Please explain it here, both why it matters and how you know that the planets aren't all orbiting the way astronomers think they are.

Oh, and I don't think anyone is worried about anything, so don't let that bother you. Just let us have all the evidence all at once, we can take it.

Please explain it here, both why it matters and how you know that the planets aren't all orbiting the way astronomers think they are.

It matters, because when I show how and why the planets rotate in the direction they do, it will become evident that there is no anomaly in the galaxy rotation curves, this anomaly being the main argument for the existence of dark matter, so once we no longer need dark matter physics will be back on the rails again.

I think that's a worth while purpose, that said,I don't have time for the nonsense replies above. I thought this was a moderated forum, but I can't see any evidence of that here.

beejewel wrote:

Please explain it here, both why it matters and how you know that the planets aren't all orbiting the way astronomers think they are.

It matters, because when I show how and why the planets rotate in the direction they do, it will become evident that there is no anomaly in the galaxy rotation curves, this anomaly being the main argument for the existence of dark matter, so once we no longer need dark matter physics will be back on the rails again.

I think that's a worth while purpose, that said,I don't have time for the nonsense replies above. I thought this was a moderated forum, but I can't see any evidence of that here.

Ok, so it matters because when you show something, something else will become evident and all will become clear. Ok. Hopefully you will be coming up with that evidence soon.

Now, why did you answer one question (by saying you would explain it later), and ignore the second question which was: "how you know that the planets aren't all orbiting the way astronomers think they are."

That's kinda crucial isn't it, if you want people to understand what you are trying to say?

So, how do you know what you say you know? I am fascinated if you some evidence that planets are not orbiting as we have been led to believe. Please do go on.

Now, why did you answer one question (by saying you would explain it later), and ignore the second question which was: "how you know that the planets aren't all orbiting the way astronomers think they are."
That's kinda crucial isn't it, if you want people to understand what you are trying to say?

Of course we will get to it, but like any secret which has eluded us for 400 years, it takes a little bit of effort to get ones head around it, so nice to know that you are still interested.

The first step to understand is how the passage of time has direction, and how the arrow of time (past to future) points in the direction of lower potential. How do we know this is true?

We know it, because "an apple falling off a branch never fails to arrive in it's own future".

I personally find it quite amazing that such a simple statement can hold such an important truth, but think carefully about it and you will agree that your past is straight up and your future is straight down, at least when standing at rest on earth.

That makes ground potential the present, right?

So looking up, in the direction of higher potential, we see that the planets Mars, Jupiter, Saturn are all in our past and that we are temporally ahead of them. It is also known that the radius between us and the planets is increasing slightly, which means the planets are not exhibiting closed orbital motion, rather they are tracing out a helical path.

This helical spiral is not twisted in the direction Kepler assumed, instead it is twisted in the opposite direction, which means the planets are not moving slower with increasing radius, they are moving backwards faster with increasing radius, which makes a lot more sense to the rational mind.

Here is a thought experiment...

"Set off from the ground in a rocket with the objective of reaching a low earth orbit, when reaching the necessary velocity which satisfies Kepler's law, you turn off your engines and drift in that orbit. Now you are instructed to move your rocket to a higher orbit, what do you do?

a) Fire your engines again and accelerate again in the same direction?
b) Turn around and fire your engines in the opposite direction?

The true answer is clearly (a) which means you are increasing the velocity with respect to your original starting point, which at this stage might be several orbits from where you are now.

The conclusion is that orbital velocity is a negative velocity because it's direction of travel is into the past, and what Kepler described is the apparent motion.

In this diagram you can see what I mean by following the spiral path of the planets.



If our solar system had many more planets this spiral path would have been much more obvious and easier to see, fortunately galaxies have many more orbiting bodies and it is therefore easier to see the spiral arms.

So the correct way to work out the velocity of orbiting bodies is to sum the the relative velocities of the orbiting bodies, which results in (you guessed it) a flat rotation curve.

Astronomers measuring the rotation rates of galaxies are seeing exactly such rotation curves, which look way too fast according to Kepler, so they postulated an invisible dark matter halo to fix the problem.

When we look at distant galaxies they are temporally behind us which means we are looking up at them, and therefore all the stars orbiting backwards.

Thoughtful questions from rational skeptics welcome...

beejewel wrote:Don't worry, for most of you guys it won't make any difference which way the planets rotate, just enjoy your cold ale and get on with whatever you are doing. If anyone here is really concerned about which way the planets rotate, just send me a PM, I would be happy to explain why it matters.

Wait, now you are talking about planets ROTATING other than as described in current physics?

Um ... dude ... rotation is what planets do about their primary axis. Their orbits, elliptical or delusional, involve a planet's revolution.

But I'm sure that it's just the beer talking. Don't listen to us.

Um ... dude ... rotation is what planets do about their primary axis. Their orbits, elliptical or delusional, involve a planet's revolution.

Sergeant...

I stand corrected, we are here talking about orbital revolution, not to be confused with a planets rotation. I shall do 10 push up's immediately.

No need for such - just accept what scientific observation tells us.

Next task - accept that elliptical orbits are real, and not "backwards" as you postulate (without supporting evidence, I note, other than deliberate misunderstanding of what's seen in a spiral galaxy).

Then accept that time is uncoupled from motion (though the apparent passage of time is dependent on an observers speed, at relativistic speeds) - though an object in motion passes through linear time, so does an object at rest. Claiming that a "ground potential" demonstrates some sort of base state because an object can fall no further is silly, especially when talking about orbiting bodies in space.

accept that elliptical orbits are real, and not "backwards" as you postulate

Maybe you don't quite understand what I mean by backwards, I am not suggesting that the planetary motions are any different to what is being observed, that would be like claiming the Earth is flat, what I have effectively proven above is that the temporal line between the observer and the revolving body is increasing in length, and not decreasing as Kepler's law suggests.

What difference does it make?

In Keplers scenario where the planets move forward, the temporal line will become shorter, meaning the planet will spiral inwards and eventually hit you in the head.

In my scenario where the planets move backwards, the temporal line increases and the distance to the planets slowly increase.

This is not so evident on a small scale but measurable on a large scale as the Hubble expansion.

Nothing silly about this, it's a perfectly rational argument.

First of all, you have NOT "effectively proven" anything - you have simply asserted it. Until you show the math, you haven't proven anything at all.

Secondly, I have no idea whatsoever what you mean by a "temporal line" becoming shorter or longer - you haven't explained that in any rationally understandable way.

beejewel wrote:... just enjoy your cold ale

One never drinks 'cold' ale.

Ales are best served slightly cooled - not cold.

Seriously, I have never posted on a forum where the moderators derail conversations and post off topic, this is ridiculous..

Outrageous isn't it? Why, it's almost as though they've come to conclusion that your posts are fact-free drivel and that it would be a waste of everyone's time responding to them.

I'll have a chilled cider, but only if the apples were crushed by nerd thighs.

BlackBart wrote:Outrageous isn't it? Why, it's almost as though they've come to conclusion that your posts are fact-free drivel and that it would be a waste of everyone's time responding to them.

Are you saying that "it's obvious to me and therefore it should be obvious to you" is not a sufficient argument to back up a claim?

ElDiablo wrote:

BlackBart wrote:Outrageous isn't it? Why, it's almost as though they've come to conclusion that your posts are fact-free drivel and that it would be a waste of everyone's time responding to them.

Are you saying that "it's obvious to me and therefore it should be obvious to you" is not a sufficient argument to back up a claim?

Obviously!

Sendraks wrote:

ElDiablo wrote:

BlackBart wrote:Outrageous isn't it? Why, it's almost as though they've come to conclusion that your posts are fact-free drivel and that it would be a waste of everyone's time responding to them.

Are you saying that "it's obvious to me and therefore it should be obvious to you" is not a sufficient argument to back up a claim?

Obviously!

laklak wrote:I'll have a chilled cider, but only if the apples were crushed by nerd thighs.

Wouldn't work - if they were crushed by nerd thighs, wouldn't they spontaneously combust?

I think you need to align the thighs with the dog shit patterns, or use a cheesy stick.

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident

beejewel wrote:All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident

The last requiem of a failed argument is to state that you'll be right in the future.