, but not blocked at this altitude.

Meteoroids/asteroids/comets: These are bits of the Sun ejected by electrical surges. Therefore they consist of the same elements as iron meteorites, but super hot.

Galaxies: There is a possibility that space isn’t a vacuum, but was instead filled with argon gas. A sulfur lamp filament surrounds itself with argon gas, so maybe the Sun’s engineers did the same. Argon is the first noble gas molecules found in space in the Crab Nebula. In their theory this is a star that went “poof” a thousand years ago. It is understandable that hydrogen and helium are there (lightest gases), but not argon. What’s the bets that this formed when hydrogen seeped through a meteorite-made hole in the glass and mixed with the noble gas much higher up in the cavity to form argon hydride. Argon may not be such an unreactive gas in the charged thermosphere perhaps.

M1
The crab nebula formed when heated and charged argon gas mixed with light hydrogen gas from the Earth’s atmosphere.

Yes, the crab nebula isn’t a galaxy, but some of them look similar and to be made of gas. Most galaxies are also spiral shaped. Maybe the center is a meteoroid which has gained an electric field (solar wind) therefore also experiences electrical surges which throws out tiny parts from it. These tiny parts follow the star’s field.

Why do only relatively few stars/asteroids gain electric fields to become “galaxies”? Super hot metal is not supposed to be able to have an electric current (highly resistant); however, if the highly reflective shreibersite layer is still on the outside of the iron/nickel meteoroid/star, or actually consists of pure schreibersite only, then these stars will reflect the sunlight away, reducing their temperature enough to form its own electric current as it moves through the cavity’s magnetic field. So galaxies would be bits of the Sun with a low enough temperature to gain an electric field. These galaxies have probably also reacted with hydrogen/argon etc. as well to form gases.

m101
A spiral galaxy (M101) is a star with an electric field (solar wind).

Don’t forget, these pictures from telescopes have been extremely enhanced and aren’t the real deal.

Planets: I don’t know what they are. I would imagine these orbit much like the mainstream model, but circular orbits, not elliptical (most of the time). They would orbit the Sun roughly along the ecliptic (the central flat plane) which is where the two attracting magnetic fields meet. Maybe the planets are made of gas but have been pressurized and condensed due to being wedged in the middle of the two attracting magnetic fields? They take between 88 days and 165 years to orbit the Sun, so they are probably fairly far out from the center.

All the planets sometimes exhibit retrograde motion. This is when one of the planets stops and reverses direction then stops and continues its orbit once again, i.e. it does a loop in the sky over a few months. I don’t know why, but I would guess it is because when this planet is moving below (or above) the ecliptic plane it isn’t so tightly wedged between the two magnetic fields of the Earth cavity. Therefore it would have a tendency to follow the magnetic field “cone” down (or up) changing its angle (inclination) and have one elliptical orbit around the cone over a few months before it returns to its location along the ecliptic and carries on as before.

Apparent_retrograde_motion_of_Mars_in_2003
(Click to animate). The planet inclines down the cone and back up again before continuing its circular orbit along the ecliptic – retrograde motion.

Stars: Like meteoroids and asteroids, stars are exactly the same thing – bits of the Sun ejected due to electrical surges. The only difference is their location. I have two possible ideas: 1. They tightly and very slowly orbit the Sun in the same direction it is rotating in the cavity because they are caught in the Sun’s electromagnetic field. This very slow orbiting around the Sun allows them to move 4 minutes faster than the Sun’s rotation – a sidereal day (23 hr 56 min). 2. They are on the boundaries of the two toroidal attracting magnetic fields (the nutshell) which is quite a distance from the Sun in the center. If they were this far out, I can’t see them orbiting faster than the Sun, so I’m not partial to this idea.

Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to What are the astronomical bodies?

  1. BlueMoon says:

    How might you explain the transit of Venus that occurred in 2012? I and my entire family observed it, along with thousands of other people, and it happened exactly when predicted by heliocentric model. Also, how is your explanation of retrograde motion in any way better than the heliocentric model? The heliocentric model predicts and explains all the observations of astronomy, including the many forms of eclipses, and does so in an elegant manner without making things up as it goes along.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      How might you explain the transit of Venus that occurred in 2012? I and my entire family observed it, along with thousands of other people, and it happened exactly when predicted by heliocentric model.

      When I study the planets I will let you know. My concave earth theory is also heliocentric, so I imagine there will be a lot of similarities.

      Also, how is your explanation of retrograde motion in any way better than the heliocentric model? The heliocentric model predicts and explains all the observations of astronomy, including the many forms of eclipses, and does so in an elegant manner without making things up as it goes along.

      No. HT requires very complex mathematics and explanations. Have you read the math behind the sun analemma? That is just one example where the mathematicians really had their work cut out for them to try and make things fit together. Same with “apparent” retrograde motion. Not elegant in the slightest. Same with the moon locking (the moon just happens to rotate at the necessary speed so that its face never changes from an earth perspective. That incredible coincidence alone should raise alarm bells) which funnily enough its phases they can’t predict accurately anymore. Then there is dark matter and flat/non-flat universe etc.

      The data comes in against the model, so the make really wild assumptions and math to try and fit the data, instead of saying “hey look, our model looks like it is wrong. Let’s go back to the drawing board and start again. Where have we been assumptive? What are the alternatives which could work?” That happened to me when doing the concave Earth thesis. I thought I had it with the Sun mechanics, but many things didn’t fit and gel too well without me having to bend over backwards and apologize for stuff. I looked at the options and went for the other Sun mechanic option instead and things fitted like a glove. I had to bite the bullet first though. Easier for me, as I am a man and his blog with no career incentive or family to support from those endeavors.

      Any theory can be made to predict anything. All you need is a computer and data. Heliocentric theory isn’t too far wrong though in that respect, in my opinion.

      View Comment