Oct 4·edited Oct 4Liked by Dr Ferdinand Santos III
Your history lessons are both startling and have that ring of truth. Something occurred to me re: moon landing.
If the geocentric math was popular up until Einstein maybe the reason the GI Generation could get to the moon with pencil and paper math was that the geocentric math was simple, easier and truthful. Accurate to reality. And the reason we 'can't go back' is that the Einstein era math, which would have been taught right after to Baby Boomers, is both overly complicated to require super computers and is so wrong that all new space equipment needs to constantly self-correct for the baked in errors.
A big argument from the 'we never went to the moon' side is how we mysteriously stopped trying and constantly failed when we did after the GI generation died despite our greater computing power. But it would also be possible that if the math was suddenly replaced with wrong math, as is portrayed in the history you describe, that nothing they made would ever work no matter what.
In schools they taught me that heliocentrism totally replaced geocentrism for hundreds of years but your assertion that heliocentrism only dominated in totality for only 80 years or so makes a lot of the technological stagnation make more sense. It could be why planes haven't really gotten better nor satellites, space travel etc.
Good comment, thanks. Yes the phenomena are explained by the Tychonic system just as well as the Copernican. There is no difference between the 2, confirmed by Einstein and Hawking. There is no mechanical proof to support the Copernican viewpoint, light experiments fail to detect the Earth's 30 km/sec movement.
Einstein's maths was inferior to that of Lorentz and others and was accepted as such in 1905. This was one of the reasons he received all the credit. His language was easier to understand. It doen't make the maths relevant or true. He never did experiments and said many times his goal was to make physics a thought experiment with theories explaining everything.
The Copernican system was never proven by Copernicus nor Galileo. Kepler's maths were the main support some 100 years after Copernicus, but if you look at epicycles and complexity, Copernicanism in reality is more complex than Ptolemy's system and the Tychonic. The only physical proof of heliocentricity might be eclipses though again other models explain these as well.
Re the moon, consider that ISS is 200 miles up, and the moon is ~250.000 miles away. The radiation in space is alive and violent. Space is not empty but teeming with fields, forces, energy and cosmic events. I just don't believe that we are smart enough to go there and back through the radiation, with enough fuel, performing complicated maneuvers that were never performed on Earth, without computers (1960s), and without navigation software. The photos and videos show clear fraud and Kubrick of course in 1998 admitted it was a film (his greatest work he said). :) As with Rona, clear patterns of mendacity and deceit. And of course, a massive industry was created....
I remember reading years ago about the academic environment surrounding Einstein's theory. Lorentz's peers saw Einstein lobbying for his theory and urge him to fight. His reply was "I'm sixty. I want to spend time with my grandchildren". I wish I had saved the link to that article.
Hi Dave, yes spot on. I You are one of the few that know about Lorentz :) Great quote. Relativity used to be called the Lorentz-Einstein postulate as well at one point. But the Einsteinians got rid of Lorentz and so many others. Lorentz believed in the aether, Einstein did not (1905), then did (1916). He even writes later on that physics does not work without an aether. No Lorentz, no Einstein. I don't know Mr Crothers but I will view your link. Thanks for sending.
Your history lessons are both startling and have that ring of truth. Something occurred to me re: moon landing.
If the geocentric math was popular up until Einstein maybe the reason the GI Generation could get to the moon with pencil and paper math was that the geocentric math was simple, easier and truthful. Accurate to reality. And the reason we 'can't go back' is that the Einstein era math, which would have been taught right after to Baby Boomers, is both overly complicated to require super computers and is so wrong that all new space equipment needs to constantly self-correct for the baked in errors.
A big argument from the 'we never went to the moon' side is how we mysteriously stopped trying and constantly failed when we did after the GI generation died despite our greater computing power. But it would also be possible that if the math was suddenly replaced with wrong math, as is portrayed in the history you describe, that nothing they made would ever work no matter what.
In schools they taught me that heliocentrism totally replaced geocentrism for hundreds of years but your assertion that heliocentrism only dominated in totality for only 80 years or so makes a lot of the technological stagnation make more sense. It could be why planes haven't really gotten better nor satellites, space travel etc.
Hi Dave,
Good comment, thanks. Yes the phenomena are explained by the Tychonic system just as well as the Copernican. There is no difference between the 2, confirmed by Einstein and Hawking. There is no mechanical proof to support the Copernican viewpoint, light experiments fail to detect the Earth's 30 km/sec movement.
Einstein's maths was inferior to that of Lorentz and others and was accepted as such in 1905. This was one of the reasons he received all the credit. His language was easier to understand. It doen't make the maths relevant or true. He never did experiments and said many times his goal was to make physics a thought experiment with theories explaining everything.
The Copernican system was never proven by Copernicus nor Galileo. Kepler's maths were the main support some 100 years after Copernicus, but if you look at epicycles and complexity, Copernicanism in reality is more complex than Ptolemy's system and the Tychonic. The only physical proof of heliocentricity might be eclipses though again other models explain these as well.
Re the moon, consider that ISS is 200 miles up, and the moon is ~250.000 miles away. The radiation in space is alive and violent. Space is not empty but teeming with fields, forces, energy and cosmic events. I just don't believe that we are smart enough to go there and back through the radiation, with enough fuel, performing complicated maneuvers that were never performed on Earth, without computers (1960s), and without navigation software. The photos and videos show clear fraud and Kubrick of course in 1998 admitted it was a film (his greatest work he said). :) As with Rona, clear patterns of mendacity and deceit. And of course, a massive industry was created....
I remember reading years ago about the academic environment surrounding Einstein's theory. Lorentz's peers saw Einstein lobbying for his theory and urge him to fight. His reply was "I'm sixty. I want to spend time with my grandchildren". I wish I had saved the link to that article.
Are you familiar with Stephen Crothers? If not, I think you'll like him. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=stephen+crothers+relativity
Hi Dave, yes spot on. I You are one of the few that know about Lorentz :) Great quote. Relativity used to be called the Lorentz-Einstein postulate as well at one point. But the Einsteinians got rid of Lorentz and so many others. Lorentz believed in the aether, Einstein did not (1905), then did (1916). He even writes later on that physics does not work without an aether. No Lorentz, no Einstein. I don't know Mr Crothers but I will view your link. Thanks for sending.