The Truth Behind the Charlottesville, Virginia March

The Truth Behind the Charlottesville, Virginia March

I know that this video does not talk about the flat earth but it does talk about the lying media – which the flat earth truth is one of its victims. And I will be bring up such topics from time to time (as you may have already know). This is done so to expose those in power.

You have probably heard about the the march in Charlottesville, Virginia, about the planned taking down of the Robert E. Lee Monument, but you did not hear the truth if it came from the major media outlets. I just ask you to do your own research; listen to some Patriot that was there. Anyhow, I thought it appropriate to listen someone who spoke on the greatness of Robert E. Lee, whom this demonstration was centred around.

The reason why the media lied about what went on is, that they (the One Worlders) want to destroy the true history of the White race and the great heroes we had.

The person you’ll see in the video has others about the Confederate Government that you might want to check out. In short, don’t let the antichrists tear down and distort the history of the White race.


.

Posted in Hidden history, media lies | Tagged , | Leave a comment

History of Astronomy From the Roman Empire to the Present, Part 7

History of Astronomy From the Roman Empire to the Present, Part 7

A GALAXY OF BLUNDERS

The world of astronomy being satisfied that Encke had really found the distance of the sun, the time
had come when a triangulation to the stars might be attempted; and this was done by F. W. Bessel in the year 1838. He is said to have been the first man to make a successful measurement of stellar distance when he estimated the star known as “61 Cygni ” to be 10 ½ light-years, or 63,000,000,000,000 miles from the earth; its angle of parallax being 0.31”; and for this work Bessel is regarded as virtually the creator of Modern Astronomy of Precision.

The reader who has followed me thus far will suppose that I intend to examine this measurement of “61 Cygni.” That is so, but as it will be necessary to introduce astronomical terms and theories which will be unfamiliar to the layman, I must explain these at some length in order that he, as one of the jury, may be able to arrive at a just verdict. In the meantime I respectfully call the attention of the responsible authorities of astronomy to this chapter, for it is probable that I shall here shatter some of their most cherished theories, and complete the overthrow of the Copernican astronomy they represent.

Light is said to travel at a speed of 186,414 miles a second; that is 671,090,400 miles in an hour, or six billion (six million millions) miles in a year. So when “61 Cygni” is said to be 10 ½ light-years distant it means that it is so far away that it takes its light ten and a half years to travel from the star to the eye of the observer, though it is coming at the rate of 671,090,400 miles an hour. One light-year equals 6,000,000,000,000 miles.

An “angle of parallax” is the angle at the star, or at the apex of an astronomer’s triangulation. The angle of parallax 0.31″ (thirty-one hundredths of a second of arc) is so extremely small that it represents only one 11,613th part of a degree. There is in Greenwich Observatory an instrument which has a vernier six feet in diameter, one of the largest in the world. A degree on this vernier measures about three quarters of an inch, so that if we tried to measure the parallax 0.31” on that vernier we should find it to be one 15,484th part of an inch. When angles are as line as this we are inclined to agree with Tycho Brahe when he said that “Angles of Parallax exist only in the minds of the observers ; they are due to instrumental and personal errors.”

The Bi-annual (or semi-annual) method of stellar measurement which Bessel used for his triangulation is very interesting, and, curiously enough, it is another of those singularly plausible inventions advocated by Dr. Hailey.

It will be remembered how Hipparchus failed to get an angle to the stars 2,000 years ago, and arrived at the conclusion that they must be infinitely distant ; and we have seen how that hypothesis has been handed down to us through all the centuries without question, so we can understand how Dr. Hailey was led to design his method of finding stellar distance on a corresponding, infinitely
distant scale.

  It appeared to him that no base-line on earth (not even its diameter) would be of any use for such an immense triangulation as the stars required, but he thought it might be possible to obtain a base-line long enough if we knew the distance of the sun; and his reasoning ran as follows; As we have learned from Copernicus that the earth travels completely round the sun once in a year, it must be on opposite sides of the orbit every six months, therefore, if we make an observation to a star — let us say—tonight, and another observation to the same star when we are on the other side of the orbit in six months’ time, we can use the entire diameter of the orbit as a base-line.

Of course this suggestion could not be put mto practice until the distance to the sun was found, but
now that Encke had done that, and found it to be about 97,000,000 miles, Bessel had only to multiply that by two to find the diameter of the orbit, so that the length of his base-line would be, roughly, 194,000,000 miles.

It seemed a simple matter, then, to make two observations to find the angle at the star “61 Cygni,” and to multiply it into the length of the base-line just as a surveyor might do.

A critical reader might observe that as there is in reality only one earth, and not two, as it appears in diagram 11, the base-line is a very intangible thing to refer any angles to; and he might think it impossible to know what angles the lines of sight really do subtend to this imaginary base-line ; but these questions do not seriously concern the astronomer because the “Theory of Perpendicularity” assures him that the star is at all times perpendicular to the centre of the earth, while the “Theory of Parallax” enables him to ignore the direction of his base-line altogether, and to find his angle— not at the base ! but at the apex of the triangle— at the star.

These theories, however, deserve our attention; Parallax is “the apparent change in the direction of a body when viewed from two different points.” For example, an observer at A in diagram 12, would see the tree to the left of the house, but if he crosses over to B, the tree will appear to have moved to the right of the house. Now in modern astronomy the stars are supposed to be fixed, just as we know the tree and the house to be, and an astronomer’s angle of parallax is “the apparent change in the direction of a star as compared with another star, when both are viewed from two different points, such as the opposite sides of the orbit.

  “The Theory of Parallax” as stated in astronomy, is “that the nearer the star the greater the parallax; hence the greater the apparent displacement the nearer the body or star must be.” In other words, it is supposed that because the tree in the diagram is nearer to the observer than the house, it will appear to move further from the house than the house will appear to move away from the tree, if the observer views them alternately from A and B. That is the principle which Bessel relied upon to find the parallax of “61 Cygni.” (I will leave the reader to make his own comments upon it.)

Posted in astronomy | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

History of Astronomy From the Roman Empire to the Present, Part 6

History of Astronomy From the Roman Empire to the Present, Part 6

ROMANTIC THEORIES

This history of the evolution of astronomy would not be complete if we omitted to mention here the fact that, though the French school of astronomers had been foremost in adopting practical triangulation, it was not until the British took up the work in 1783 that the triangulation of the earth was seriously begun.

At about this time Immanuel Kant was laying the foundation of the Nebular Hypothesis— the theory that the earth and the planets were created by the sun.

Sir William Herschell became interested, and carried the thought further, but the Nebular Hypothesis may be said to have been still only in a nebulous state untill it was taken up and developed by the brilliant French mathematician and astronomer the Marquis de Laplace.

According to this hypothesis there was a time, ages ago, when there was neither earth, nor moon, nor planets, but only an immense mass of incandescent nebulous matter (where the sun is now), spinning and flaming like a gigantic Catherine wheel. . . alone amid the stars.

In other words there was only the sun, much larger than it is at the present time. This mass cooled and contracted, leaving a ring of tenuous blazing matter like a ring of smoke around it. In the course of time this ring formed itself into a solid ball, cooled, and became the planet Neptune.

The sun contracted again, leaving another ring, which formed itself into a ball and became the planet Uranus, and so it went on until Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, and then the Earth itself were created in a similar way; to be followed later by Venus and Mercury.

In this way Laplace explained how the earth and the planets came to be racing round the sun in the manner described by Copernicus; and, strange to say, this Nebular Hypothesis is now taught in the schools of the twentieth century with all the assurance that belongs to a scientific fact.

Yet the whole thing contradicts itself, for the laws of dynamics show that if the sun contracted it would rotate more rapidly, and if it rotated more rapidly that would increase the heat, and so cause the mass to expand.

It appears then, that as every attempt to cool increases the rotation, and heat, and so causes further expansion, the sun must always remain as it is. It cannot get cooler or hotter! and it cannot grow bigger or less! and so it is evident that it never could leave the smoke-like rings which Laplace imagined.

Therefore we know that the earth could never have been formed in that way; and never was part of the sun. This Nebular Hypothesis is pure imagination, and it is probable that it was only allowed to survive because it made an attempt to justify the impossible solar system of modern astronomy. It ends in smoke.

Just like a weed— which is always prolific— the Nebular Hypothesis soon produced another equally unscientific concept, known as the Atomic Theory. The idea that everything that exists consists of — or can be reduced to — atoms, was discussed by Anaxagoras and Democritus, away back in the days of Ancient Greece, but it was not until the beginning of the 19th century that it was made to account for the creation of the entire universe. Let us dissect it.

An atom is “the smallest conceivable particle of matter,” that is — smaller than the eye can see, even with the aid of a microscope; it is the smallest thing the mind of man can imagine. And the Atomic Theory suggests that once upon a time (a long way further back than Laplace thought of) there was nothing to be seen anywhere, in fact there seemed to be nothing at all but everlasting empty space; and yet that space was full of atoms smaller than the eye could see, and in some manner, which no one has been able to explain, these invisible atoms whirled themselves into the wonderful universe we now see around us. But if there had ever been a time when the whole of space was filled with atoms, and nothing else but atoms in a state of unity, they must have been without motion ; and being without motion, so they would have remained for ever ! . . . Of course the idea that all the elements could have existed in that uniform atomic state is preposterous, and shows the whole theory to be fundamentally unsound, but if — for the sake of argument — we allow the assumption to stand, the atomic condition goes crash against Newton’s “Laws of Motion,” which show that “ every thing persists in a state of rest until it is affected by some other thing outside itself.”

The tide of events now carries us along to the year 1824, when Encke made the first serious attempt to find the distance to the sun ; using as the means — the Transit of Venus.

He did not take the required observations himself, but made a careful examination of the records which had been made at the transits of 1761 and 1769, and estimated the sun’s distance from these; employing the method advocated by Dr. Hailey.

What is meant by the “Transit of Venus” is the fact of the planet passing between the observer and the sun (in daylight) when, by using coloured or smoked glasses to protect the eyes, it may be seen as a small spot moving across the face of the solar disk.

The method of finding the distance to the sun, at such a time, is as follows: Two observers are to be placed

as far apart as possible on the earth, as B and S in diagram lo. From these positions B will see Venus cross the face of the sun along the dotted line 2, while S will see the planet projected nearer to the top edge of the sun, moving along the lin e I . T h e distance which separates the two projections of Venus against the solar disk, indicated by the short vertical line I — 2 will bear a certain proportionate relation to the base-line— or diameter of the earth— which separates the observers B and S.

On referring to the Third Law of Kepler, laid down in the 17th century — it is calculated that the ratio of the line I — 2 as compared with the line B — S will be as 100 is to 37. Consequently, if we know the dimensions of the triangle from B and S to Venus it is a simple matter to find the dimensions of the triangle from Venus to the points i— 2 by the formvila— “ as 100 is to 37.”

Further, when we have found the number of miles that are represented by the space which separates the two dotted lines on the face of the sun, we can use the line i— 2 as though it were a yard-stick or a rule, and so measure the size of the sun from top to bottom.

Such is the method which Encke used in his study of the records of transits of Venus which had been made fifty years before, and it is stated on the most reliable authority that the results he obtained were accepted without question.

In round figures he made the sun to be about 97,000,000 miles from the earth and 880,000 miles from top to bottom. All this seems reasonable enough, and it certainly is ingenious ; and yet— The observers were not— as a matter of fact— placed at the poles, nor were they diametrically opposite to each other as in the diagram, but they observed the Transit of Venus from two other points not so favourably placed, and so “ allowances ” had to be made in order to find what the dimensions of the triangle B S Venus would have been if the observers had been there to see the transit. . . And in making these allowances our astronomers were all unconscious of the fact that if the observers really had been there (as in the diagram, and as illustrated in all books and lectures on the subject) they could not both have seen Venus at the same time, because A and B are upside down with respect to each other— their two horizons are opposite and parallel to each other— and the planet could not be above the two horizons at the same time. But the allowances were made, nevertheless, and the triangle, which, as we see, was more metaphysical than real, was referred to the Third Law of Kepler; which had been designed to fit a theory of the solar system which, so far, has not been supported by a single fact. The result of the entire proceeding was “nil.”

Posted in astronomy | Tagged , | Leave a comment

History of Astronomy From the Roman Empire to the Present, Part 5

History of Astronomy From the Roman Empire to the Present, Part 5

THE DISTANCE TO THE MOON

Let us pass on to something more important, the measurement of the distance to the moon, the first of the heavenly bodies to be measured. This was performed by Lalande and Lacaille in the year 1752, using the method of direct triangulation. Lalande took one of the observations at Berlin, while Lacaille took the other at the same time at the Cape of Good Hope ; a straight line (or chord) joining these two places giving them a base-line more than 5,000 miles in length.

The moon was at a low altitude away in the west, the two observers took the angles with extreme care, and at a later date they met, compared notes, and made the necessary calculations. As a result the moon was said to be 238,830 miles from the earth, and to be 2,159.8 miles in diameter, the size being estimated from its distance ; and these are the figures accepted in astronomy the world over at the present day.

I have occasion to call the reader’s attention to the fact that some books— Proctor’s “Old and New Astronomy” for example— in describing the principle of how to measure to the moon, illustrate it by a diagram which differs from our diagram 8. Though the principle as it is explained in those books seems

plausible enough, it would be impossible in practice, for the diagram they use clearly shows the moon to be near the zenith. Further, it is often said that the distance to the moon has been several times measured, but the fact is that it is of no consequence whether it has or not, for it is the result obtained by Lalande and Lacaille which is accepted by astronomy, and their observations were taken as I have stated, and illustrated in diagram 8. Moreover, one of the greatest living authorities on astronomy tells us that their work was done with such precision that “ the distance of the moon is positively settled, and is known with greater accuracy than is the length of any street in Paris.”

Nevertheless we will submit it to the test. There is every reason to believe that the practical work of these two Frenchmen was most admirably done, and yet their labours were reduced to naught, and the whole object of the triangulation was defeated, because, in making the final computations they made ” allowances ” in order to conform to certain of the established false theories of astronomy.

One of these is the Theory of Atmospheric Refraction, which would have us believe that when we see the sun (or moon) low down on the horizon, at sunrise or sunset, it is not really the sun itself that we see, but only an image or mirage of the sun reflected up to the horizon by atmospheric refraction, the real sun being at the time at the extremity of a line drawn through the centre of the earth, 4,000 miles below our horizon. (That is according to the astronomy taught in all schools.)

According to this theory there is at nearly all times some degree of refraction, which varies with the altitude of the body under observation, so that (in simple) the theory declares that the real moon was considerably lower than the moon which Lalande and Lacaille actually saw, for that was only a refracted image.

They had, therefore, to make an allowance for atmospheric refraction. They had to find (by theory) where the real moon would be, and then they had to modify the angles they had obtained in practical triangulation, by making an allowance for what is known as “ Equatorial Parallax.”

I will explain it: Equatorial Parallax is defined as “the apparent change in the direction of a body when seen from the surface of the earth as compared with the direction it would appear to be in if seen from the centre of the earth.”

It is difficult not to laugh at theories such as these, but I can assure the reader that astronomers take them quite seriously. If we interpret this rightly, it is suggested that if Lalande and Lacaille will imagine themselves to be located in the centre of the earth they will perceive the moon to be at a lower altitude than it appeared to them when they saw it from the outside of the earth; and modern Copernican astronomy required that on their return to Paris they should make allowance for this.

Now observe the result. It has been shown that “Equatorial Parallax” is only altitude; it is a question of higher or lower; it has to do with observations taken from the top of the earth compared with others taken theoretically from the centre.

  Really it is an imaginary triangulation, where the line E P in diagram 9 becomes a base-line. The line E P is vertical; therefore it follows that the theoretical triangulation by which Equatorial Parallax is found is in the vertical plane. . . We remember, however, that the moon was away in the west when seen by Lalande and Lacaille, while their base-line was the chord (a straight line running north and south) connecting Berlin with the Cape of Good Hope. These facts prove their triangulation to have been in azimuth; that is, in the horizontal — or nearly concerned with horizontal— plane; indicated by the base-line B C in diagram 9.

Now the three lines of any and every triangle are of necessity in the same plane, and so it follows that every calculation or allowance must also be in that plane; but we find that while Lalande and Lacaille’s triangulation to the moon was in the horizontal plane B C, the allowance they made for Atmospheric Refraction and Equatorial Parallax was in the contrary vertical plane E P! . . .

By that almost inconceivable blunder real and imaginary angles came into conflict on two different planes, so the triangulation was entirely lost; and as a consequence the distance of the moon is no more known to-day than it was at the time of the flood.

N.B.— All other attempts to measure the distance to the moon since that time have been defeated in a similar manner.

Posted in astronomy | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

History of Astronomy From the Roman Empire to the Present, Part 4

History of Astronomy From the Roman Empire to the Present, Part 4

Before passing on to the more important part of this work, it is only just to record the fact that the first practical work in triangulation since the time of Hipparchus was performed by Jean Picard and J. and D. Cassini, between Paris and Dunkirk toward the end of the 17th century; when Newton was working out his theories.

At this time the Copernican theory of astronomy was well established, and was accepted by all the scientific world, though it is probable that the public in general found it difficult to reconcile the idea of an earth careering through space at prodigious speed with common sense and reason. Even the most ardent followers of Copernicus and Galileo recognised this difficulty, and some strove to find a satisfactory explanation.

Nearly a hundred years ago Kepler had suggested that some kind of unknown force must hold the earth and the heavenly bodies in their places, and now Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest mathematician of his age, took up the idea and built the Law of Gravitation.

The name is derived from the Latin word “ gravis,” which means “ heavy,” “having weight,” while the Law of Gravitation is defined as “That mutual action between masses of matter by virtue of which every such mass tends toward every other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses, and inversely as the square of their distances apart.”

Reduced to simplicity, gravitation is said to be “That which attracts every thing toward every other thing.” That does not tell us much; and yet the little it does tell us is not true ; for a thoughtful observer knows very well that every thing is not attracted towards every other thing. . . The definition implies that it is a force ; but it does not say so, for that phrase “ mutual action ” is ambiguous, and not at all convincing.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica tells us that “The Law of Gravitation is unique among the laws of nature, not only for its wide generality, taking the whole universe into its scope, but in the fact that, so far as is yet known, it is absolutely modified by any condition or cause whatever.”

Here again we observe that the nature of gravitation is not really defined at a 11; we’re are told that masses of matter tend toward each other, but no reason is given why they do so, or should do so; while to say that “it is absolutely unmodified by any condition or cause whatever” is one of the most unscientific statements it is possible to make. There is not any thing or force in the universe that is absolute! no thing that goes its own way and does what it will without regard to other forces or things.

The thing is impossible; and it is not true; wherefore it has fallen to me to show where the inconsistency in it lies.

The name given to this mutual action means “weight,” and weight is one of the attributes of all matter. Merely to say that anything is matter or material implies that it has weight, while to speak of weight implies matter. Matter and weight are inseparable, they are not laws, but elemental facts.

They exist.

But it has been suggested that gravitation is a force, indeed we often hear it referred to as the force of gravitation; but force is quite a different thing than weight, it is active energy expressed by certain conditions and combinations of matter. It acts. All experience and observation goes to prove that material things fall to earth because they possess the attribute of weight, and that an object remains suspended in air or space only so long as its weight is overcome by a force, which is contrary. And when we realize these simple facts we see that gravitation is in reality conditioned and modified by every other active force, both great and small.

Again, gravitation is spoken of as a pull, an agent of attraction that robs weight of its meaning, something that brings all terrestrial things down to earth while at the same time it keeps the heavenly bodies in their places and prevents them falling toward each other or apart. The thing is altogether too wonderful, it is not natural; and the theory is scientifically unsound…

Every man, however great his genius, must be limited by the conditions that surround him; and science in general was not sufficiently advanced two hundred years ago to be much help to Newton, so that— for lack of information which is ordinary knowledge to us having in the 20th century— he fell into the error of attributing the effects of “weight” and “force” to a common cause, which— for want of a better term— he called gravitation; but I have not the slightest doubt that if he were living now he would have arrived at the following more reasonable conclusions: That terrestrial things fall to earth by “gravis,” weight; because they are matter; while the heavenly bodies (which also are matter) do not fall because they are maintained in their courses by magnetic or electric force.

Another figure of great prominence in the early part of the eighteenth century was Dr. Hailey, who survived Sir Isaac Newton by some fifteen years, and it is to him that we owe nearly all the methods of measuring distance which are used in astronomy at the present day. So far no one had seriously considered the possibility of measuring the distance to the sun planets or stars since Hipparchus had failed— away back in the second century B.C.— but now, since the science had made great strides, it occurred to Dr. Hailey that it might be possible at least to find the distance from the earth to the sun, or to the nearest planet.

Remembering the time-honoured dogma that the stars are infinitely distant, inspired by the magnificence of the Copernican conception of the universe, and influenced— no doubt— by the colossal suggestions of Ole Roemer, he tried to invent some means of making a triangulation on a gigantic scale, with a base-line of hitherto unknown dimensions.

Long years ago Kepler had worked out a theory of the distances of the planets with relation to each other, the principle of which— when expressed in simple language and in round figures— is as follows : “ If we knew the distance to any one of the planets we could use that measurement as a basis from which to estimate the others. Thus Venus is apparently about twice as far from the sun as Mercury, while the earth is about three times and Mars four times as far from the sun as Mercury, so that should the distance of the smallest planet be— let us say— 50 million miles, then Venus would be 100, the Earth 150, and Mars 200 millions of miles.”

This seems to be the simplest kind of arithmetic, but the whole of the theory of relative distance goes to pieces because Kepler had not the slightest idea of the linear distance from the earth to anything in the firmament, and based all his calculations on time, and on the apparent movements of the planets in azimuth, that is— to right or left of the observer, and to the right or left of the sun.

Necessity compels me to state these facts in this plain and almost brutal fashion, but it is my sincere hope that no reader will suppose that I under-estimate the genius or the worth of such men as Newton and Kepler; for it is probable that I appreciate and honour them more than do most of those who blindly worship them with less understanding. I only regret that they were too ready to accept Copernican astronomy as though it were an axiom, and did not

put it to the proof; and that, as a consequence, their fine intelligence and industry should have been devoted to the glorification of a blunder.

Kepler’s work was of that high order which only one man in a million could do, but nevertheless, his calculations of the relative distances of the planets depends entirely upon the question whether they revolve round the sun or not ; and that we shall discover in due course.

However, Dr. Hailey had these theories in mind when he proposed to measure the distance to Mars at a time when the planet reached its nearest point to earth (in opposition to the sun), and then to multiply that distance by three (approximate), and in that manner estimate the distance of the sun.

He proceeded then to invent what is now known as the “ Diurnal Method of Measurement by Parallax,” which he described in detail in the form of a lecture to contemporary astronomers, introducing it by remarking that he would probably not be living when next Mars came into the required position, but others might at that time put the method into practice.

He began by saying that “If it were possible to place two observers at points diametrically opposite to each other on the surface of the earth (as A and B in dia^am 5), both observers— looking along their respective horizons— would see Mars at the same time, the planet being between them, to the east of one observer and to the westward of the other. In these circumstances the diameter of the earth might be used as a base-line, the observers at A and B might take simultaneous observations, and the two angles obtained, on being referred to the base-line, would give the distance of the planet.”

But this was in the reign of George II, long before the invention of steamships, cables or telegraphs, and Dr. Hailey knew that it was practically impossible to have B taking observations in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, so he proposed to overcome the difficulty by the following expedient: He suggested that both the observations could be taken by a single observer, using the same observatory, thus— “ Let an observer at A take the first observation in the evening, when Mars will be to his east: let him then wait twelve hours, during which time the rotation of the earth will have carried him round to B. He may then take his second observation. Mars being at this time to his west, and the two angles thus obtained— on being referred to the base-line— will give the distance of the planet.”

This proposition is so plausible that it has apparently deceived every astronomer from that day to this, and it might even now deceive the reader himself were it not that he knows I have some good reason for describing it here. It is marvellously specious; it does not seem to call for our examination; and yet it is all wrong! and Dr. Hailey has a world of facts against him. He is at fault in his premises, for if the planet was visible to one of the observers it must be above his horizon, and, therefore, could not be seen at the same time by the other; since it could not be above his horizon also. (See diagram 5.)

Again, his premises are in conflict with Euclid, because he supposes Mars to be midway between A and B, that is between their two horizons, which are parallel lines 8,000 miles apart throughout their entire length, and so it is obvious that if the planet— much smaller than the earth— was really in that position it could not be seen by either of the observers.

The alternative which Dr. Hailey proposes is as fallacious as his premises, for he overlooks the fact that— according to Copernican astronomy— during the twelve hours while the earth has been rotating on its axis it has also travelled an immense distance in its orbit round the sun. The results are:

That an observer starting from arrive at B, but must arrive in time at a point somewhere about three-quarters of a million miles beyond it, as shown in diagram 6.

The observer loses his original base-line, which was the diameter of the earth, and does not know the length of his new one, A, G, because the distance of the sun and the dimensions of the orbit had never previously been measured. 3. The angle of view from G is entirely different from the one intended from B.

Mars itself has moved along its orbit during the twelve hours, to a new position which is very uncertain.

The triangulation which was intended is utterly lost, and the combined movements of the earth and Mars, plus the two lines of sight, make up a quadrilateral figure, which of course contains angles of 360 degrees, and by means of which no measurement whatever is possible.

In conclusion. Dr. Hailey was mistaken when he supposed that two observations made from a single station with an interval of twelve hours between them, were equivalent to two observations taken simultaneously by A and B…

The actual attempt to measure the distance to Mars by the use of this Diurnal Method will be dealt with in the proper order of events, but for the present— what more need I say concerning such ingenious expedients?

A curious example of theorising to no useful purpose is the “ Theory of the Aberration of Light,” which is regarded by some as one of the pillars of astronomy. It aims to show that if the velocity of the earth were known the velocity of light could be found, while at the same time it implies the reverse that if the velocity of light were known we could find at what speed the earth is travelling round the sun. If Bradley intended to prove anything by this theory it was that the apparent movement of the stars proves that the earth is in motion ; which surely is egging the question.

The fact that the theory of the Aberration of Light has no scientific value whatever is very well shown by

the following quotation from its author: “ If the observer be stationary at B (see dia. 7) the star will appear to be in the direction B, S; if, however, he traverses the line B A in the same time as light passes from the star to his eye the star will appear in the direction A. S.”

That is true, but it would be no less true if the star itself had moved to the right while the observer remained at B, but why did he say “if he moves from B to A in the same time as it takes light to pass from the star to his eye”? It is a needless qualification, for if the observer moves to A he will see the star at the same angle whether he walks there at three miles an hour or goes there by aeroplane at a mile a minute. It has nothing to do with the speed of light, and the velocity of light has nothing to do with the direction of the star, it is merely posing, using words to no purpose.

.

Posted in astronomy | Tagged , | Leave a comment

History of Astronomy From the Roman Empire to the Present, Part 3

History of Astronomy From the Roman Empire to the Present, Part 3

Chapter Three

Ole Roemer’s Blunder

Among the many ambitious spirits of that time, was one whose name is known only to a comparative few, nevertheless he has had a considerable influence both on astronomy and physics— Ole Roemer, best remembered for his observations of the Eclipses of Jupiter’s Satellites.

A study of the records which have been made during more than 3,000 years shows that eclipses repeat themselves with clock-work regularity, so that a given number of years, months, days and minutes elapse between every two eclipses of a given kind; but Ole Roemer observed that in the case of the eclipses of the satellites, or moons, of Jupiter, the period of time between them was not always the same, for they occurred 161 minutes later on some occasions than on others. He therefore tried to account for this slight difference in time, and was led to some strange conclusions.

These eclipses occur at different seasons of the year, so that sometimes they can be seen when the earth is at A (see dia. 3), and at other times when the earth is at B, on the opposite side of the sun and the orbit, (according to Copernican Astronomy).

So Ole Roemer reflected that when the observer is at B, he is further from Jupiter than he is when the earth is at A, by a distance as great as the diameter of the orbit; and that gave him a new idea, and a possible explanation.

He thought that although light appeared to be— for all ordinary pi^poses— instantaneous, it really must take an appreciable time to travel over the immense distance from Jupiter to the earth, just as a ship takes so long to travel a given distance at so many miles per hour. In that case the light from Jupiter’s satellites would take less time to reach the observer when the earth is at A than it would require to reach him at B, on the further side of the orbit; and as a result of these reflections he reached the conclusion that the 16 ½ minutes difference in time was to be accounted for in that way.

Following up this idea, he decided that if it took 16 ½ minutes longer for light to travel the increased distance from one side of the orbit to the other, it would require only half the time to travel half that distance, so that it would travel as far as from the sun to the earth in minutes. Therefore he gave it as his opinion that the distance to the sun was so tremendous that “ Light”— travelling with almost lightning rapidity— took minutes to cover the distance.

This ingenious hypothesis appealed strongly to the imagination of contemporary astronomers, so that they allowed it to pass without a sufficient examination, with the result that eventually it took its place among the many strange and ill-considered theories of astronomy. . . However, we ourselves will now do what should have been done in the days of Ole Roemer.

We will stand beside him, as it were, and study these eclipses of Jupiter’s satellites, just as he did, from the same viewpoint of Copernican astronomy; and then we shall find whether his deductions were justified or not.

The eclipses are to be seen on one occasion when the observer (or earth) is at A, and on another occasion when the observer (or earth) is at B, while the height of Jupiter’s satellites (or the image of the eclipse) is supposed to cross the orbit at one observation but not at the other. It is important to note that the observer at B will have to look in a direction toward the sun, and across the orbit; while the observer at A will see the eclipse outward from the orb it; in a direction opposite to the sun. . . Ole Roemer found that the observer at B saw the eclipse 16 ½ minutes later than he would have seen it from A, and he believed that this was because the image of the eclipse had a greater distance to come to meet his eye.

Let us now consider diagram 4, which shows two observers in the positions Ole Roemer supposed the earth to occupy at the respective observations.

We find that A would see the satellite in a state of eclipse while it would be hidden from B by the planet Jupiter; (triangle A, i, B). The planet and its satellite are both moving round the sun toward the east, as shown by the arrows, but the satellite is like a moon, travelling round Jupiter ; so that it moves faster than the planet. The satellite is eclipsed by Jupiter only when the two are together on the same line with the sun, (dotted lines), but, as time passes, the satellite moves to the eastward of that line ; it passes Jupiter ; and then it can be seen by the observer at B. (triangle B, 2, A).

Thus it is that B sees the eclipse a few mixtures later than A, and that is the very simple explanation which Ole Roemer overlooked. It would be possible to write a volume on this subject, and there are some who would want to debate it at interminable length, but in the end the explanation would prove to be just this ; which I prefer to leave in all its simplicity.

The 16 ½ minutes difference in time is due to a difference in the angles from which the eclipses are seen, and is not in any way connected with distance ; and so the speculations of Ole Roemer concerning the Velocity of Light and the probable distance to the sun amount to nothing.

.

Posted in astronomy | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Dr. Leonard Coldwell on Muslim Immigration in Germany

Dr. Leonard Coldwell on Muslim Immigration in Germany

Dr. Leonard Coldwell is well known for his book, The Only Answer to Cancer. Dr. Coldwell talks on many subjects including: Muslim invasion in Germany, attacks on his life, Donald Trump and attacks on holistic practitioners. You might disagree with him here and there but he is fighting the good fight for our freedom – the preservation of our Anglo-Saxon race and for health freedom.

I encourage you to check out Coldwell’s videos on YouTube.

I know that Jeff Rense is a believer in the globe earth and all that goes with it – of which we disagree with – but this interview is not on that subject but on what is listed above.

The flat earth is not the only cover up that the media engages in – as you well know. Other major cover ups are about the immigration problems from third world countries and holistic healing. There are many other things that we are lied to but immigration and health are two major areas. So, if you have ANY health issues there are alternative and natural therapies to chose from – including changing your diet and lifestyle.

Do your research on the internet to find out more. Yes, you’ll have to weed out the bull from the rest. However, alternative research is published on the internet including testimonials from others. There are some goof-balls out there that think you can’t learn anything from the internet. Their reasoning goes something like this, “Anyone can put anything on the internet.” While this is true, at least the truth CAN get out without having to own a newspaper or TV station. Whereas before the days of the internet you had ONLY lies. While these purveyors of lies still put their articles on the internet you at least have good people AND researchers who tell the truth publish their work online, too, like Dr. Coldwell.

With that in mind, here is the interview of Dr. Leonard Coldwell…

 

 

Cure on Cancer: The Only Answer to Cancer

.

Posted in Important News, media lies | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

History of Astronomy From the Roman Empire to the Present, Part 2

History of Astronomy From the Roman Empire to the Present, Part 2

Chapter Two

Copernicus and Galileo

Ptolemy’s was still the astronomy of the world when Columbus discovered America, 1492, but there was living at that time— in the little town of Franenburg, in Prussia— a youth of 18, who was destined in later years to overthrow the astronomy of Hipparchus and Ptolemy, and to become himself the founder of a new theory which has since been universally accepted in its stead ; Nicholas Copernicus.

It is to be remembered that at that time the earth was believed to stand still, while the sun, moon, planets and stars moved round it daily from east to west, as stated by Ptolemy ; but this did not seem reasonable to Copernicus. He was a daring and original thinker, willing to challenge any theory— be it ever so long established— if it did not appear logical to him, and he contended that it was unreasonable to suppose that all the vast firmament of heavenly bodies revolved around this relatively little earth, but, on the contrary, it was more reasonable to believe that the earth itself rotated and revolved around an enormous sun, moving within a firmament of stars that were fixed in infinite space ; for in either case the appearance of the heavens would be the same to an observer on the surface of the earth.

This was the idea that inspired Nicholas Copernicus to labour for twenty-seven years developing the Heliocentric Theory of the universe, and in compiling the book that made him famous : ”De Revolutionibus Orbium Ccelestium,” which was published in the last year of his life: 1543.

And now it is for us to very carefully study this fundamental idea of the Heliocentric theory, for there is an error in it. Ptolemy had made it appear that the sun and stars revolved around a stationary earth, but Copernicus advanced the theory that it was the earth which revolved around a stationary sun, while the stars were fixed; and either of these entirely opposite theories gives an equally satisfactory explanation of the appearance of the sun by day and the stars by night. Copernicus did not produce any newly discovered fact to prove that Ptolemy was wrong, neither did he offer any proof that he himself was right, but worked out his system to show that he could account for all the appearances of the heavens quite as well as the Egyptian had done, though working on an entirely different hypothesis ; and offered his new Heliocentric Theory as an alternative.

He argued that it was more reasonable to conceive the earth to be revolving round the sun than it was to think of the sun revolving round the earth, because it was more reasonable that the smaller body should move round the greater. And that is good logic.

We see that Copernicus recognised the physical law that the lesser shall be governed by the greater, and that is the pivot upon which the whole of his astronomy turns; but it is perfectly clear that in building up his theories he assumed the earth to be much smaller than the sun, and also smaller than the stars ; and that was pure assumption unsupported by any kind of fact. In the absence of any proof as to whether the earth or the sun was the greater of the two, and having only the evidence of the senses to guide him, it would have been more reasonable had he left astronomy as it was, seeing that the sun appeared to move round the earth, while he himself was unconscious of any movement.

When he supposed the stars to be motionless in space, far outside the solar system, he was assuming them to be infinitely distant; relying entirely upon the statement made by Hipparchus seventeen hundred years before. It is strange that he should have accepted this single statement on faith while he was in the very act of repudiating all the rest of the astronomy of Hipparchus and Ptolemy, but the fact remains that he did accept the ” infinitely distant ” doctrine without question, and that led him to suppose the heavenly bodies to be proportionately large; hence the rest of his reasoning’s followed as a matter of course.

He saw that the Geocentric Theory of the universe did not harmonise with the idea that the stars were infinitely distant, and so far we agree with him. He had at that time the choice of two courses open to him:—he might have studied the conclusion which had been arrived at by Hipparchus, and found the error there ; but instead of doing that he chose to find fault with the whole theory of the universe, to overthrow it, and invent an entirely new astronomy to fit the error of Hipparchus!

It was a most unfortunate choice, but it is now made clear that the whole work of Copernicus depends upon the single question whether the ancient Greek was right or wrong when he said “ the heavenly bodies are infinitely distant.” It is a very insecure foundation for the whole of Copernican or modern astronomy to rest upon, but such indeed is the case.

Some thirty years after the publication of the work of Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, the Danish astronomer, invented the first instrument used in modern astronomy.

This was a huge quadrant nineteen feet in height (the forerunner of the sextant), which he used to very good purpose in charting out the positions of many of the more conspicuous stars. He differed with some of the details of the Prussian doctor’s theory, but accepted it in the main ; and took no account whatever of the question of the distance of the stars.

Immediately following him came Johann Kepler, and it is a very remarkable circumstance that this German philosopher, mystic and astrologer, should have been the founder of what is now known as Physical Astronomy. Believer as he was in the ancient doctrine that men’s lives are pre-destined and mysteriously influenced by the stars and planets, he nevertheless sought to discover some physical law which governed the heavenly bodies. Having accepted the Copernican Theory that the sun was the centre of the universe, and that the earth and the planets revolved around it, it was but natural that all his reasonings and deductions should conform to those ideas, and so it is only to be expected that his conclusions dealing with the relative distances, movements and masses of the planets, which he laboured upon for many years, and which are now the famous “Laws of Kepler,” should be in perfect accord with the Heliocentric Theory of Copernicus.

But, though the underlying principles of Kepler’s work will always have great value, his conclusions cannot be held to justify Copernican astronomy, since they are a sequel to it, but— on the contrary— they will be involved in the downfall of the theory that gave them birth.

While the life work of Johann Kepler was drawing to a close, that of Galileo was just beginning, and Ms name is more widely known in connection with modern astronomy than is that of its real inventor, Nicholas Copernicus. Galileo adopted the Copernican theory with enthusiasm, and propagated it so vigorously that at one time he was in great danger of being burnt at the stake for heresy. In the year 1642 he invented the telescope, and so may be said to have founded the modern method of observing the heavens.

Zealous follower of Copernicus as he was, Galileo did much to make his theory widely known and commonly believed, and we may be sure that it was because he saw no error in it that other giants of astronomy who came after him accepted it the more readily. Nearly eighteen hundred years had passed since Hipparchus had said the heavenly bodies were infinitely distant, and still no one had questioned the accuracy of that statement, nor made any attempt whatever to measure their distance.

It is interesting to mention here an event which— at first sight— might seem important, but which— now reviewed in its proper place in history— can be seen to have had a marked effect on the progress of astronomy as well as navigation. This was the publication of a little book called ” The Seaman’s Practice,” by Richard Norwood, in the year 1637.

At that time books of any kind were rare, and this was the first book ever written on the subject of measuring by triangulation. It was intended for the use of mariners, but there is no doubt that ‘ ‘ The Seaman’s Practice ” helped King Charles II to hearse how the science of astronomy could be made to render valuable service to British seamen in their voyages of discovery, with the result that in 1675 he appointed John Flamsteed to make a special study of the stars, and to chart them after the manner of Tycho Brahe and Galileo, in order that navigators might guide their ships by the constellations over the trackless oceans.

That was how the British School of Astronomy came into existence, with John Flamsteed as the first Astronomer Royal, employing only one assistant, with whom he shared a magnificent salary of £70 a year ; and navigation owes much to the excellent work he did with an old-fashioned telescope, mounted in a little wooden shed on Greenwich Hill.

At about the same time the French School of Astronomy came into being, and the end of the seventeenth century began the most glorious period in the history of the science, when astronomers in England, France and Germany all contested strenuously for supremacy, and worshipped at the shrine of Copernicus.

.

Posted in astronomy | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Levels of The Seas in Relation to Each Other

Levels of The Seas in Relation to Each Other

 

suez canal

Suez Canal

You have hear the saying, “Let them have plenty of rope, and they will hang themselves.” The proceedings of long ago reveals such a case. In Parliamentary reports of a discussion in 1867, on the Suez Canal question; I find that after a long discussion they concluded that there was not a difference of 30 feet but only of 2 feet 6 inches between the level of the two seas (referring to the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. But the Astronomer Royal said that he was toterable familiar with the work in France which was drawn up by the joint commission of Engineers of which the late Mr. Stevenson was one, and his impression was, that after correcting the enormous errors in previous surveys, he found no perceptible difference in the man level of the two seas! He would e glad to be certified whether there was, in fact, a difference of 2 feet 6 inches between the mean levels. In reply Sir W. Denison said, he was assured by the French engineers on the works, that the MEAN LEVEL OF THE TWO SEAS WAS THE SAME. (Mediterranean and Red Sea.) in the Echo of June 6th 1887, I read, “In the report on the Panama Canal submitted to the Academy of Sciences by Mr. Bouguet de la Grye, who is, says the Times Paris Correspondent, “the highest authority in such questions,” he states that it would be quite useless to construct locks. HE REMARKS THAT NO DIFFERENCE OF LEVEL CAN EXIST BETWEEN THE ATLANTIC AND THE PACIFIC.

(Locks have been built in the Panama Canal – not because of a difference in sea levels but because of having to go over higher elevations of land. Whereas the Suez Canal, the land is level, and, thus, there are no locks. Ed.)

Respecting the Baltic and North Sea Canal, we are informed that THE SURFACE OF THE TWO SEAS ARE LEVEL. Next we have to report of recent levelling operations carried on in Russia. See Daily Chronicle, Feb. 12th, 1895, in which we read, “The deadly flatness of the great plain of Russia is remarkable shown by the levelling operations now completed.” Accurate observations were made at 1,090 stations, yet the highest point noted was 1,086 feet. A more important though less expected result was THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE IDENITITY OF LEVEL BETWEEN THE BALTIC, BLACK, AND AZOFF SEAS. Well, if the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, the Atlantic, the Pacific, the Baltic, North Sea, Black Sea and the Sea of Azoff are level; we may soon have to ask where we are to find rotundity. We may have to wait for an answer as notwithstanding these surprising discoveries of level surfaces, no doubt ships will still follow the natural order of things, and on these level surfaces disappear as heretofore, viz., “Hull first.”

Yours truly,

R. Alfrey

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

History of Astronomy from the Roman Empire to the Present, Part 1

Kings Dethroned

History of Astronomy from the Roman Empire to the Present, Part 1

A history of the evolution of astronomy from the time of the Roman Empire up to the present day; showing it to be an amazing series of blunders founded upon an error made in the second century B.C.

By GERRARD HICKSON

PREFACE

In the year 1907 the author made a remarkable discovery which convinced him that the sun was very much nearer to the earth than was generally supposed. The fact he had discovered was demonstrated beyond all doubt, so that he was compelled to believe that— however improbable it might seem— astronomers had made a mistake when they estimated the distance of the sun to be ninety-three millions of miles.

He then proceeded to examine the means by which the sun’s distance had been computed, and found an astounding error in the “ Diurnal Method of Measurement by Parallax,” which had been invented by Dr. Hailey in the early part of the i%th century, and which was used by Sir David Gill in measuring the distance to the planet Mars in 1877 ; from which he deduced his solar parallax of 8.80″.

Seeing that Sir Norman Lockyer had said that the distance to and the dimensions of everything in the firmament except the moon depends upon Sir David Gill’s measurement to Mars, the author set himself the tremendous task of proving the error, tracing its consequences up to the present day, and also tracing it backwards to the source from which it sprang.

The result of that research is a most illuminating history of the evolution of astronomy from the time of the Roman Empire up to April 1922 ; which is now placed in the hands of the people in “Kings Dethroned.”

The author has taken the unusual course of submitting these new and startling theories for the consideration of the general public because the responsible scientific societies in London, Washington and Paris, failed to deal with the detailed accounts of the work which he forwarded to them in the Spring of 1920. He believes that every newly-discovered truth belongs to the whole of mankind, wherefore, i f those whose business it is to consider his work fail in their duty he does not hesitate to bring it himself direct to the people, assured of their goodwill and fair judgment.

Astronomy has ever been regarded as a study only for the few, but now all its strange terms and theories have been explained in the most lucid manner in “ Kings Dethroned,” so that everyone who reads will acquire a comprehensive knowledge of the science.

The author takes this opportunity of assuring the reader that none esteems more highly than he, himself, the illustrious pioneers who devoted their genius to the building of astronomy, for he feels that even while pointing out their errors he is but carrying on their work, striving, labouring even as they did, for the same good cause of progress in the interests of all. On the other hand, he thinks that astronomers living at the present time might have used to better purpose the greater advantages which this century provides, and done all that he himself has done by fearless reasoning, devoted labour ; and earnest seeking after truth.

G. H.

Chapter One

WHEN THE WORLD WAS YOUNG THREE thousand years ago men believed the earth was supported on gigantic pillars. The sun rose in the east every morning, passed overhead, and sank in the west every evening; then it was supposed to pass between the pillars under the earth during the night, to re-appear in the east again next morning.

This idea of the universe was upset by Pythagoras some five hundred years before the birth of Christ, when he began to teach that the earth was round like a ball, with the sun going round it daily from east to west; and this theory was already about four hundred years old when Hipparchus, the great Greek scientist, took it up and developed it in the second century b.c. Hipparchus may be ranked among the score or so of the greatest scientists who have ever lived. He was the inventor of the system of measuring the distance to far off objects by triangulation, or trigonometry, which is used by our surveyors at the present day, and which is the basis of all the methods of measuring distance which are used in modern astronomy. Using this method of his own invention, he measured from point to point on the surface of the earth, and so laid the foundation of our present systems of geography, scientific map-making and navigation.

It would be well for those who are disposed to under-estimate the value of new ideas to consider how much the world owes to the genius of Hipparchus, and to try to conceive how we could have made progress— as we know it— without him.

  The principles of triangulation are very simple, but because it will be necessary— as I proceed— to show how modern astronomers have departed from them, I will explain them in detail.

Every figure made up of three connected lines is a tri— or three-angle, quite regardless of the length of any of its sides. The triangle differs from all other shapes or figures in this;— that the value of its three angles, when added together, admits of absolutely no variation ; they always equal 180 degrees; while — on the other hand— all other figures contain angles of 360 degrees or more. The triangle alone contains 180 degrees, and no other figure can be used for measuring distance. There is no alternative whatever, and therein lies its value.

It follows, then, that if we know the value of any two of the angles in a triangle we can readily find the value of the third, by simply adding together the two known angles and subtracting the result from 180.

The value of the third angle is necessarily the remainder. Thus in our example (diagram 2) an angle of 90 degrees plus an angle of 60 equals 150, which shows that the angle at the distant object— or apex of the triangle—must be 30.

 

  Now if we know the length of the base-line A— B, in feet, yards, kilometres or miles, (to be ascertained by actual measurement), and also know the value of the two angles which indicate the direction of a distant object as seen from A. and B., we can readily complete the triangle and so find the length of its sides. In this way we can measure the height of a tree or church steeple from the ground level, or find the distance to a ship or lighthouse from the shore.

The reader will perceive that to obtain any measurement by triangulation it is absolutely necessary to have a base-line, and to know its length exactly. It is evident, also, that the length of the base-line must bear a reasonable proportion to the dimensions of the triangle intended; that is to say,— that the greater the distance of the object under observation the longer the base-line should be in order to secure an accurate measurement.

A little reflection will now enable the reader to realize the difficulties which confronted Hipparchus when he attempted to measure the distance to the stars.

It was before the Roman Conquest, when the geography of the earth was but little known, and there were none of the rapid means of travelling and communication which are at our disposal to-day.

Moreover, it was in the very early days of astronomy, when there were few— if any— who could have helped Hipparchus in his work, while if he was to make a successful triangulation to any of the stars it was essential that he should have a base-line thousands of miles in length, with an observer at each end; both taking observations to the same star at precisely the same second of time.

The times in which he lived did not provide the conveniences which were necessary for his undertaking, the conditions were altogether impossible, and so it is not at all surprising that he failed to get any triangulation to the stars. As a result he came to the conclusion that they must be too far off to be measured, and said “ the heavenly bodies are infinitely distant.”

Such was the extraordinary conclusion arrived at by Hipparchus, and that statement of his lies at the root of astronomy, and has led its advocates into an amazing series of blunders from that day to this.

The whole future of the science of astronomy was affected by Hipparchus when he said “the heavenly bodies are infinitely distant,” and now, when I say that it is not so, the fate of astronomy again hangs in the balance. It is a momentous issue which will be decided in due course within these pages.

The next astronomer of special note is Sosigenes, who designed the Julian Calendar in the reign of Caesar. He saw no fault in the theories of Hipparchus, but handed them on to Ptolemy, an Egyptian astronomer of very exceptional ability, who lived in the second century a.d.

Taking up the theories of his great Greek predecessor after three hundred years, Ptolemy accepted them without question as the work of a master; and developed them. Singularly gifted as he was to carry on the work of Hipparchus, his genius was of a different order, for while the Greek was the more original thinker and inventor the Egyptian was the more accomplished artist in detail; and the more skillful in the art of teaching. Undoubtedly he was eminently fitted to be the disciple of Hipparchus, and yet for that very reason he was the less likely to suspect, or to discover, any error in the master’s work.

In the most literal sense he carried on that work, built upon it, elaborated it, and established the Ptolemaic System of astronomy so ably that it stood unchallenged and undisputed for fourteen hundred years; and during all those centuries the accepted theory of the universe was that the earth was stationary, while the sun, moon, stars and planets revolved around it daily.

Having accepted the theories of Hipparchus in the bulk, it was but natural that Ptolemy should fail to discover the error I have pointed out, though even had it been otherwise it would have been as difficult for him to make a triangulation to the stars in the second century a.d., as it had been for the inventor of triangulation himself three hundred years earlier. However, it is a fact that he allowed the theory that “the heavenly bodies are infinitely distant” to remain unquestioned; and that was an error of omission which was ultimately to bring about the downfall of his own Ptolemaic system of astronomy.

 

.

Posted in astronomy | Tagged , | Leave a comment