The New Perspective comments on "planets moving closer to the sun?"

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by The New Perspective, Jun 19, 2016.

  1. The New Perspective Registered Member


    There is a concept known as the New Perspective, which explains how this process is actually quite perfectly real. A website is available explaining the basic concept, one of the articles on this website is called the movement of life, this article explains the simple life-cycle of the planets.

    When you consider our planets history many details provide evidence that global warming is part of the natural flow of the planets towards the sun. Our dinosaur reconstruction produces an environment where lush green plants and animals were built with more hair and blubbery, more suited to a cooler environment. Many equatorial ancient sites were once built in fertile green lush areas, now deserted, dry and baron. Time is warming up and getting faster, life forms are changing, getting smaller adapting to warmer temperatures.
    As the World is currently residing in the Goldilocks zone, it is passing through this phase and the next planet that has entered this zone is Mars.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    I have some questions for you:

    1. Could you give an example of something of actually not quite perfectly real?
    2. Is the work you reference your own?
    3. Is there a good reason you have rejected the findings of tens of thousands of dedicated, professional scientists in favour of delusional nonsense?
    4. Is there a good reason you are answering a question originally asked in 2004, by a member who has not been active here for over five years?
    paddoboy likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Your website seems to have cherry picked information to support your conjecture which is the opposite of how science is done.

    Unfortunately the actual average sun - earth distance is increasing not decreasing, which sort of kills your idea.

    If the recent increases in temperature were really due to moving closer to the sun then that would lead to the conclusion that 10s of millions of years ago the oceans would have been frozen solid and life would not have been possible. Again raising a rather severe issue with your ideas.
    paddoboy and ajanta like this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. ajanta Registered Senior Member

    Now we use tidal energy on earth so does it help to increase the distance between 'earth and sun' AND 'earth and moon' ? I assumed it should help to increase the distance.
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2016
  8. The New Perspective Registered Member

    Greetings Ophiolite,

    Thank you for your welcome to this site.

    I am a member of a few discussion forums and found this site when searching for information. I have been looking at many ideas and theories with regards to planetary movement. I first read this thread many months ago and wanted to return to address the question presented by Datura. First of all you do not need to login to read this material and so I was hoping to offer a theory which supports the thread topic and offers Datura a logical explanation. I had noticed Datura's absence, but this does not mean she does not read here still, or will never logon again.

    A delusion is a belief that is held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception.

    I have not rejected any theories, I have in reading found plenty of debate on this issue. Personally I believe it seems to be retrograde to the natural process and progression of life on Earth, presented also by scientific theories. Likewise considering the theories on planetary formation there is a logic when considering a life-cycle submitted by the New Perspective. The precision and stages of the planets can be viewed in a natural life-cycle.

    Greetings Origin,

    Thank you also for your welcome. Great respect to you both for your long established contributions to this site. The website if you skimmed through it is very simplified and targeted for both spiritual and scientific readers. I have a scientific schooling, but have a very natural and spiritual collection of experiences. Some subjects have been studied by the recognised pattern of the New Perspective but have only been mentioned in a sentence or two on the website. You mentioned the expression "cherry picked", but I am not sure what you are referring to specifically.

    Thank you again for your welcome and I look forward to discussing this concept. It is through teaching that I do recognise and can explain the question presented by this thread as a basic and natural process.
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Allow me to lower the tone by alleging that you are a nutter, trying to drive traffic for a crank website.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    origin, Boris2 and paddoboy like this.
  10. The New Perspective Registered Member

    • Official warning. Please don't misteach science on the science subforums.
    "Allege" claim or assert that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically without proof.

    The most enlightening aspect to the New Perspective is that the pattern is recognisable by studying the evidence of all of our animals both past and present. The website mentions many iconic animals globally. Our evidence gathered by scientific research has simply been reformulated globally to discover this pattern. The World formation itself is like the missing link and binds life on Earth together by a simple design and also allows us to recognise the energy system or pattern of which surrounds us. The New Perspective has life on Earth as evidence for this pattern, it is difficult when you first discover this because you have to reconsider many aspects of life.

    It is known now that many ancient sites were built to capture this message and were constructed to this global pattern, now recognisable physically. The pattern now is guiding the placement of endangered species by selecting the most ideal location based on animal dynamics and global connections.

    Is it fact the Earth moves away from the sun? or is it a theory?
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Firstly. are you aware what a scientific theory is?
    A scientific theory is an explanation of a specific scenario that is implemented via the scientific method and peer review and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
    There is a theory that if you jump up into the air, you will fall back down to Earth: It continues to be tested time and time again and is constantly confirmed.

    The earth is moving away from the Sun for a number of reasons......simply because the Sun is slowly losing angular momentum at about 3 milliseconds/100 years.....The Sun is also slowly losing mass....and through tidal gravitational effects, similar to what is observed with the Earth/Moon system, and as explained in the following......

    Recent evidence from observations of extra-stellar/planetary systems and the many giant hot Jupiters that have been discovered, do point to possible planetary migration that may take place.
    ajanta likes this.
  12. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    I am requesting that the mods move this to the pseudoscience section. Your site is filled with all manner of pseudoscience, pseudomysticism and plain old lunacy. You should find a Wiccan site or the like to discuss your ideas. Wild conjectures not backed up by evidence rarely do well in a scientific setting.
  13. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    SURVEY SAYS.....[ding] [ding] [ding] [ding]
  14. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Since Earth's semi-major axis has likely changed by only a few dozen parts per billion over the last three million years, this is not a significant factor.
    A larger factor is that the sun is growing brighter at a rate of about 1% per 110 million years, and is about 40% brighter than its earliest days.
    But neither of these is relevant for global climate change during the span of human history.
  15. The New Perspective Registered Member

    The theory the planets move away from the sun is one option, the theory of them moving towards the sun is another. Other theories also exist and here are a few pasted below;-

    The Sun is powered by nuclear fusion, which means the Sun is continuously transforming a small part of its mass into energy. As the mass of the Sun goes down, our orbit gets proportionally bigger. However, over the entire main sequence lifetime of the Sun (about 10 billion years), the Sun will only lose about 0.1% of its mass, which means that the Earth should move out by just ~150,000 km (small compared to the total Earth-Sun distance of ~150,000,000 km). If we assume that the Sun's rate of nuclear fusion today is the same as the average rate over those 10 billion years (a bold assumption, but it should give us a rough idea of the answer), then we're moving away from the Sun at the rate of ~1.5 cm (less than an inch) per year.

    The Sun is converting a very small fraction of its mass to energy via nuclear fusion (only about 0.07%, too small of an amount to appreciably affect the Earth's orbit. That said, the Sun will lose mass in the red giant phase as it blows off its outer layers. While the Earth could avoid being enveloped by the Sun, the increased radiation will cook the Earth's surface thoroughly, rendering it uninhabitable.

    The Sun and the planets are staying approximately the same distance apart and have been in roughly the same places for the last several billion years. Planetary orbits are a fine balancing act between momentum and gravity. As the planets fly through space they want to move in a straight line but the gravity from the Sun attempts to pull the planets towards it, which curves their paths. The planets currently lie in a perfect balance that results in each planet moving fast enough to not be pulled closer to the Sun, but not too fast that it moves away from the Sun and out of the Solar System.

    For me the most logical process that explains the points above is that we move closer to the sun. It is not a 100% guaranteed theory the planets move away from the sun as you can see by some of these other posts, it is just an idea with calculations to back it up, but many articles suggest these calculations don't consider all contributing factors. Personally I believe it defies logic and our history.

    The one fact here is that all of these are just theories, of which I am offering a theory which also answers Daturas question. The theory presented by the New Perspective has a logic that harmonises with Datura's flatmates theory.

    As far as I am aware it is wise to consider many points of view and theories when researching. The New Perspective has also been recognised by the planetary society " Your approach is certainly a departure from accepted theories regarding the formation of the solar system. It may or may not be the case..." of which it is not rejected as with some comments here, but offers another possibility. Continuous correspondence into the basic physics is also in current discussion.

    Paddoboy thank you for your interesting articles. Do you know Katy?

    Here is an interesting article, it has a good element of logic to it. The closer you get to the sun, the hotter it gets. Further from the sun, is cooler. ... matechange
  16. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    There is no logic in your proposal. Any logical conclusion about the behavior of phenomena has to be consistent with empirical observations and a precise, communicable framework for describing the behavior of a large class of related phenomena.
    It's pretty obvious these pop-science sources aren't factoring in any effect other than partial mass loss from the sun. It's not clear that they count even both luminous output and solar wind from the excerpts you provide. But a far bigger effect over the timescale of millions of years is the chaotic changes in the inner orbits of the planets due to gravitational interactions.
    Human history provides no meaningful direct observations which would provide long term changes in the Earth's semi major axis. Your belief appears predicated on nothing.
  17. The New Perspective Registered Member

    What do you believe is happening to our other planets. There are various theories and even those who have commented here will believe different theories. If we the Earth are moving away from the sun due to a suggested decrease in mass of the sun plus other factors if you build them into the equation also, then do you believe this applies to all of the planets?
    Just a quick description is fine, I am not looking for articles as I have read many, I am more interested to see if you all believe in the same theories.
  18. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    I have minimal interest in any "theories" regarding planetary movements. I am satisfied that changes in orbital parameters will be small over time scales of hundreds of millions of years and that the planetary orbits are probably stable over timescales of two or three billion years. Therefore any small orbital changes that do occur will have no discernible impact on the atmospheres, climates, or other physical aspects of the planets. Thus they can be ignored by all except those who like to make esoteric and irrelevant calculations.
  19. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Actually, the motion of the inner planets is chaotic, making predictions past 100 million years increasingly worthless.
  20. Edont Knoff Registered Senior Member

    Earth collects some million tons of dust every year on it's orbit. This slows down earth and thus it moves closer to sun. Looks perfectly reasonable to me, and so I'm surprised that "plantes moving closer to sun" is really something surprising.
  21. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    "Millions of tons per year" sound like a lot, but it is insignificant compared to the Earth's mass, and its effect on the Earth's orbit is equally insignificant.

    Let's assume that the net momentum of all this dust is zero with respect to the Sun when it collides with the Earth ( this won't be the case as this dust orbits the Sun just like the Earth does and in the same direction. The point being that actual effect on the Earth's momentum that this dust has in reality will be less than what we will assume to to be in this example.)

    So as the Earth move through its orbit it sweeps up this dust and slows down to conserve momentum. How much effect would this have on its orbit? After collecting dust for some ~13,370 years, it will have reduced its distance from the Sun by a grand total of 1 meter. Things that my seem reasonable at first glance can often turn out not to be so on closer examination.
    ajanta likes this.
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Actually over time the Earth will move farther from the Sun due to the effects of tidal locking (the same force that drives the Moon further away, and indeed stopped its rotation relative to us.) This is a very small force, and won't have a noticeable effect for billions of years.

    (Note that "the Earth collecting mass" does not change its orbit one bit if the dust hits the Earth from completely random directions and speeds.)
    ajanta likes this.
  23. The New Perspective Registered Member

    I believe that the process is linked to evolutionary changes. The planet having a progressive movement or change will without a doubt have atmospheric and environmental effects, based on the variable distance to the sun. This producing changing conditions will have an effect of the formation and adaptative process of life on Earth. Current calculations and theories of tiny temperature changes due to global warming determine considerable environmental effects. The article I referred to from Nasa stated a very simple concept, further from the sun the cooler it is, closer to the sun the hotter it is. You cannot argue with this simplicity. Well there is substantial evidence left behind from ancient civilisations. There is sufficient evidence recorded in fossil records to determine a logical process which should be considered as a major factor determining evolutionary changes.

    The evolutionary process is millions and billions of years so you must consider this process to consider the fuller cycles. I understand the life-cycle process of the planets supported by simple evidence laid down in history.

    The basic idea so far is that the planet Earth could :-

    1- never change it's position, which is highly unlikely.

    2- move away from the sun, a theory originally based on an idea that the sun is loosing mass and therefore a decrease in gravitation pull. Estimated figures and major assumptions only.

    3- be moving towards the sun, based on global warming statistics, past lush habitat zones becoming deserted dry areas, based on dinosaur records and reconstruction a cooler, slower environment, dinosaur characteristics better suited to a distance further from the sun.

    The Goldilocks zone is the region where water is stable as a liquid form. A planet passes through this zone and gains surface water. Mars has just entered this zone and like a sponge will increase it's volume of water allowing the expression of life to begin. This is a part of the life-cycle process of the planets, which is an active theory and explains the reasoning for Datura's flat mates belief.

    It is a fact that these are all only theories and although you may accept one or the other, it is still a possibility that the alternative theory is correct. Regardless of how you title the theories, it is not guaranteed that the theory or direction you select or believe, is correct.

    One must consider the evidence produced over millions of years to determine an answer, of which a logical assumption can be made.

    So ask your self, is time speeding up as years around the sun get shorter, or is time slowing down. Is it getting warmer as we simply move closer to the sun?

    If one also considers the dust or atmosphere rotating like a whirlpool around the sun then, we all know that an object in a whirlpool is drawn to the centre also.

    Go Juno

Share This Page