Analemma from Earth

[dsscheibe1]

It is produced by the motions of the earth around the sun and rotation of the view point from earth. Our polar tilt which produces our seasons causes the up and down motion.

[toddbronco2]

@dsscheibe1 Yeah, you should probably ignore that comment by "77GLinger" because he's one of those idiot new-agy holistic morons and thinks that an analemma is related to that somehow.

[77GSlinger]

@toddbronco2 I am not remotely involved in the new age you poor ad hominem attacker. I just saw your lame attack on my comment. Try doing a little research instead of parroting your slave master's paradigm which has ruined this planet and made you its slave.

[77GSlinger]

The analemma is a profound and important piece of evidence in Cosmology, but what is the cause of these motions?

Anyone got a deep non-academic understanding based on the Electric Universe Model?

[WillBlocher]

@77GSlinger It has nothing to do with the "electric universe model". The variation in declination is caused by the tilt of the earth's axis and the change in right ascension is due to the fact that the earth is moving around the sun at different speeds at different points in its orbit (because it's elliptical).

[77GSlinger]

@WillBlocher Yeah, well you have memorized the corporate owned quackademic explanation pretty well, but unfortunately it is provably false and you are wrong, because the electric Universe Model has been proven in great detail. Whereas, the dumbed down newtonian/einsteinian gravity based Universe you are defending is officially dead. See Dr. Bhat's video on youtube "Solar System: A new interpretation" if you are really interested learning the truth about the Analemma. "toddbronco" is clueless!

[WillBlocher]

@77GSlinger I looked up Dr. Bhat's Helical solar system model and I put to you this question: If we are trailing behind the Sun, then why does it appear to move laterally, relative to the background stars, by roughly 1 degree per day?

Also, if I am truly unenlightened, please try to educate me instead of berate me. I'm currently pursuing a minor in Astronomy at Ohio State University and even if that hasn't taught me how the universe works, it has taught me how to have a civilized conversation.

[77GSlinger]

@WillBlocher Listen you called me a moron and new age idiot, so who is berating who? civlized? LMFAO!

Ok you want to see some truth amidst all the academic bullshit you are studying, check out the statistics on how long the outer planets are not visible each year! That should be a real eye opener if you bother to do the work. See the info charts on "naked eye planets" and then get back to me. If you don't get it, write me back and I will go through it very slowly for you so you can understand

[WillBlocher]

@77GSlinger Please check again. I never called you "moron" or a "new age idiot". You're getting me confused with someone who did. I will now go look up information on "naked eye planets." In the meantime, could you answer my question about the sun moving Eastward against the stars by 1 degree per day? Thanks.

[77GSlinger]

@WillBlocher Th sun moves eastward around the galaxy, above and below the galactic ecliptic, but the planets follow in huge helical trajectories as Dr. Keshava Bhat proved with 40 years of astronomical observations taken in equatorial regions around the globe. I have all of the documentation supporting his findings. Copernicus was a catholic military priest with his heliocentric model and lamatrie was a lame catholic priest who created the big wank theory. Its all rigged! Can you see this?

[WillBlocher]

@77GSlinger How long does it take the Sun to go once around the galaxy? Also, what is the angle between the Sun's orbital plane and the galactic plane? I'm just trying to picture this.

[77GSlinger]

@WillBlocher I remember hearing from an academia source it takes about 250 million years years for one galactic revolution. I do not know how much credibility these figures are since much of the academic astronomical information is wrong as is taught n academia.

The Sun's angle to the ecliptic is a sinuous helical trajectory which is constantly changing. The arc of the helix is 25,620 years above or below the galactic ecliptic. "5 Suns" of the Maya each 5,125 years long.

[WillBlocher]

@77GSlinger One thing I'm confused about... If we're going around the milky way, then why do we see it all around the Earth? Shouldn't we only see it on one side of the Earth at a time?

[77GSlinger]

@WillBlocher We are not moving around the very outer edge we are within the milkway, we are supposedly about 3/4ths of the way out from the galactic center according to academic models.

[WillBlocher]

@77GSlinger Ah, okay, yes, that is consistent with my knowledge. However, if the planets were on helical trajectories behind the sun, then it follows that we would never be on the opposite side of the sun from another planet. We see phases of Venus, like phases of the moon, except Venus is "full" when it's close to the sun in the sky, which suggests that it's on the other side, whereas the moon is "new" when it's near the sun in the sky, because it's on the same side. Know what I mean?

[77GSlinger]

@WillBlocher do know what you mean, hwever the outer planets are only nvisble for a few weeks of the year. If they were on the other sde of the Sun they woudl be invisible for many months not a few weeks. The outer planets are invsible due to their positon in their helical trajectores with the Sun being within the 30 degree arc of illumination and that s th reason t s only a few weeks. I have Dr. Bhat's books in pdf. if you would like to read the details of his observatons from equatorial areas

[WillBlocher]

@77GSlinger I have looked over the PDFs you linked to on your website and I still can't seem to justify how we could ever see an illuminated face of a planet that is closer to the sun, e.g. Venus. Furthermore, when we see a lot of the illuminated side of Venus, it has a smaller angular size, suggesting it's further away. If we were on helical trajectories, we'd only ever see Venus in basically the crescent phase.

[77GSlinger]

@WillBlocher "deflecting surfaces like those of planets like Venus, only a crescent

shaped surface is visible due to the planet’s own helical orbit. The

orientation of the crescent indicates the relative position of the planet

on its orbit as seen from the earth’s surface. The images of these

crescents through one full orbit should be sufficient to demonstrate

the helical nature of the orbit (trajectory was the term Dr. Bhat used with me as an amendment).

Page 30 "Helical Helix"

[WillBlocher]

@77GSlinger Mr. Bhat is exactly right in recognizing that a helical trajectory of Venus would result only in crescent phases. However, he is exactly wrong when he says that we DO only see crescent phases. We see Venus take on every phase that the moon does. I PERSONALLY have seen a nearly full Venus through a telescope. When he says "...only a crescent shaped surface is visible..." he is simply lying. All sources, including Bhat, should be approached with skepticism. Be fair.

[77GSlinger]

@WillBlocher Then how do you explain the outer planets not being visible for only a few short weeks?

[WillBlocher]

@77GSlinger I explain it with simple geometry and the heliocentric model. Who told you that the accepted model predicts that the outer planets should disappear for months? Let me guess. His last name starts with a "B"?

[77GSlinger]

@WillBlocher Dr Bhat did not tell me that! It s plain and simple logic. The outer planets would have to be invisible for many months not a few weeks if the helio-centric model was correct, because they would be hidden by the Sun from the Earth's perspective, they are not however. See naked eye planets for the statistcs and also look at the changing angles of the rings of Saturn which show the path of our mutual helical trajectories, its plain as day! You should read Dr. Bhat's book!

[WillBlocher]

@77GSlinger The heliocentric model says that the synodic period of Earth and Jupiter is 1.09 years and the sun has an angular size of about half a degree. That predicts a solar transit time of significantly less than "several months," which is consistent with what is observed. There's my bit. Now can you please walk me through your "plain and simple logic"? I confess it when straight under my feet.

[77GSlinger]

@WillBlocher The Sun would obscure Jupiter for many months if we were on the other side of the sun from it, meaning that it would not be visible during the night, because it could only be seen in the day when we see the sun. However, the brightness of the Sun would make it impossible to see Jupiter since it is so faint in relation to the Sun. Jupiter is only invisible for a few weeks not many months. Dr. Bhat was no fool! Don't you think he thought through these simple arguments for 40 years?

[WillBlocher]

@77GSlinger In the heliocentric model, how far away from the sun, in degrees, do you think Jupiter would have to be in order for it to not be obscured by the brightness of the sun?

[WillBlocher]

@77GSlinger I've reread some comments and I need some clarification. When you say that Jupiter is visible for all but a few weeks of the year, do you mean visible to the naked eye? If you do mean that, then you have bad information. If you don't, then your claim doesn't conflict with heliocentric theory. Which is it?

[77GSlinger]

@WillBlocher I am refering to the statistics posted on the Naked eye Planet site. Please eexplan how the outer planets can be seen all year long but a few weeks of the year if they are supposed to be on the opposite side of the sun hidden in the Sun's glare as claimed by the "catholic miltary priest" Copernicus in his helo-centric theory of planetray orbital motions.

Remeber now, the Catholic Priest Lamatrie created the big bang fraud to validate the myth about yhwh saying let there be light!

[WillBlocher]

@77GSlinger Yea. Notice how, for most of the year, the outer planets are either visible in the morning or in the evening? That's the window of time where the sun is being blocked by the Earth (i.e. pre-sunrise or post-sunset) but the planet is not. They're still close to the sun in the sky. The Naked Eye Planet site does not disagree with the Heliocentric model.

I don't care about Copernicus or Lamatrie. I care about which theory makes testable predictions. For example, google "Le Verrier"

[77GSlinger]

@WillBlocher I can not follow your logic here, nor could Dr. Bhat who made observations from equatorial regions around the planet for 40 years. The Naked Eye Planet site is an academic site and supports the Copernicus model, but the statistics do not, nor do the images of Saturn's rings which show how we move in mutual helical trajectories. If the planets were on the other side of the Sun, the arc of illumination on Earth would hide them in the glaring light of the sun for many months not weeks

[WillBlocher]

@77GSlinger Say Jupiter is East of the sun by 20 degrees. We would not see Jupiter while the sun was up, because it would be washed out by sunlight, but, the sun would set an hour and 20 minutes before Jupiter would. During the last 20 or so minutes of that time, we would be able to see Jupiter. Jupiter would only be completely obscured when it's closer to the sun: about 15 degrees to either side. That's 30 degrees of Jupiter's 1.09 year synodic revolution, which it sweeps out in about 33 days.

[77GSlinger]

@WillBlocher I understand what you are saying, but it makes no sense. The orbit of Jupiter takes 11.86 years according to academic sources. Project a 30 degree cone with the Sun in the center and you will see it takes many years to traverse this 30 degrees expanding out to the distance of Jupiter which equates to many years of travel for Jupiter. Meanwhile we are moving so that time is shortened a bit, but there is no way it is a few weeks of invisibility. What about Saturn's rings on N.E.P.?

[WillBlocher]

@77GSlinger That time is shortened more than a bit. It's shortened to 1.09 years. That's what I mean by "synodic period." 30/360 is about .083. .083 times 1.09 years is about 33 days. Jupiter's apparent movement against the background stars has much more to do with our movement than Jupiter's. I'll think about Saturn tomorrow. It's late here. G'night.

[77GSlinger]

@WillBlocher also, our relationship to Venus is in our helical trajectory which places Venus near to the other so-called side of the Sun when we are farthest away from Venus in our helical trajectory, meaning that Venus need not be on the other side of the sun, it need only be on the other side of the trailing vortex which planets create with the Sun between us and Venus. This may be difficult to explain without a drawing showing you what I mean. Bhat did not believe Venus was only a crescent!

[77GSlinger]

@WillBlocher ok my mistake it was todd bronco who did the dirty deed. Many apologies!

[d4b]

Thanks! I blogged about this at d4b (dot) livejournal (dot) com (slash) 2345780 (dot) html .