|
Post by AstroMet on Jun 6, 2015 0:54:28 GMT
The conventional false belief of their version of celestial mechanics with their static Sun predicts that tidal forces of a planet has "miniscule" effect on Sun and the Earth needs to be fully re-evaluated, because our spiraling Sun wobbles around the duel-centered Barycenter Theo Why are you falsely claiming astronomers believe the Sun is static and is unaffected by the planets rotating around it? I note also that quite a bit of your text appears to be inspired by a group called UVS who issue the disclaimer: www.uvs-model.com/WFE%20Significant%20discoveries.htmAs far as the mainstream modern physics is concerned, the above revolutionary discoveries and conjectures based on the unheard-of hypothesis of Universal Vortical Singularity with its paradigm shift are unconventional. Also the evaluation of the uncharted at fundamental stage might not be thoroughly covered, bound to have shortcomings, loose ends and errors, many details and assumptions have yet to be further researched, probed, evaluated, validated, or proven. Many of the implicit explanations are for casual understanding of the topics presented in the UVS worldviewTo be fair to your audience if you wish to use their ideas and diagrams you should be issuing a similar disclaimer that your ideas are not based in mainstream modern physics, but instead are based on the unheard of hypothesis of Universal Vortical Singularity and are bound to have shortcomings, loose ends and errors, and many details and assumptions have yet to be further researched, probed, evaluated, validated or proven. Lets get real here. You are presenting your information to the public as well researched thought out science when you know for a fact you are lying. Calling people 'liars' is not a way to get along on this forum Andrew and I would also remind you that your comments on this forum to Icefisher per your 'pea' comment shows that your shortcomings stem from a lack of basic understanding of the Earth's climate and how it functions. And do not tell me (or anyone else for that matter) what our 'ideas' are as you certainly are in no position as an expert in these matters as you pretend to be. So, yes, let's get 'real' here. Do not presume to 'tell' me what my work is based on, but ask first before you go around calling others 'liars' based on your assumptions and presumptions, which is stupid to say the least. Most, if not all of the genesis and origins of what you call 'mainstream modern physics' comes from Applied Astrology and are quite old. You treat this subject with your illogical comment as if it makes sense. For example, how can you state (since you seem to love to argue but not make sense) can you say: "...any details and assumptions have yet to be further researched, probed, evaluated, validated, or proven." And then immediately after stating that, you claim, in the same breath, that these ideas are new? You actually said that universal vortical singularity is an unheard of hypothesis. I tell you, they are not and have been around for a long time. You have much to learn kiddo. My own practice of astronomic climate forecasting, or Astrometeorology, is NOT based on what you call the modern version of vortical singularity (an assumption, among many that you've made which are 100% wrong) but rather on the extensive work of the astrometeorologist Johannes Kepler, primarily on the magnetic aether force field vortex of planetary orbits - known also as Applied Astrology. And I've been working in this manner forecasting as an applied astrologer for a long time. Kepler believed and practiced applied astrology. He knew that solar, lunar, planetary and stellar configurations and their aspects physically existed and affected human beings, including Earth's climate and weather. Among his works (which I am sure that you have not read though you assume much Andrew) included 'On the more certain foundations of Astrology (1601) also 'In The Intervening Third Man'(1610) where Kepler cited a definite relationship between the causes of heavenly phenomena and effects on the events on Earth. Nearly 1,000 horoscopes cast by Kepler himself still exist. And part of his duties as expert forecaster and mathematician to the city state of Graz, Kepler put out a forecast for 1595 where he predicted a peasant uprising, a Turkish invasion and a climate of bitter cold - all which took place as forecasted. Kepler is known to have compiled numerous forecasts for 1595 to 1606, and from 1617 to 1624. As court mathematician, he explained to Rudolf II the horoscopes of the Emperor Augustus and Mohammed, and gave astrological forecasts for the outcome of a war between the Republic of Venice and Paul V. In another work called 'On the New Star (1606) he explained the meaning of a new star of 1604 as being 'the conversion of America and downfall of Islam. In his 'De Cometis Libelli Tres (1619) he continues with many astrological forecasts of note. In the instruction video below, you will learn this: "Kepler was convinced that God had created the Universe in accordance with some perfect geometrical principle! But when he observed the motion of the planets he found that they move in elliptical orbits with speeds that vary relative to their distance from the Sun. As the planet moves along its path, it sweeps out an equal area segments in an equal time. So there is a form of geometrical symmetry, but the symmetry seems to be broken by the shape of the elliptical orbit. This video explains an artist theory on the physics of 'time' as a physical process. In this theory if the planets orbits were circular there would be no variation in speed and we would have perfect symmetry in movement space and time. This is because objects just free-fall towards the greatest energy because it has the greatest time dilation. The time dilation formed by the Sun is spherical therefore a planet in circular orbit will not encounter a gravitational difference that is formed by time dilation." "My aim is to say that the machinery of the heavens is not like a divine animal but like a clock, and that in it almost all the variety of motions is from one very simple magnetic force acting on bodies - as in the clock all motions are from a very simple weight." ~ Kepler, in his letter to J.G. Herwart von Hohenburg from February 16, 1605.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jun 6, 2015 0:56:23 GMT
My point I poorly made was hurricanes haven't just appeared as a result of AGW. In fact this season is suppose to be weak. I will concede to Theo the storm was called Superstorm Sandy. Thanks Code, and yes, the recent hurricane seasons have been weak. I've been busy taking care of a parent's illness so haven't been able to catch up on my forecasting work for this year until recently.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 6, 2015 1:11:40 GMT
Theo Why are you falsely claiming astronomers believe the Sun is static and is unaffected by the planets rotating around it? I note also that quite a bit of your text appears to be inspired by a group called UVS who issue the disclaimer: www.uvs-model.com/WFE%20Significant%20discoveries.htmAs far as the mainstream modern physics is concerned, the above revolutionary discoveries and conjectures based on the unheard-of hypothesis of Universal Vortical Singularity with its paradigm shift are unconventional. Also the evaluation of the uncharted at fundamental stage might not be thoroughly covered, bound to have shortcomings, loose ends and errors, many details and assumptions have yet to be further researched, probed, evaluated, validated, or proven. Many of the implicit explanations are for casual understanding of the topics presented in the UVS worldviewTo be fair to your audience if you wish to use their ideas and diagrams you should be issuing a similar disclaimer that your ideas are not based in mainstream modern physics, but instead are based on the unheard of hypothesis of Universal Vortical Singularity and are bound to have shortcomings, loose ends and errors, and many details and assumptions have yet to be further researched, probed, evaluated, validated or proven. Lets get real here. You are presenting your information to the public as well researched thought out science when you know for a fact you are lying. Calling people 'liars' is not a way to get along on this forum Andrew and I would also remind you that your comments on this forum to Icefisher per your 'pea' comment shows that your shortcomings stem from a lack of basic understanding of the Earth's climate and how it functions. And do not tell me (or anyone else for that matter) what our 'ideas' are as you certainly are in no position as an expert in these matters as you pretend to be. So, yes, let's get 'real' here. So do not presume to 'tell' me what my work is based on, but ask first before you go around calling others liars based on your assumptions and presumptions, which is stupid to say the least. My practice of astronomic climate forecasting, or Astrometeorology, is not based on what you call the modern version of vortical singularity (an assumption, among many that you've made which are wrong) but rather on the work of the astrometeorologist Johannes Kepler on the magnetic ether force field vortex postulation of planetary orbits. And I've been working in this manner forecasting as an astrologer for a long time kiddo. "My aim is to say that the machinery of the heavens is not like a divine animal but like a clock, and that in it almost all the variety of motions is from one very simple magnetic force acting on bodies - as in the clock all motions are from a very simple weight." ~ Kepler, in his letter to J.G. Herwart von Hohenburg from February 16, 1605. Theo Since you have not addressed the questions put to you I will ask you again 1. Why are you falsely claiming the modern scientific view of the sun is that it is static as regards movement around the barycenter? 2. Why are you using text and diagrams from the UVS site that says their work is unproven and not based on modern physics but is instead based on the unheard of hypothesis of Universal Vortical Singularity? Additionally, 3 Are you claiming Newtons calculations for the effect of gravity are majorly wrong and instead Kepler had a better view? 4. Many other people have pointed out to you that Newton and co are not remembered for their astrology but rather their enduring physical understanding of the mechanics of the Solar system in those places where they got it right. Implying, as you have done, that these people were based in Astrology for these enduring results is a lie. 5. Why are you using this diagram produced by physics graduate Manmohan Dash showing 'a projection of a satellite trajectory in the equitorial plane of earth', which you accompany with the claim you are using Special relativity, time dilation etc to get your results?? Most of your text is just a rant against modern physics and you want people to believe you are using special relativity to calculate your results??? Quite clearly you are a crank attempting to con people
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jun 6, 2015 1:55:54 GMT
Calling people 'liars' is not a way to get along on this forum Andrew and I would also remind you that your comments on this forum to Icefisher per your 'pea' comment shows that your shortcomings stem from a lack of basic understanding of the Earth's climate and how it functions. And do not tell me (or anyone else for that matter) what our 'ideas' are as you certainly are in no position as an expert in these matters as you pretend to be. So, yes, let's get 'real' here. So do not presume to 'tell' me what my work is based on, but ask first before you go around calling others liars based on your assumptions and presumptions, which is stupid to say the least. My practice of astronomic climate forecasting, or Astrometeorology, is not based on what you call the modern version of vortical singularity (an assumption, among many that you've made which are wrong) but rather on the work of the astrometeorologist Johannes Kepler on the magnetic ether force field vortex postulation of planetary orbits. And I've been working in this manner forecasting as an astrologer for a long time kiddo. "My aim is to say that the machinery of the heavens is not like a divine animal but like a clock, and that in it almost all the variety of motions is from one very simple magnetic force acting on bodies - as in the clock all motions are from a very simple weight." ~ Kepler, in his letter to J.G. Herwart von Hohenburg from February 16, 1605. Theo Since you have not addressed the questions put to you I will ask you again 1. Why are you falsely claiming the modern scientific view of the sun is that it is static as regards movement around the barycenter? 2. Why are you using text and diagrams from the UVS site that says their work is unproven and not based on modern physics but is instead based on the unheard of hypothesis of Universal Vortical Singularity? Additionally, 3 Are you claiming Newtons calculations for the effect of gravity are majorly wrong and instead Kepler had a better view? 4. Many other people have pointed out to you that Newton and co are not remembered for their astrology but rather their enduring physical understanding of the mechanics of the Solar system. Implying as you have done that these people were based in Astrology for these enduring results is a lie. For one, I do not partake in debates with people who troll out insults and call others liars. And I link to diagrams to inform the reader in support of my astrometeorological forecasts and work. Links, charts and diagrams are used often and are common on this board. Many members use them. Also, I already told you that vortical singularity is NOT new. It is based on the astrological Hermetic saying for many, many centuries - "As Above, So Below." It is ancient. Now, you speak of such matters as if they are 'modern' and new' but I tell you that facts are that these are not new ideas as you falsely claim. And if you continue to say such things then you are the 'liar' Andrew. It appears to me that you are trying to sound smart while at the same time trying to learn what others already know about the climate and advanced applied science, in this case climate science. But the comments you make, like you using this comment: 'Why are you falsely claiming astronomers believe the Sun is static and is unaffected by the planets rotating around it?" That's just a stupid comment. For instance, the Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus first developed the concept of the atom in the 5th century B.C.E., but then again, with your limited view of the natural world, based on your own comments on this board (you should learn about the topics before you speak on this forum, then you would say that the concept of the atom could only have happened in the 'modern' world? Is that correct? I keep telling you (and will say it only this one last time) that the fact is that universal vortical singularity is a theory of everything and has been for a very long time. Also, I know the people at UVS (being friends with them) and they've known of my Astromet work for years (so you being a wise ass making presumptions isn't going to fly either kiddo.) Again, this is natural science, or Applied Astrology, and it as been around for a long, long time. It isn't new. Got that? You also go on this thing about 'time dilation' which you should know that relativity postulates time dilation, which is a slowing of time proportional to an increase of speed. What's your point? If you continue to ignore these facts, then I will not discuss anything with you at all, because as I read in your comments and behavior toward Icefisher and others on this board, I think that you are being 'thick' in the head on purpose and just acting like a argumentative troll looking to argue for the sake of simply arguing, but you're not learning much from people who know more than you. Icefisher was was right. Get real.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 6, 2015 2:04:10 GMT
Theo Since you have not addressed the questions put to you I will ask you again 1. Why are you falsely claiming the modern scientific view of the sun is that it is static as regards movement around the barycenter? 2. Why are you using text and diagrams from the UVS site that says their work is unproven and not based on modern physics but is instead based on the unheard of hypothesis of Universal Vortical Singularity? Additionally, 3 Are you claiming Newtons calculations for the effect of gravity are majorly wrong and instead Kepler had a better view? 4. Many other people have pointed out to you that Newton and co are not remembered for their astrology but rather their enduring physical understanding of the mechanics of the Solar system. Implying as you have done that these people were based in Astrology for these enduring results is a lie. For one, I do not partake in debates with people who troll out insults and call others liars. And I link to diagrams to inform the reader in support my astrometeorological work. Links and diagrams are used and are common on this board. Also, I already told you that vortical singularity is NOT new. It is based on the astrological Hermetic saying for many, many centuries - "As Above, So Below." It is ancient. For instance, you talk of such matters as if they are 'modern' and new' but I tell you that facts are that these are not new ideas as you falsely claim. And if you continue to say such things then you are the 'liar' Andrew. For instance, the Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus first developed the concept of the atom in the 5th century B.C.E., but then again, with your limited view of the natural world, based on your own comments (you should study before you speak on this forum, then you would say that could have only happened in the 'modern' world? Is that correct. I keep telling you (and will say it only this one last time) that the fact is that universal vortical singularity is a theory of everything and has been for a very long time. It is natural science, or Applied Astrology, and it as been around for a long, long time. It ain't new. Got that? If you continue to ignore that fact, then I will not discuss anything with you at all, because as I read in your comments and behavior toward Icefisher and others on this board, I think that you are being 'thick' in the head on purpose and just acting like a argumentative troll looking to argue for the sake of simply arguing, but you're not learning much from people who know more than you. Icefisher was was right. Get real. Theo, As with Icefisher I can only stand in awe before your incredible abilities. I wonder though why you are falsely claiming that modern physics is saying the sun is static while you are using special relativity to calculate your results?
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jun 6, 2015 2:14:10 GMT
For one, I do not partake in debates with people who troll out insults and call others liars. And I link to diagrams to inform the reader in support my astrometeorological work. Links and diagrams are used and are common on this board. Also, I already told you that vortical singularity is NOT new. It is based on the astrological Hermetic saying for many, many centuries - "As Above, So Below." It is ancient. For instance, you talk of such matters as if they are 'modern' and new' but I tell you that facts are that these are not new ideas as you falsely claim. And if you continue to say such things then you are the 'liar' Andrew. For instance, the Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus first developed the concept of the atom in the 5th century B.C.E., but then again, with your limited view of the natural world, based on your own comments (you should study before you speak on this forum, then you would say that could have only happened in the 'modern' world? Is that correct. I keep telling you (and will say it only this one last time) that the fact is that universal vortical singularity is a theory of everything and has been for a very long time. It is natural science, or Applied Astrology, and it as been around for a long, long time. It ain't new. Got that? If you continue to ignore that fact, then I will not discuss anything with you at all, because as I read in your comments and behavior toward Icefisher and others on this board, I think that you are being 'thick' in the head on purpose and just acting like a argumentative troll looking to argue for the sake of simply arguing, but you're not learning much from people who know more than you. Icefisher was was right. Get real. Theo, As with Icefisher I can only stand in awe before your incredible abilities. I wonder though why you are falsely claiming that modern physics is saying the sun is static while you are using special relativity to calculate your results? Geez. Listen Andrew, go play and be rude and ignorant elsewhere. Quit wasting our time. Be in 'awe' of that. If you work hard for years and observe the natural world, while accepting and applying the laws of physics in operation, then someday, you will be able to do what I can do and that is to forecast. 'Liars' cannot forecast. Get off my thread with your negative comments (it's very rude and disrespectful) and you are not being a healthy representative of Finnish people. Learn proper good manners: Goodbye and good luck.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 6, 2015 2:19:58 GMT
Theo
So as with Nautonnier you are never going to give an explanation as to why you are falsely claiming modern physics says the Sun does not wobble.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jun 6, 2015 4:48:26 GMT
Theo So as with Nautonnier you are never going to give an explanation as to why you are falsely claiming modern physics says the Sun does not wobble. For one, you ought to quit saying that I, Nautonnier, or Icefisher (or anyone else for that matter) are 'falsely' saying anything simply because it does not agree with you. It does not make them a liar. That is childish and narcissistic. Stop wasting the time of others with negative, rude and immature posts and comments. If you do not have anything positive or of use to add then do not say anything at all. Engaging in your negative manner as you have 'iceskaters' Andrew does not mean that you can equate yourself with others because you insult them. Please quit with the emotional projection and obvious jealousy and rudeness of other members of this board.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 6, 2015 5:02:58 GMT
Theo So as with Nautonnier you are never going to give an explanation as to why you are falsely claiming modern physics says the Sun does not wobble. For one, you ought to quit saying that I, Nautonnier, or Icefisher (or anyone else for that matter) are 'falsely' saying anything simply because it does not agree with you. It does not make them a liar. That is childish and narcissistic. Theo Silly boy. You are falsely claiming that modern physics disagrees with you.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 6, 2015 5:07:51 GMT
Thanks Code, and yes, the recent hurricane seasons have been weak. I've been busy taking care of a parent's illness so haven't been able to catch up on my forecasting work for this year until recently. Astro, I will include you and your family in my prayers tonight. Take care friend. Christ had a special place for the hypocrits.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jun 6, 2015 8:41:28 GMT
Andrew you need to stop this its not even slightly interesting anymore.
People can have different views even come to different conclusions based on the same inputs.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 6, 2015 8:45:15 GMT
Andrew you need to stop this its not even slightly interesting anymore. People can have different views even come to different conclusions based on the same inputs. If people like Leif Svalgaard can have different conclusions to Nautonnier then why does Nautonnier feel the need to lie about what he has said?? He has been repeatedly told that the suns wobble is not controversial. Please ask him to stop this stupid attack on Svalgaard.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jun 6, 2015 12:22:09 GMT
Andrew you need to stop this its not even slightly interesting anymore. People can have different views even come to different conclusions based on the same inputs. If people like Leif Svalgaard can have different conclusions to Nautonnier then why does Nautonnier feel the need to lie about what he has said?? He has been repeatedly told that the suns wobble is not controversial. Please ask him to stop this stupid attack on Svalgaard. Andrew, you have been asked several times now to stop calling oothers liars. Now members here have also asked you the same and I don't appreciate your on my thread playing games. Be a man, not a child. Act your age, not your shoe size and quit wasting time of others. People have answered your questions but because you won't listen gives you no right to come off calling others liars. Methinks you lie much as that is a frequent accusation and word you use. It is called projection and it says everything about yourself to others. Clean it up.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jun 6, 2015 12:23:00 GMT
Andrew you need to stop this its not even slightly interesting anymore. People can have different views even come to different conclusions based on the same inputs. If people like Leif Svalgaard can have different conclusions to Nautonnier then why does Nautonnier feel the need to lie about what he has said?? He has been repeatedly told that the suns wobble is not controversial. Please ask him to stop this stupid attack on Svalgaard. Andrew, you have been asked several times now to stop calling oothers liars. Now members here have also asked you the same and I don't appreciate your on my thread playing games. Be a man, not a child. Act your age, not your shoe size and quit wasting time of others. People have answered your questions but because you won't listen gives you no right to come off calling others liars. Methinks you 'lie' much as that is a frequent accusation and word you use. Tat is dumb. Definitions of Dumb:
Stupid, unintelligent, ignorant, dense, brainless, mindless, foolish, slow, dull, simple, empty-headed, stunned, vacuous, vapid, idiotic, half-baked, imbecilic, bovine; thick, dim, moronic, dopey, dozy, thickheaded, fat-headed, bird-brained, pea-brained; daft.It is called 'emotional projection' and 'intellectual' (or lack thereof) arrogance. it says everything about yourself to others. Clean it up.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jun 6, 2015 12:29:28 GMT
Andrew you need to stop this its not even slightly interesting anymore. People can have different views even come to different conclusions based on the same inputs. After reading and examining Andrew's comments its apparent he's seeking attention. That's trolling. I have put him on ignore and reported his posts. One can only ask once for mature behavior. We are not babysitters here.
|
|