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

    Hi Origin
    I wonder if you could give simple reasons why you consider this to be your logical assumption. Do you think Mars is moving closer or further from the sun?
    If you are able to offer the best evidence supporting the theory of the Earth moving away from the sun, I am interested what you can offer here too please.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    I much prefer having a personality problem (real or perceived) to posting irrelevant remarks that simply encourage nonsense such as that we are getting from The New Perspective. If you cannot see that, perhaps the problem does not lie with me. In short, if you don't want to be castigated for making silly posts, then don't make silly posts.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Do you mean that in person you don't speak unsubstantiated nonsense? That's good to know.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    There is no evidence or rational explanation of how or why there would be a progressive march of the planets towards the sun. Your unfounded conjecture that mars is steadily moving towards the sun is just that, an unevidenced conjecture. Your idea that global warming is due to the earth moving towards the sun is not supported by the earth's temperature variations over its lifetime.
    I looked at your web site and your idea that the earth has a head and tail based on the antler size (and other 'stuff') is rather batshit crazy.

    I am not finding this discussion interesting or compelling so I believe I am done here. I hope you can continue to enjoy making and discussing your speculations.
    Ophiolite likes this.
  8. The New Perspective Registered Member

    Are you unable to provide any simple evidence supporting the theory the Earth is moving away from the sun?
  9. The New Perspective Registered Member

    This did not address the three simple questions, but thank you for your personal comprehension.
    If you have a moment I am still interested to know for the benefit of the thread if you can in a couple of sentences explain or provide any evidence the Earth moves away from the sun. This would surely be extremely beneficial for the theory and help people like me who consider the alternative direction and remain unsatisfied with this scientific option.
  10. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Last edited: Jul 14, 2016
    exchemist likes this.
  11. The New Perspective Registered Member

    Thank you for taking the time to reply Origin.

    It was the preferred option you stipulate any evidence in your own words. I am not sure if you have read these articles or just skimmed them.

    on the re-definition of the astronomical unit of length.

    • that the intention of the above definition of the astronomical unit was to provide accurate distance ratios in the solar system when distances could not be estimated with high accuracy,
    • 149 597 870 700 m plus or minus 3 m
    • the need for a unit of length approximating the Sun-Earth distance

    This is not evidence the Earth is moving away from the sun. Establishing a standard form of measurement as it states is creating a uniform figure for international standardisation. The measurement is rounded to hundreds of kilometres and is approximate with a large degree of tolerance. A guesstimated 15 cm for the theory is not even close to the rounding and tolerances. These articles even stipulate the need to change the units. I am sorry but these articles do not give any evidence they are just working theories, it even states this. 15cm is an extremely debated figure considered possibly highly inaccurate and correct. The figures based on the mass of the sun are high estimates and don't consider many alternative factors, it also stipulates in the article that these are simply bold assumptions.

    Is this the evidence you have chosen to follow? and believe? determining the Earth moves away from the sun. I am sorry but this is not a logical choice for anybody, even more so a person with a logical and scientific thought process.

    If you can give me any evidence in your own words that shows me proof the Earth moves away from the sun then I would be happy to consider this evidence please.
  12. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    In science the person that puts forth an idea that is counter to the current theories is the one that is required to supply evidence that the alternative theory has merit. You have not shown any compelling evidence that there is a movement of the planets towards the sun to this point.

    As I have said I do not find this thread particularly compelling or interesting so I am not inclined to put forth much effort in my replies. It also does not help my desire to participate when your website has (what I consider bizarre) claims such as the earth has a head and a tail based on animal species distribution (or something along those lines).

    You are in the right section of the forum and seem to be enjoying a nice conversation with others about your conjectures. I am just disinclined to participate. So have fun in your discussions.
  13. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Apparently you have not understood the first article. The increasing distance has been measured. The value of the increase is stated to be 100 x greater than the possible errors.

    The Earth is moving away from the sun, not inwards towards the sun. Your hypothesis is therefore rejected.
  14. The New Perspective Registered Member

    This is a thread discussing the direction of the planet of which you have presented a theory based on the sun loosing mass of which the theory itself claims that it is based on bold assumptions. This theory does not involve any evidence by studying life and evolution. I have presented other alternative theories including references to some very contemporary scientific published concepts also including a rather state the obvious article from NASA.

    I have read and contemplated these theories in accordance with the New Perspective philosophy. For those not familiar with this I have not discussed this because it is not thread related but it is a study of animal dynamics or unique physical characteristics globally. It involves an in-depth study of global animals identifying the dominant features of unique animals attached to regions globally. It also includes an investigation into variation in animals characteristics for numerous species globally distributed.

    This study was also based on the identification of a pattern from ancient teachings. Our early scientist discovered a pattern to our animal world that echoed through much of life and they presented this pattern and recorded it in grand ancient monuments. It is known now that the ancient zodiacs were maps of the World and records of the 12 zones around the equator. These zodiacs were represented in an opposite direction to celestial zodiacs and then projected to our surrounding celestial belt considered the source of energy. These Earth zodiacs, record unique features of each of the zones around the World and are a credit to our early scientists who established a global pattern. The pattern is best understood when studying Egyptian records. The Dendera zodiac is one of these early records recording the 12 zones of the Earth. Each zone was discovered to have features and dynamics related to a different body part and all body parts together formed a full body. This is why Earth is represented by most cultures as a full body also.

    The full body in the Celestial order was know by Nut for the Egyptians and this was broken down into twelve body parts based on the observation of the early scientific studies of the twelve zones around the equator. They concluded that animal uniqueness ingrained in nature and the human psyche fitted into a pattern related to a full body. They horns are the feature of the top of the head and the head was believed to be located at Easter Island. If you look at my picture you may follow each of these twelve Earth zones. You have to realise that each zone is a representation of an anatomical connection. If we return to Egypt then this is the region of the body represented by the unique mane of the lion and connects to the torso and lung region of the anatomy. The twelve zones of the anatomy rotate around the globe, next to Leo the lungs is Virgo and this was expressed and accepted by the zone of Israel. We all know the proportion drawing by Da Vinci and the pivotal point of the human anatomy was traditionally the scales and connects to the next zone where a balance and Karma is set in stone. In the other direction to Leo is Cancer and it is understood now that this is recorded at Dendera more Northern and connects to Stonehenge which is exactly the same design as Cancer. Each of the twelve zones around the World has a great monument connecting to the twelve parts.....

    This pattern was discovered thousands of years ago by studying animals around the globe. It has been a contemporary study of our Worlds animals that has discovered, that the World itself is forged to this pattern but to the design of a spherical helical formation, spiralling from the North pole to the South pole. The website referred to earlier was reference to the movement of our planets article.

    I would be happy to discuss the global bio-geographical identification of unique or dominant animal characteristics if you wish but this is not thread related, although as it has been moved to this non scientifically formulated section, perhaps this scientific study should be discussed elsewhere.

    In conducting a survey to see if people are aware of the direction the Earth is moving, I believe you will find that most people believe that Earth moves towards the sun, be this intuitive or based on logical environmental observations or education. Not one person surveyed believes the Earth is moving away from the sun because the mass of the sun is decreasing and so too the gravitational pull.

    I would just like to emphasise that you have accepted a theory based on no evidence and have given me information expressing that this theory is based on "bold assumptions"

    0.15m (100x) equals 0.0015 for the error factor but it does not stipulate that this is the error, I think you will find the error is defined and that 100x is the statistic that is considerably wrong. Did you not check this?

    I would hope that if anything has formulated by these posts it would be the need to firstly consider alternative theories before making rude, uneducated comments.
  15. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Are you actually reading anything that has been written;

    1. The Earth has been measured to be moving away from the sun. This is not speculation, this is not hypothesis, this is not theory, this is fact.
    2. It does not matter what way people think the Earth is moving - it is moving out, not in.
    3. I am accepting facts based totally on evidence.
    4. The cause of the outward movement is not totally defined - loss of mass and tidal effects are certainly contributors, but other factors may be at work.
    5. But it in terms of your hypothesis, the cause of the outward movement is unimportant - the Earth is moving outwards. Deal with it.

    And as an additional note I have not, as you claim, presented a theory that the sun is losing mass. My first mention of mass loss is in this post. Be aware that your repeated practice of not noticing what people have actually written is frustrating and rude in equal measure. So don't lecture me on rude comments.
  16. The New Perspective Registered Member

    This is part of the article of which was referred to as evidence. This is not evidence.

    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. I probably don't even need to mention that this is so small that we don't have to worry about freezing.

    Here are a few snippets from a discussion group about the article on the calculations, revered to as evidence.

    1/The current value stands at 149,597,870.696 km — with an uncertainty of just 0.1 meter (4 inches).

    2/so you're telling me that the 2004 calculation was derived from more than 66 years and 8 months of measurements, assuming the same margin of error for that period?

    Having such a precise yardstick allowed Russian dynamicists Gregoriy A. Krasinsky and Victor A. Brumberg to calculate, in 2004, that the Sun and Earth are gradually moving apart. It's not much — just 15 cm (6 inches) per year — but since that's 100 times greater than the measurement error, something must really be pushing Earth outward.Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but how is 6 inches anywhere near "100 times greater than the measurement error", which as I read it is "4 inches"?

    I don't see anything in the article which indicates that the 0.15m/yr shift is a constant (rather than a variable which changes according to the mass-distance relationships), or that accepted cyclic variations to the orbit were factored into the calculation ...

    3/If the calculated shift is 0.15 m/year, and that is 100 times greater
    than the measurement error, then obviously the measurement error was
    something like +/- 0.0015 m/year. It might be possible to measure the
    speed so precisely without knowing the distance better than +/- 0.1 m.

    4/That is *exactly* the case for measurements of Pioneer 10 and 11, out
    beyond Saturn. Their speeds were measured with incredible precision,
    by continuously watching (over several hours) the carrier waves they
    transmitted in response to carrier waves they received from Earth, but
    their distances were only known to +/- many thousands of kilometres,
    due to technical failures in the radio systems. The distances were best
    determined by integrating the speeds after their last known positions.

    5/according to the article, they used one (the "yardstick") to calculate the other ...
    in what way are they different things which makes a shift of 0.15m/yr roughly equal to 100 times 0.10m margin of error? ...
    I would think the calculation would need to include the margin of error,
    making it 0.15 (+ 0.10)m/year.

    and that still doesn't clarify whether the shift is to be considered a constant in direction or magnitude ...

    even if it was a typo/faux pas, and the original intent was "100 percent more", I'd find it questionable

    I didn't understand that "100 times greater than the measurement error"
    bit either. I assumed that it might be possible, statistically, from large
    numbers of measurements, but I didn't rule out the possibility that it was
    flat out wrong. Hence my skepticism of the whole finding.

    But it is entirely plausible that a change of 0.15 m/yr could be 100 times
    greater than the measurement error without knowing the absolute radius
    more precisely than +/- 0.1 metre. They are different things.

    I am not sure if you have seen this work but one major factor you must consider when analysing this information is that the current tolerance for an astronomical unit as I posted earlier is currently plus or minus 3 metres. I think if you where to give a little thought to the tolerance factor stipulated in your referenced article as proof, at 0.1 mm (.15m 100x factor) this actually applies to the tolerance for measuring something that is between 3 and 6 meters. The astronomical unit tolerance is also being readdressed.

    Is this the evidence you are referring to? or the Sun mass theory??

    Do you really think that a measurement so vast can determine a variation so tiny. You need a slap. Wake up.
  17. BdS Registered Senior Member

  18. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    The solar wind exerts a vanishingly small force on the earth.
  19. The New Perspective Registered Member

    It is without a doubt that the works are of great influence for Celestial mechanics and with no disrespect to the works, it as with all works have specialty areas. Here are a couple of important comments from the expert analytical overview of the theories, which should be considered.

    1/A complete numerical experiment has to be realized to be convinced of the success of this approach. So, the question of the interest of the use of elliptic functions for the complete problem of the eight planets of the solar system remains open

    2/However, as it was demonstrated by [17], these types of ephemerides didnot have sufficient accuracy for being fitted directly to observations or to give accurate enough representation of the planet motions...

    The mathematical brilliance is respected and planetary ephemerides revolutionised but do you understand them, have you read and studied them and do you know what they mean before ramming such theories down peoples throats guaranteed by you as law.

    Do you have any evidence or not ?

    Can you put your evidence into a couple of sentences ?
  20. The New Perspective Registered Member


    I am not sure if you have personally evaluated these calculations and have alternative opinions to the board of experts, but I would like to know if this is the fact you are referring too, or do you have alternative facts and evidence as you suggest above.
  21. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Coral growth rings. As coral grows it produces growth rings just like trees do with the exception that they produce daily rings as well as yearly rings. We have looked at samples of prehistoric coral dating from 100's of millions of years ago and have counted the number of daily rings per year ring. This way we can tell how many days there were in a year back then. One thing we know is that the rate of the Earth's rotation has slowed over time in a predictable way due to tidal interaction with the Moon. (This slow down is why we have to add "leap seconds" from time to time to our official time keeping to keep out clocks in sync with the rotating Earth).
    If the Earth orbited significantly further from the Sun in the past, the length of the year would be longer for two reasons: the length of its orbital path increases and its orbital speed decreases. ) a 20% increase in distance causes a 31.4% increase in the length of the year. Since we know how much slower the Earth should have been rotating back then, we can count the number of daily growth rings per yearly ring to determine the length of the year. It was not significantly longer than it is now, which means the Earth was not significantly further from the Sun. In addition, the width of the coral's yearly growth rings are good indicators of climatic change and thee is no indication that these growth rings show the type of long term change in pattern that you would see if the Earth has been slowly getting closer to the Sun in the long term.

    So the prehistoric coral sample provide recorded evidence that the Earth's distance from the Sun has not changed significantly and definitely nowhere near enough to produce the effect you are suggesting.
  22. The New Perspective Registered Member

    Greeting Janus58,

    I found this information to be most interesting and so I have made a few simple calculations based on the statistics I found on this website;-

    Using the small ring count of 420 per year dating back roughly 420 million years we actually can determine the Earths position. Consider the cycles of Mars to Earth.

    Mars rotation is 24 hours, 39 minutes, and 35 seconds, 687 days for a year, 228 million Kms, equalling approximately 668 small lines at this position

    Earth 24 hrs, 365 Days, 150 million Kms, equalling 365 small lines

    Estimate Mars position now is at the beginning time of life forms starting. Now if we half the known factors to gain a mid point between the positions of Earth and Mars

    Half way between Earth and Mars = A day 24 hrs and 20 minutes, A year 512 days, Distance 190 m kms, equalling approximately 505 small lines.

    The position of Earth to get 420 small lines would be at the position roughly a quarter of the distance from Earth to Mars.

    Estimating at a constant change then 4 x 420 million years determines the time for Mars to move to Earths position; is roughly 1.2 billion years, to come 137 million kms closer.

    Assuming a constant distance change and proportional rotational changes between Earth and Mars, according to coral ageing in 1.2 years we get roughly 137 meters closer to the sun.

    Thank you so much for offering this information into the thread. Please advise if my calculations requiring correcting.
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2016
  23. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Really?? Your calcualtions are absurd. The rotation of a planet has nothing to do with a planets orbit. How does Venus fit in to your bizarre ideas?

Share This Page