Important Astronomy - No elliptic orbit and relativity break through

[TheBox]

Just use the cardinal directions. Then there is no confusion.
Then you will see the sun coming from the east no matter if you are on the north or south pole.

By the way. Ghana shares the same time zone as the UK.
So it is not 10pm when it is 10 am in the UK

Space-time cannot grow at an exponential rate without a brick layer , Georges Big-Bang is my brick layer and he also makes the bricks .

Space-times are trillions and trillions of years old , unfathomable .

The brick layer is very good employee , he throws out bricks all day but he does have faults because he takes billions of years to lay a single brick at the end of the road .

But luckily George the brick layer , gives Steve the brick layers labourer a constant supply of bricks , so Steve can constantly lay the bricks at the end of the road .

 

[TheBox]

Just use the cardinal directions. Then there is no confusion.
Then you will see the sun coming from the east no matter if you are on the north or south pole.

By the way. Ghana shares the same time zone as the UK.
So it is not 10pm when it is 10 am in the UK

Steve went to work and met George in the centre of the road , George and Steve were going to extend the road at an exponential rate. George was clever and brought with him a cement mixer because Steve's mixing by hand was too slow .
Now George mixes 24/7 and just places a constant supply of bricks on the conveyor belt so Steve at the end of the road can lay them at an exponential rate .

George and Steve also decide they want to build some houses along the road so they now need to make some blocks .

Now George and Steve are happy , they have build roads and houses .

But now George and Steve are unhappy , because the houses are empty of people and George and Steve don't have a cement mixer to create people .

Added - George and Steve can't build blocks without V* Ψ , blocks are moulded to specific formations . The cement mixer can never produce a block . Blocks have to be hand made . Here is a ''picture'' of the block maker

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQPWllNlhcY


I like to play a song sometimes , let me know if this against forum rules ?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ovdm2yX4MA&list=RDub747pprmJ8&index=2

See my friend , the complexity of creating a block requires thought , V* Ψ . Blocks are very simple . How much thought would it take to mould George and Steve . The cement mixer can definitely not ''mould ''George and Steve .

 

[TheBox]

After some deliberation in my thoughts I have concluded the Earth could be orbiting the Sun and taking only 24 hrs for the cycle completion . However , I have also concluded if this were the case then the ''big dipper'' or 'saucepan'' would change position in the night sky and sometimes not even be visible .
Therefore because of the physics and observation , the Sun must be stationary and the Earth just rotates .

 

[TheBox]

Try here for Aliens lol , we can't see because the light washes it out . We only observe half a sphere ,

 

[Debed]

Tellus is in orbit around the sun.
Tellus spins around its own axis, completing one evolution roughly every 24 hour.
We have enough satellites in space to confirm this.

So why are you confused about that?

 

[TheBox]

So why are you confused about that?

I'm not confused that the gov and NASA are a bunch of lying bleeps bleeps . Why should I believe anything they claim ????? I know the Sun does not move and the reason I know this is because it would just shoot off into space and the outer markers would be getting closer . Gravity cannot conserve light , only gravity B can conserve light . The Sun is conserved in position by force , i.e stationary . Sorry NASA you know very well I don't fall for your bs .

 

[Debed]

So our solarsystem does not move around Sagittarius A*?

 

[TheBox]

So our solarsystem does not move around Sagittarius A*?

No our solar system does not move around somebodies imagination of something that can't be seen or detected , or is physical possibility .

If there was a black hole , it would be a Sun . Suns require a BH .

The earth does not orbit the Sun either or the big dipper or saucepan consolation would be an intermittent observation because of how light works .

 

[TheBox]

So our solarsystem does not move around Sagittarius A*?

To be honest I am not too concerned you can make a Sun on Earth because you can't . You could never achieve opening up a BH because you haven't got the mass-b to do it .

mass-b is proportional to the volume and has a dynamic force .

Here is the 1st diagram of the energy required to make a Star , not only do you need a core energy , you also need an outer energy or the system cannot work .

 

[TheBox]

So our solarsystem does not move around Sagittarius A*?

I am 100% correct , I know this .

 

[Debed]

How do you explain the stars shifting positions?
And the sun is not on earth.

Is this flat earth theory you are coming with?

 

[TheBox]

Returning to thi

How do you explain the stars shifting positions?
And the sun is not on earth.

Is this flat earth theory you are coming with?

I don't observe Stars shifting positions , I observe the Earth shifting positions because of Quantum Buoyancy .

Stars can experience a bit of frame dragging .

Once a quantum mainframe is formed (Space-time) , all points within the frame have a single point of conserved light that is stationary (Higgs field) . The outer space tensors , maths already provided , has the magnitude to displace the field slightly , keeping a BH open at the center of the frame . So where normally space conserves light , the BH's conservation is displaced . The force of the core remains but it can't conserve because of the external tensor displacement of the frame .

 

[TheBox]

How do you explain the stars shifting positions?
And the sun is not on earth.

Is this flat earth theory you are coming with?

You've no doubt heard the universe is expanding and this is observed by the Hubble redshift .

However a redshift means light is being compressed , not stretched . When light is stretched by gravity-B the tensor is so great , light has 0 wavelength , it is a linear with 0 visibility . In essence invisible to detection . That is why when you look at something , the space between you eye and object is always clear in appearance .

 

[TheBox]

How do you explain the stars shifting positions?
And the sun is not on earth.

Is this flat earth theory you are coming with?

The earth isn't flat , it can't be , I can see the curvature by using the Sun .

Something else . you know when they send a carrier signal , they are waving space-time if you ask me , not actually sending any thing . Sort of telegraph via the space-time tension . I know this because of wave-function collapse .

 

[TheBox]

How do you explain the stars shifting positions?
And the sun is not on earth.

Is this flat earth theory you are coming with?

If you were an astronomer and you went off present physics information , you will have multiple errors because the physics is wrong .

 

[TheBox]

How do you explain the stars shifting positions?
And the sun is not on earth.

Is this flat earth theory you are coming with?

Additionally if the outer observed visual matter was receding away from the Earth at the near speed of light , the night sky would be empty by now because of vanishing points and perspective vision .

Stand on any motorway bridge and watch any vehicle receding away from you visually contract in dimensions to a vanishing point .

Hubble is most likely observing a length contraction due to frame dragging of stars . The outer stars attracted to the inner BH and vice versus .

Newtons third law applies . Any BH will have an equal and opposing force .

 

[Debed]

So you do agree that we can observe, with our own eyes, that the position of the stars from the vantage point on earth, changes during the year?

 

[TheBox]

So you do agree that we can observe, with our own eyes, that the position of the stars from the vantage point on earth, changes during the year?

I disagree with this ! We could take 100's of photos and perhaps build up a picture but we can't really see the movement because of relativity .

I could be incorrect if corrected by presented evidence but I'm sure if they were receding away we'd see large ''holes'' by now in the clusters .

If the Universe were ''expanding'' as proposed , then the ending is a space-fall . What this means is that we'd observe Olbers paradox everywhere and no stars but our own star .

This doesn't happen so the evidence tells me , it can't be expanding .

I'd compare it to a classroom full of pupils and the teacher said everyone was leaving but 1000's of years later , everybody is still sitting there .

 

[Debed]

I disagree with this ! We could take 100's of photos and perhaps build up a picture but we can't really see the movement because of relativity .

I could be incorrect if corrected by presented evidence but I'm sure if they were receding away we'd see large ''holes'' by now in the clusters .

If the Universe were ''expanding'' as proposed , then the ending is a space-fall . What this means is that we'd observe Olbers paradox everywhere and no stars but our own star .

This doesn't happen so the evidence tells me , it can't be expanding .

I'd compare it to a classroom full of pupils and the teacher said everyone was leaving but 1000's of years later , everybody is still sitting there .

May I suggest that you go out and start taking some notes then.
For example, pick a single star, or multiple, up to you, then measure where it is on the night sky at what time.
And then do this, night after night.

View: https://youtu.be/a5nhIUFTjcs?si=a7jb9G7Ugb3UT-rt

 

[TheBox]

May I suggest that you go out and start taking some notes then.
For example, pick a single star, or multiple, up to you, then measure where it is on the night sky at what time.
And then do this, night after night.

View: https://youtu.be/a5nhIUFTjcs?si=a7jb9G7Ugb3UT-rt

I already did that with the Sun using my mind and now I have done the moon too because it was out last night .

I have also determined that Australia is around the bend and Antarctic even further around the bend rather than at the bottom of a ball. I did this using time via google and watched the sun not move all night , I just used the earth rotation and followed the path even though I couldn't see it .

I have also considered that Antarctica is a continuous expanse that goes all the way to the artic from about the mid section of the earth .

 

[Debed]

I already did that with the Sun using my mind and now I have done the moon too because it was out last night .

I have also determined that Australia is around the bend and Antarctic even further around the bend rather than at the bottom of a ball. I did this using time via google and watched the sun not move all night , I just used the earth rotation and followed the path even though I couldn't see it .

I have also considered that Antarctica is a continuous expanse that goes all the way to the artic from about the mid section of the earth .

View attachment 3699

So this comes from your own imagination and you have no scientific evidence?

 

[TheBox]

So this comes from your own imagination and you have no scientific evidence?

This - ''I have also considered that Antarctica is a continuous expanse that goes all the way to the artic from about the mid section of the earth '' is a little far fetched .

When I watched the moon the other night it differed from the sun because it pretty much kept parallel with the earth rather than dipping like a sunset . So in essence the moon was kinda travelling a straight line .
According to the map and globe Antarctica is below Australia but Australia is positioned down under , not before the bottom of the globe . I used daylight times to view this , that is the evidence .
So according to this evidence , that places Antarctica not at the bottom of the globe like imagined .
Additional evidence is the incident angles and what people would see on the earth at the same time . I.E I can see the Sun now , so can France , so can further south . Australia can't see the Sun now because they are at the rear , around the curve .

The Sun is definitely positioned below the earth , light actually travels up the planet . It is all a sort of optical illusion that the Sun is directly over the equator etc .

Wish I had some contacts in other countries and a globe to build a better picture

I am about 99% confident the sun is stationary because of my observations and the physics of a sun . I am using the Sun to label spatial south or downwards if you like . If Stars were moving in space , we'd see like a comet trail and the direction they were travelling because of this. The shape would be deformed rather than spherical because gravity-B pulls back . We don't observe residual energy therefore Stars are stationary .

 

[TheBox]

So this comes from your own imagination and you have no scientific evidence?

The Earth is rotating at a speed of 24 hrs per cycle but this information is relative to how fast we count .

If I was to count twice as fast , the earth would be rotating at a speed of 48 hrs a cycle .

If I was to count twice as slow , the earth would be rotating at a speed of 12 hrs a cycle .

Still believe in science when they believe in time dilation ?

They don't even understand relativity !

No thing can travel faster than the speed of light ?

The speed light travels is 1 second per cycle , if I count twice as fast , I have just travelled twice as fast as the speed of light .

 

[TheBox]

So this comes from your own imagination and you have no scientific evidence?

Do you think we observe the Sun ~8 minutes out of position because single minded scientists can't be in two places at the same time?

Emitter detector A and B emit a photon simultaneously and detect the photon simultaneously

 

[TheBox]

So this comes from your own imagination and you have no scientific evidence?

You see not because unbounded light as to enter your eyes , you see because our minds are connected by ''space-time'' (Quantum Mainframe Server) to everything within the frame .

Your eye lids are essentially an obstruction .

If you are in a dark room you can still see the walls , the darkness you see is the walls and of course there is the absence of unbounded light but not the absence of the QMS .

Shine a laser pen at a wall and you will see the red dot on the wall , no light required to enter your eyes because you are already connected via the QMS .

You can take a tape measure and measure the dot in its exact location , you could even draw a circle around the dot so when you turn the light on you can see that your measure wasn't fake .

The QMS allows for space to be transparent to unbounded light and sight , rather than opaque .

Try to detect a frequency/wave length emitted from a red object of about 750nm and you will find there isn't one . That's because the object is red and can be measured to be red in its exact geometrical position .

Additionally when we place a blue object in shade , the blue does not change frequency and redshift as the physics would require if present science was correct on how we see .

The Sun is out here today , there is blue box in a shadow in my living room , I can see the box is just less illuminated , there is no change of frequency/wavelength even though there is a less magnitude of light in the shadow .

The blue box is not emitting a frequency/wavelength of ~450nm , I know this because I couldn't detect this using equipment .

We can create a 450nm carrier signal and detect it !