I can't get over how retarded modern physics has become. I asked google, "is inertia due to gravity". The answer should be yes, because gravity is typically what causes stationary objects to resist motion. Modern physics applies inertia to both stationary and moving objects. But google AI responded like so:

"No, inertia is not due to gravity; inertia is an intrinsic property of an object's mass that causes it to resist changes in its state of motion..."

Can you spot the problem in that claim? The problem is "intrinsic." The goofs imagine that there is something within the object itself that resists being moved. Guaranteed, there can be nothing in the object that resists motion because the object can be moved with the slightest of force. How is that defined as resistance to motion? Only a nut who can't begin to understand the first thing about physics would make such a claim.

When you push a cup along a table, is it resisting motion? Of course not. The resistance comes from the meshing of the cup's atoms to the table's atoms thanks largely to gravity. But if there were no gravity, and if atoms did not mesh a little so as to provide friction, the cup does not resist even the slightest of motion. Where, then, do the goofballs get the idea that all objects have an internal thingie that resists motion? Why did they physicists opt to view things in that way?

When an object is moving, say in pure space without gravity, it doesn't resist motion. You can smack it on the behind and make it go faster, and it will not turn and swat you due to any resistance thingie harbored in its internal body. If you wish to turn the moving object into another direction, or to slow it down, it's not an internal and INTRINSIC thingie that resists it, but rather it's its motion that resists it.

Let's repeat the definition of inertia as given above: "No, inertia is not due to gravity; inertia is an intrinsic property of an object's mass that causes it to resist changes in its state of motion..." No, stupids, it's the motion that resists further motion, what's wrong with you? You've confused motion-energy with an imaginary inertia? What's wrong with you, don't you realize the difference? Why the smoke and mirrors?

Why not scrap inertia, and just say that a moving body resists a change in its motion due to its motion? Why not scrap inertia and just say that a stationary body doesn't move because it's received no energy? Why confuse things with "inertia." Why give the impression that a body DOESN'T WANT to do something it's not doing? The body doesn't want anything. It has nothing inside of it that is prone to anything. Rather, it has motion, or it does not have motion. Is that not good enough? Do science wizards have a need to act like big-shots with the "inertia" word, as if it's something exotic or magical?

The real definition of inertia needs to be: resistance to change due either to its motion and/or gravity acting upon it. How's that magical? It's boring.

google AI's response above goes on: "While the effects of gravity on Earth can mask inertia, they are independent concepts, with inertia remaining the same on the Moon where gravity is weaker." What is tarnation could that mean? Gravity doesn't mask inertia or act like inertia, it causes it. What's wrong with the goofs? And what's it doing trying to convince us that it's just as hard to slide a cup on a table upon the moon as it is on a table upon Earth? What kind of garbagemen feed google AI?

They are trying to convince us that objects have a secondary gravity aside from gravity. They want us to believe that all objects have inertia aside from being pulled by gravity.

By the way, I was able to ask google questions and get AI responses until today. It was very convenient for discovering what establishment science believes in. However, I deleted cookies today, and AI no longer responds to my questions. I may not be able to get it back again. Some are saying that google is testing it for a short time, though not every computer gets it. Without it, due to google having become a useless tool for doing research, I can't continue as well on science topics. The AI response above was captured last week.

The response above continues: "Inertia is directly related to an object's mass, not its weight." Do you see the nonsense? The people who are supposed to be the smartest have become the retards. They imagine mass to be a second resistance to motion aside from gravity's pull. That's schizoid. They want us to believe that a planet's mass exerts a "weight" of sorts that doesn't change in force no matter how far it is from the sun. If it resists motion by its mass alone, even in a gravity-less situation, it's the same effect as when a body on the ground is pulled by gravity. How is it any different? If a stationary object resists your push, how is that not exactly like gravity pulling it down?

The response goes on to make a fool of modern science: "Inertia is a property of the object itself, reflecting its resistance to acceleration. Gravity is an external force:..." You see, they imagine a thingie-resistor in the object itself. AI is making it plain that physicists have invented a second weight for all objects that they refuse to call a weight. Even in the absence of gravity, they think all objects still have weight. They must have a nefarious reason for it, and my suspicions are that they need it for their planet model.

"Inertia" was a word tossed around by early investigators into planetary orbits. I didn't realize until last week that they viewed inertia as a second force, though they may not admit it's a force while sending smoke-and-mirrors our way. If it resists motion, then it has a force.

The fact is, objects don't resist motion. Gravity does. Attraction force does.

Today, things have become so wacky that you will hear science stooges ape their idols in saying that a salt shaker on a table receives upward force from the table just because gravity attracts the shaker downward, HAHAHAH. It's completely lunatic. THERE IS NO UPWARD FORCE ON ANYTHING ON THE TABLE, give your heads a shake.

Not happy with that, they are also saying that the salt shaker is motionless on the table because the upward force from the table cancels the downward force from gravity, and so, you see, out of their minds for the sake of caressing their inertia pet, they have invented an upward force all over the universe that doesn't exist.

There are those saying that inertia is a force. Rather, it's become a farce.

The fools probably saw the danger in attraction force slowing and halting things, because they wanted inter-attracting atoms that never stop bouncing off of each other. Therefore, they can conveniently abuse the invention of an upward force on everything that is attracted by gravity, so that attraction will not get the full credit for bringing objects to rest.

Attraction force throughout the universe was so threatening to the kineticists that some of them celebrated Einstein and others when doing completely away with gravity, replacing it with planets, for example, that, against our better senses, are really moving in straight, inertial paths in curved space-time. These people should be in insane asylums. It doesn't dawn on them that, in order for something to be warped, it needs to be something. Yet space is nothing.

Kepler Was Guessing at Best

Kepler's laws states that if a planet takes 2 years (twice as much as Earth) to circle the sun, it's distance from the sun is the cubed root of 2 x 2, which is 1.6, where the latter is relative to the sun-Earth distance of 1.0. "Kepler's Third Law, for planets in circular orbits, states that the square of time period T is proportional to the cube of the radius of the orbit R."

Okay, so if a planet, which I'll call, Test, is 1.6 times further from the sun than Earth, it's roughly where Mars is at 1.53 times further from Earth. The orbital distance (once around the sun) of Test is (1.6 x 2) x 3.14 = 10.0 units, and for Earth its (1 x 2) x 3.14 = 6.28 units, meaning that Earth's speed is 6.28 units per year while Test has a speed of 10 / 2 = 5 units per year, meaning that Test moves at .8 the speed of Earth. Mars moves .8 times as fast as Earth. However, while the 1.6 figure above was close to the 1.53 for Mars, Mars does NOT take two years per orbit, but only 1.88 years.

Keplers law is therefore essentially accurate as per the relative planetary distances claimed by astronomy, but, the question is, are those relative distances accurate?

I'm out to find whether Kepler's law is a bona fide law in the first place. If his law is at all based or related to Newton's false gravity definition, it was wrong, meaning that the planets have not been correctly distanced from the sun. The good news is, Kepler lived before Newton and so I doubt if Newtonian gravity force was a thing in his days.

If Kepler's third law is not accurate, it makes my work in the last update rubbish when finding the "correct" mass of the planets which the big-bang goofs have wrongly found. That mass was based on math wherein the planets are at their current relative distances i.e. as per following Kepler's law.

google AI returned to my computer on Tuesday morning without my doing anything to get it. I was able to ask, "what's Kepler's law based on?" It says it's "based on the meticulous astronomical observations of Tycho Brahe...Kepler's laws replaced earlier models of circular orbits and provided the first mathematical description of planetary motion in a heliocentric system. "

The response goes on:

Kepler's laws are descriptive and empirical, meaning they are derived directly from observations rather than from an underlying theoretical framework like Newton's law of gravity. Newton later provided the theoretical explanation for Kepler's laws through his law of universal gravitation.

Uh-oh, that sounds like Kepler's law could be wrong, if Newton's incorrect gravity theory confirms his law. But not necessarily; it depends on what part of Newtonian gravity confirmed the law. If it was the idea that planetary weight becomes 4 times weaker with twice the distance from the sun, that's not going to sabotage Kepler's law. Newton's law finds faulty masses for the planets, but nobody in Kepler's days probably knew of that faulty system.

What reasoning is behind cubing the square of the planetary period to find the solar distance? Does it even "feel" reasonable to intuition? Planetary speed doesn't have eyes for the orbital period. The period is what it is after the necessary speed has bet set. The period is the least-important ingredient. The speed depends on how close the planet is to the sun, and when that speed is what it must be, only then is the period what it is. There's no relationship. I don't see a relationship. If one does the law-math, as Kepler did, starting with the period, I doubt he's going to find a key to sun-planet distance. Did he even know in his days that gravity is twice as weak when twice as far, which is called the "inverse-square law of gravity"? google AI:

The inverse-square law of gravity wasn't discovered in a single moment, but was first mathematically articulated by Isaac Newton in his 1687 publication Principia Mathematica. However, the concept that gravitational force decreases with distance in an inverse square relationship was previously suggested by astronomer Ismael Bullialdus in 1645 and later by Robert Hooke around 1679.

Newton wasn't born until 1643. Kepler's third law was found in or before 1618. Usually, discoveries were made when such men shared information, or worked on each others' findings. AI: "The idea that the force of gravity is directly related to mass was established by Isaac Newton with his Law of Universal Gravitation, published in 1687 in his work Principia. Newton's law states that the gravitational force between two objects is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them." In my mind at this time, it's a toss-up as to whether gravity=mass was known and utilized by Kepler.

One quote above seems to be saying that Kepler ignored Newton's law of gravity for finding his law. However, in order to form a mathematical means of finding the solar distance, it stands to reason that Kepler figured he'd need to respect planetary weights. He would have thought that, the heavier a planet, the faster it should orbit, the shorter the period. Did he have the inverse-square law of gravity on his brain when working out his third law? It's a toss-up.

The standard, establishment teaching is that planetary masses are found by the definition of Newtonian gravity wherein gravity is based on, or proportional to, mass. That's so stupid, but it's all that the pioneers had at the time, prior to the discovery of the electron. In reality, gravity is from the repulsion force of free electrons in the heat of the sun and planets which arranges to attract all protons and therefore all atoms by repelling/sending away some of their captured electrons.

The planetary weight changes, depending only on how far a planet is from the sun. My thinking in the last update was more than rash. My memory failed me. I had said (last week), for example, that if Mars has an orbital speed of .8 that of Earth, Mars therefore has a weight of .8 the weight of the Earth (when Mars is at the orbit of Mars). I had forgotten about a project I was working on that had another option to equating planet speed with planet weight. I'll explain this other option in the next section.

I've been wondering how possibly Kepler could have thought that planetary distance is related to the orbital period unless he first figured that planetary weight is proportional to orbital speed. But, now, the other option above, which I had forgotten, depends only on distance from the sun regardless of planetary weight, which at first glance seems impossible. This other option concerns Galileo's discovery at Pisa, which Newton knew about but did not likely capitalize upon. I have capitalized upon it, and it really is marvelous, the key to completing the understanding of orbital mechanics.

Think of how prone someone like Kepler was, immersed in orbital mechanics for years, to figure, and work with, the idea that a planet's speed is according to its weight or mass. The low numbers of orbital periods gave clue to him that speed-equated-with-weight was not correct, but in his mind he could not understand how it was not so. Ditto for Newton, I assume.

Logically, one thinks that a planet's weight needs to be balanced by the orbital speed. That was my mistake in the last update (I removed that section on Saturday of this week), for which reason I'm updating this section and adding material to it to create the backdrop to the Galileo effect in orbits. I'm giving him the credit.

By what coincidence could Newton affirm Kepler's law unless Kepler was in agreement with some aspect of Newton's gravity picture? As Newton's picture was wrong, might Kepler have wrongly formed his third law accordingly? I'm open to the possibility that Kepler was able to correctly find his third law without knowing planetary weights / masses. I'm trying to spot how such a thing can be accomplished.

Someone might say, what's the use in trying to discover whether Kepler was correct or not when modern science has confirmed his relative solar distances of planets using both parallax and speed-of-light measurements? Ya-but, such a question assumes that astronomy is an honest broker. It denies the reality that astronomy is a big-bang cult given to error and deceptive practices. You can't shake free to realities if you cling to establishment quirks.

When I tried to find the results of parallax measurements for the various planetary distances, google refused to give me anything of the kind. Don't you think we should know how well parallax measurements matched or did not match speed-of-light measurements? Should we just trust astronomy's claims without seeing the evidence?

Guaranteed, astronomy has not measured the distances to the planets correctly by either means, and is way off, not even close, by more than five times. I know what a wacko it makes me look like, but I have evidence via about 10 lunar-eclipse lines (of about 10 eclipses) to the sun wherein all the data in the math is from NASA's eclipse data. All I provided was the means to find the angle of a line to the sun that follows, or extends from, an edge of the Earth umbra. All calculations showed a sun some 17 to 19 million miles away, but that was prior to adjusting the line for solar-light bending through the Earth's air. I hope to make that adjustment in next week's update, which promises to reveal the solar system as much smaller yet.

ASK: why doesn't the establishment so much as tell us that the sun's distance can be found using lunar eclipses? I could not find any sign online of anyone seeking the solar distance by that reliable method, aside from an ancient man. WHY NOT? Not because it doesn't exist, but because google is burying it on behalf of the astronomy cult. Why did google opt to bury my work on the topic? When I query google, "the astronomical unit is 18 million miles," AI responds but does not share my pages on the topic even though it has the easy ability to "know" that my pages are on that very topic. Nor is even one of my pages part of google's results. It means the google people have ordered those pages to remain in the shadows.

To find the true solar distance of Earth, find the angle of the umbra line during any lunar eclipse (the angle changes depending on how far the sun is during the eclipse). Then find the angle of a second line extending from Earth's core to edge of the sun when the latter is sized by NASA as per the "apparent diameter" at the time of the same eclipse. The sun is where the two lines meet, for the umbra line likewise goes to the edge of the sun. It's easy to find how far from Earth the two lines meet, especially for professional astronomers. Some astronomers have done this work without doubt, but the establishment banned it from public view on some incompetent but forceful excuse(s). For example: "are you nuts, everyone knows the sun is 93 million miles. Do you want to be known as the nut of the century?"

I did the work of finding how far out the two lines meet, where the sun worked out to an average of about 18 million miles, eclipse after eclipse. I haven't had a desire or impetus to get this established in science circles by sharing it with some astronomers. Be my guest but wear a helmet and watch out for getting a clubbing.

Kepler did not find the distances to the planets, but claimed to find only the relative distances. Therefore, he maybe can still be my friend. Once the distance to any one planet is found, the distances to all the planets could be easily calculated, according to Kepler's relative distances. My calculations of the sun-Earth distance does not prove Kepler's law wrong.

I asked google: "did Kepler use gravity to figure his 3rd law, or did he use Newtonian mass?" The answer assumes that Kepler already knew the relative distances between planets while formulating the law:

Kepler did not use gravity or Newtonian mass to figure out his third law; instead, he observed the planets' motions to discover a mathematical relationship between their orbital periods and distances. Isaac Newton later used his [own] laws of motion and universal gravitation to derive and explain Kepler's third law, which requires understanding mass and the inverse-square law of gravity to be fully explained

I then asked where Kepler may have acquired his knowledge of the relative planetary distances, and the response tells that he himself figured them out:

Kepler did not "know" the absolute distances, but rather determined them relatively by using Tycho Brahe's precise measurements of planetary positions and Earth's orbital size in relation to other planets.

Achem, I italicized that latter part of that statement because it's synonymous with "knowing" the relative distances of all planets. AI doesn't have reasoning powers. It's just a fetcher, and it often contradicts what it fetches.

Asking, "who discovered the relative distances between planets," the answer is Kepler himself, while formulating the 3rd law. In another question, AI claims that Kepler was able to find relative distances from Brahe's "angular data," which is not very specific. I'm just wondering whether Kepler had some real teeth for his law, or whether it was just a math whim from orbital details he noticed, without basis in reality.

One needs to prove that his law works with one planet before he can use it for the rest of them, but if all he did was notice some pattern(s) that partly compliment a proposed law in the making, that's not necessarily teeth. Difficulties have a way of tricking us. AI has not assured me of which came first, Kepler's knowledge of the relative planetary distances, or the third law that finds them.

If he first did discover the relative distances, then he was in a good position to make the law. AI: "By establishing the Earth's orbital distance as 1 Astronomical Unit (AU) and measuring the orbital periods of other planets, Kepler could calculate their distances relative to Earth using this ratio." That's not very convincing. Why, is the question. I want to test the law, to check it, but AI's programmers want only to brainwash me with the "facts" alone, never mind how the facts were arrived to. I just want to know the reasoning in his assigning the cubed root of the orbital periods as the solar distances of all planets. Was it a whim, a fraud, or a fact?

Elsewhere, AI says: "Through extensive mathematical analysis of Brahe's observations, Kepler discovered a fundamental relationship: the square of a planet's orbital period (the time it takes to complete one orbit) is proportional to the cube of its average distance from the Sun." AI's not getting more specific than that, apparently, which is woefully inadequate. Good luck using wacky google to get to the bottom of how he justified the law. The only thing that google fronts are stooges praising Kepler with fluff, and explaining his law with fanfare. This is not education, but brainwashing. Education includes critical analysis. Where's the writers checking his work?

Asking google for "critical analysis of Kepler's 3rd law," it admits to some needs, but then goes on to tell that the fixes included Newton's mass monster:

Kepler's Third Law, relating orbital period to semi-major axis, is a foundational principle in astronomy, but its critical analysis involves recognizing its empirical nature, its limitation to planetary systems with negligible self-gravity effects, and the necessary Newtonian correction for planetary masses and gravitational constant (italics mine.] The law also has conceptual limitations, as its original form is only strictly valid for small-eccentricity orbits.

That's not critical enough an analysis because it doesn't bark against the premise of his law, which is mere math. The whole law is math alone. The question ought to be, what's the basis of the math? So, I asked, "what's the basis of the math in Kepler's 3rd law?" The response is from Study.com:

Kepler's Third Law: The square of the period of an object's orbit is proportional to the cube of its semi-major axis, T 2 ∝ a 3 and in particular, T 2 = 4 π 2 G ( M + m ) a 3 where G = 6.67 × 10 − 11 N m 2 / kg 2 is Newton's gravitational constant, is the mass of the star, and is the mass of the planet.

There you go, the monster in full form where gravity = mass. Don't bother studying that math, it's got a pitfall, such as the apple falling on your head attracts your head. The article above marries Kepler to Newton's gravity=mass, and google never did answer my question, therefore, but just fed me old monster meat that it wants to keep fresh.

AI continues by admitting a problem it won't admit to: "[Kepler's] law omits the masses of the orbiting bodies and the universal gravitational constant (G)..." It's nice to know that Kepler omitted it, because it keeps him my buddy. The gravitational constant is an invention of the people who gave life to the monster. There is no gravitational constant because it's merely a number used merely in math with the wrong model of gravity. Rosicrucianism was an infestation in the British government, and in Newton's Royal Society, at the time. Darwinism was taking shape at the time, probably from the uncle of Charles Darwin, who, if I recall correctly, was in the Lunar Society, the cutting-edge science of the day, perhaps the bedrock of the dictatorial establishment the was a science-government marriage (e.g. Royal Society). British science was the world-leading aberration that more than leaked into the United States.

Note my italics in an article that google brought up for my question, "what's the basis of the math in Kepler's 3rd law?" The italicized portion is not from AI, but is part of a google blurb at its results page:

Kepler's third law can be derived from Newton's laws of motion and the universal law of gravitation. Set the force of gravity equal to the centripetal force..

Without elaboration, I'm not sure what those italics are saying. "Centripetal force" is defined as the force causing the orbital velocity. It makes the italics logical, comprehensible, to imagine the downward force equal to the lateral force of the orbit. It's got to be the truth, and I have no contest against the claim that planetary weight is what sets the speed of the orbit, but only if planetary weight is viewed as atomic weight. It gets tricky. My discovery is: it's not the full weight of a planet that sets the orbital speed, but the weight of the atoms at any given distance from gravity. Weight causes orbital speed, but not the weight of the planet. A planet of any weight may orbit at the same orbit at the same speed, as illogical as that sounds. You'll get the explanation coming up soon.

Centripetal force can be a certain level of force to one person, and much more to the Newtonian mass monster. They need to shape centripetal force according to the mass-inertia which they throw into their orbital mechanics. Therefore, they give this definition: "Centripetal force is directly proportional to the square of the orbital velocity (v²), not directly proportional to the velocity (v) itself." That is, they think a planet has four times the centripetal force when twice as fast in orbit? Why do they compound the force with speed when logic suggests that speed should be proportional to force.

Doesn't it strike you to be correct that, if a hammer is travelling twice as fast, it has twice the force, not four times? Yet the establishment swears by their formula, KE = 1/2 mv², that a hammer twice as fast pounds has four times more force. Where's the logic, the reason?

Wind travelling at twice the speed gets eight times the force, but that's because air atoms repel each other more when closer together, and faster air speed brings them closer together when striking something like the blade of a windmill. But a hammer's atoms don't use that repulsive force on each other when a hammer strikes the blade of a windmill. How, then, can twice the hammer speed get for times the force? It seems that the formula above was invented specifically for orbital mechanics.

Someone at reddit says: "So, two things: The force of a sledge hammer is equal to it's weight x speed [mass x velocity]. It's speed is directly related to the amount of energy you put in." "Directly related" means proportional, twice the energy gets twice the force, not four times.

Someone else: "...Newton's second law of motion, which states that the force acting on an object is equal to its mass times its acceleration." That means that twice the speed = twice the force. Yet when I asked google, AI said: "No, a hammer travelling twice as fast does not have twice the force; its kinetic energy and its impact force increase by four times because kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity (KE = 1/2 mv²)..." AI apparently got its wires crossed by trying to defend the data in the orbital-mechanics box of its data center.

Shun their confusing definition of "centripetal force," and assume they invented that term for a self-interested reason. The only thing that exists in the orbit is force along the orbital direction. They come along and invent a centripetal force extending from the orbiting planet toward the core of the sun, because they are always playing games with nutty fantasies for fixer-er-upper reasons in things they don't understand. It's gravity that pulls the planet toward the sun's core, STUPIDS. Keeping it simple, so that reality shines forth, whereas their motto is: keep it complicated so that reality stays dark.

The velocity-squared view of orbits grants a much-higher level of force than the reality. If that's what they use in their math for their orbital mechanics, they create a monster. It causes them to estimate that planets have much more mass than they really do, for if a larger-than-true force of gravity-squared is needed to describe a planet's speed, then it needs to weigh more to offset that extra push force. Rather than the planet just weighing in simple terms, it's assigned weight-plus, as if it has both gravity force acting upon it plus some inertial force inherent in the mass. It gets so needlessly complicated and obviously wrong that I call it a monster.

So, Kepler did not establish the true sun-planetary distances, and therefore he left it to others to decide or discover what those distances should be. In that case, I feel sure he did NOT define "centripetal" force as gravity-squared, but as gravity, period. Kepler, still my buddy.

I wanted to make sure that he did not play a role in the current sun-planets distances, and so I asked google: "did Kepler guess at true planetary distances?" Answer: "No, Kepler did not guess at true planetary distances; rather, his work established a scale model of the solar system where distances were measured in relative terms,..." (google AI). Therefore, as far as Kepler was concerned, the sun-Earth distance could have been 18 million miles, and his law would hold as well as with a sun-Earth distance of 93 million, because all sun-planet distances and orbital periods are reduced accordingly / proportionally when using the 18-million scale.

However, I still don't see how Kepler reasoned his 3rd law into existence even if knowing that orbital force was equal to gravity force. He may have realized that orbital force was proportional to orbital speed, but I as-yet see no relationship between the orbital period and orbital speed.

Galileo's Orbital Mechanics Which He Did Not Know

Kepler's law says that, for a planet with an orbital period of two years, it must be 1.6 times further from the sun than the Earth having a one-year period. Regardless of how long Earth's orbital path is, the comparative planet 1.6 times further from the sun will have an orbital path 1.6 times longer. Kepler knew that, but the orbital speed is not created by the orbital period, but rather the other way around. His law, found in desperation, seems to be banking on the hope that orbital periods create orbital sizes and speeds. It's desperation because periods cannot cough up anything that he was after. It appears that Kepler gave us mucus.

The comparative planet's speed works out to: 1.6 / 2 years = .8 times the Earth speed. Today, Mars, with a period of almost two years, is said to have an orbital speed of about .8 that of Earth. Kepler's law "works" for the modern solar system, but don't get fooled, because Kepler's law mapped the modern solar system.

Let's do another example. If a sample planet has a period of 3 years, then Kepler would square 3 to get 9, then find the cubed root of 9 to predict its solar distance of 2.08 times the sun-Earth distance. As the Earth's solar distance (in approximate terms) is the radius of its orbit, and because Earth is assigned the number, 1, for it's solar distance, it has an orbital-path distance of 1 x 2 (= diameter of orbit) x 3.14 = 6.24 units.

The planet 2.08 times further has an orbital radius of 2.08, and thus its orbital path is 2.08 x 2 x 3.14 = 13.06 units. When, for a comparison, we divide the two paths, 13.06 / 6.24, the length of the comparative planet's orbit is found greater by the expected 2.08 times. Its speed will be 2.08 / 3 years = .69 that of Earth's speed.

Note that as the periods become longer, the distances from the sun become greater, and the ORBITAL SPEEDS SLOWER. How could Kepler have known that the speeds should become slower into deeper space? This was a correct prediction for his law, I think, because my Galileo-based law of orbital speeds predicts the same. Kepler, my buddy still.

Possibly, he was only after sun-planet distances while his law only coincidentally produced slower speeds per greater distance. Admittedly, I'm no expert on historical astronomy, and so I've got to poke away at google to dredge up the historical situations.

As the math in Kepler's third law does not outwardly incorporate the weights of planets, it could serve to reveal, if his law is correct, that planetary weight doesn't matter in orbital mechanics, which contradicts what I swore by in the last update. I'm pretty sure I was we-we-wrong. But my Galileo-based correction says that planetary weight/mass does not make the planet speed. The italics below is what I was pushing in the last update:

a planet 2 times further from the sun will weigh 4 times less such that it needs to be sent into orbit at 4 times less speed. As the orbital path of a planet twice as far from the sun is twice as long, it will take that planet 8 years to travel the orbit once.

What that shows, if the weight-speed proportionality were correct, is that, if Mars and Earth weighed the same at Earth's orbit, Mars would have a period of about 8 years if twice as far out. This math tells a mathematician at face value (no calculation needed) that Mars would have more than a period of two years where Mars is in actuality 1.6 times further from the sun. BIG PROBLEM. It's arguing against weight-speed proportionality, and so Kepler may have started to oppose that proportionality BEFORE he made his law, then made his law to fit it. I'm just guessing because I don't know.

If Mars (6.65 less volume than Earth) weighed 8 times less than Earth, it's speed would need to be 8 times slower, raising its period to 8 x 8 = 64 years. Yikes, weight-speed proportionality cannot be correct. The good news at the sight of this math is that I remembered saying that mere asteroids travel at nearly the same orbit as Earth and at the same speed. Shame on me, I had forgotten this when writing last week on planetary masses.

At that time of discussing asteroids, I was explaining the reason that planetary weight does not produce orbit speed. I was going to Galileo's discovery, though he didn't know the orbital mechanics I speak of when he found that all objects, regardless of weight, fall to gravity at the same speed. I was able to understand the reason: gravity attracts the atoms of objects separately, and gravity arranges all atoms to weigh the same.

In other words, it doesn't matter that an object has more atoms than another, both objects get yanked toward gravity at the same speed because gravity pulls on all atoms with the same force. Therefore, and this is what I had forgotten: if Earth were at the orbit of Mercury, they would both orbit at the same speed because gravity pulls all their atoms separately, and with the same force. It was a revolutionary view of orbital mechanics, yet, not knowing how to handle it or prove it amid the complications, I abandoned the topic and forgot about it.

Contrary to our logic, it doesn't matter that the larger planet is heavier when it comes to orbits, especially if correct what many say, that orbits involve the constant fall of planets. If all objects fall straight down at the same rate to gravity, all objects should require the same orbital speed (at the same orbit) because it alone is what opposes gravity. If all objects are pulled by the same force, they all need the same orbital speed.

But you will say, "hey nutjob, how can you say that Earth is pulled by the same force as Mercury when they are at the same orbit"? You need to ask the asteroid, which will demand that you apologize to me. Yes, the Earth weighs more than Mercury, but their atoms weigh the same. You need to pause and let that sink in, ask what the situation will now be with it in mind.

The small asteroid orbiting roughly at the same speed, or even at a faster speed, than a planet proves that all atoms weigh the same because, guaranteed, you cannot come up with any other means to explain it. The asteroid Apophis orbits faster than Earth at roughly the same orbit. The only explanation is: all atoms weight the same.

It doesn't matter whether there is one lone atom in orbit, or a bowling ball, or a planet. If they are at the same distance from the sun's gravity, they get treated the same by gravity pull, each atom pulled separately by the same force. I apologize for not remembering this when writing the last update's section on planetary masses.

What this means is that, the further a planet from the sun, the weaker the gravity force, the lighter its atoms, and thus the slower it must orbit (proportionately). The orbital speed depends on the weight of the atoms, not the total weight of the planet. It also means that nobody can know the mass of any planet, because orbital speed isn't based on weight or mass. I'll probably not re-present the material I removed in the last update on finding planetary masses, as it's a waste of time.

My law on orbital mechanics needs to replace by buddy's 3rd law is: where the orbital speed is one quarter as fast, the orbit is twice as far from the sun. It's based exactly on the inverse-square law of gravity, so easy. Where gravity is .25 as strong, the planetary speed is .25 as fast.

However, I need to stress that certain math in my atempt to make my own math-law, which I have slated for the next update, is trying to convince me that gravity is inversely proportional only to distance, not distance-squared. In either case, orbital speed is not proportional to planetary weight or mass-density, but proportional to gravity force. The new thing is: I now know why.

It's not going to be easy to prove this law because I can see no way to find either the relative or true distances between planets, for Kepler was clearly wrong on that topic. I don't have periods in my law. I don't start with periods, as Kepler does. I start with gravity force and find orbital speed and orbital distance with it. That's all she wrote. If I don't know either the speeds or relative distances between actual planets, I can't prove this law. But asteroids have now replaced Kepler as my best buddy. If you dare come at me with a tongue lashing, I can throw an asteroid into your mouth to shut it. I have the power.

Every object at the same distance from gravity weighs the same when in orbit. The stationary planet in space needs a stronger push than a stationary bowling ball, to get them into orbit, but once in orbit, they are both "weightless." Yes, they retain their weights, but the orbital motion counters it. As gravity pulls both the bowling ball and the planet at the same speed downwards, the same speed in orbit is needed to counter the weight of both. Zip your mouths, goofball astronomers, I have Galileo your father sitting at my right hand, and an asteroid at the tip of my scepter. If you don't want it into your mouth, zip it.

I am so convinced that this law is correct that I'm willing to say that Kepler is therefore wrong, for he has Mars, 1.6 times further from the sun than Earth, at .8 the Earth's speed. Last week, I had the math formula to find (and backed the figure up with google AI) that gravity force is 2.27 times weaker at Mars if indeed it's 1.6 times further than Earth. That predicts, according to my law, that the speed of Mars ought to be: 1 / 2.27 = .44 the speed of Earth. At .8, he has Mars about twice as fast.

Who are you going to believe, me or Kepler? He doesn't even know whether Mars is 1.6 times as far from the sun. I have this computer chair as my throne, and an information highway at the other end of the keyboard. He had a rickety tripod for a cracker-jack telescope, no plane tickets to the world-famous libraries, yet he's still the father of modern astronomy??? It's time for a new Father, the One the establishment goons war against. He is the one who pushed the planets into orbits. He is the one who created magical gravity force at a distance.

Poor Kepler. He had to start his law-math with orbital periods because he didn't know anything else. He was hoping to spot some pattern, some clue, that coughed up orbital speeds in order to find distance from solar gravity. His problem, my problem, is that orbital speed cannot be known unless we first know how far a planet is from the sun. The latter cannot be known unless we know the orbital speed. It appears that we are bankrupt in common hopelessly.

Quora asks: "How fast do asteroids travel?" Someone responds: "The speed at which asteroids move is totally dependant on their distance from the sun." That's due to Galileo's discovery, which he did not understand at the atomic level. The online statement admits what nobody understands, that, regardless of rock size, the orbital speed is the same at the same solar distance.

All objects of all weights fall to gravity with the same force per atom when at the same distance from a gravity source, but the heavier ones pound the ground harder when they land, because they have more atoms to pound with, but they all get pulled by the same level of force because gravity pulls the atoms individually. I'm repeating this to get you familiar with it. It's the new way forward into the Millennium because Truth will prevail. No shortage of astronomy goofs will have asteroid gravel to chew over in Hell. They can ask each other how they could have been so moronic as to remain deaf to what asteroids are screaming toward them.

If rocks as a whole get pulled by the same level of force, the heavier rocks would need faster orbit speeds. Therefore, it's the atoms that get pulled but to be distinguished from total pull on the whole rock. It's not the whole rock that gets pulled by gravity as if it were a giant atom. For example, if we hooked 20 identical springs tight to 20 balls versus one identical spring hooked tight to one ball, and release the springs at the same time, all 20 will be pulled (toward the spring) at the same speed as the one ball. That's how gravity operates on multi-atom objects.

Therefore, it doesn't matter how many atoms multi-atom objects are made of, all objects defy gravity equally when at the same orbital speed, for all atoms have exactly overcome gravity force at that speed. This is not as staggering as it seems for what I'm saying here. It's more staggering, as per importance, because it affirms that all atoms weigh the same, for if all atoms are pulled by the same force, they all weigh the same. Galileo, my right-hand man, inadvertently made that discovery.

Microscope on Kepler and Newton

Asteroids were not known until the 19th century, after Kepler and Newton. The two could not have known, therefore, that various planets at the same orbit would orbit at the same speed. Yet, when I ask google, "did Newton think that heavier planets need faster orbit speed," the answer is, no. How could Newton have known that planetary weight or mass had nothing to do with orbital speed? Should I trust AI in this case, or is it covering for modern astronomy because it worships Newtonian gravity?

Note that AI is trying to frame Newton as believing that the only thing mattering for specific orbital speed is distance from the sun: "Newton's laws explained that the force of gravity weakens with the square of the distance from the central body (the Sun, in the case of planets). This means that while a planet's own mass contributes to the gravitational force it exerts, the crucial factor for its orbital speed is its distance from the Sun."

The thing that AI is saying on Newton's behalf is that, since the planet's gravity is like nothing compared to the sun's, the only thing determining planetary speed is nearness to the sun. In that case, he believed that planet weight was everything in determining orbit speed, for more nearness to the sun equals more planet weight. AI doesn't admit it because it's now known that more planet mass does not require more orbital speed.

Yes, Newton believed that distance from a magnet weakens magnetic force, duh, but it does not then follow vividly or even visibly that an object in orbit around a magnet has a speed due ONLY to its distance from the magnet. That concept, I'll challenge, was not yet in circulation until it was discovered that small asteroids orbited at roughly the same speed as massive planets. Prior to that discovery, I'd expect investigators to think that two planets orbiting at the same distance from the sun need different speeds in proportion to their masses. Newton was big on mass. It was the golden figurehead at the tip of his telescope.

The magnetic aspects of atoms were not yet a mental framework in 18th-century science, and so gross mass was lifted up as a science god like an easy-to-comprehend chunk of lead. Planets were chunks of lead, and Newton, who was toying with atoms, imagined gravity force inside the lead. He should have remained open to the concept that gravity exists as something unique within planets and stars acting on materials only from their outside. Like a magnet on a non-magnetic nail, duh.

The magnetic aspect of atoms is what gravity pulls, and while all atoms have gravity material within them, it's as captured electrons that do not send out gravity force because their negative forces, which is gravity force, are fully countered by protonic force. I can't shame Newton for not knowing this, but a good scientist would keep all options on the table until one knocked the other off. If the game was to rashly make laws to become fastly famous for them, shame on Newton. Making science laws became an addictive drug the more laws one could make and get away with. Evolutionists made it easy for men to make phony but convenient laws, and to get away with them with a wink of the eye.

Question: "did Galileo know that a planet's weight had no bearing on orbital speed"? AI response: "No, Galileo did not know that planetary weight has no bearing on orbital speed, though he did show that weight does not affect the speed of falling objects." I suppose that someone could have taken the latter idea, applying it to planet orbits such as to realize that more planetary weight did not require faster speeds, but that seems like a long shot. If Galileo himself didn't realize it, how might Newton have done so only one, dim century later?

Newton's first law of motion was stolen from Galileo, his buddy. None did Newton know that Galileo would become by right-hand man for to inflict Newton with a fatal stab. However, to be fair, Newton never said that atoms could not all weigh the same. But neither did he realize that two planets could orbit at the same speed at the same orbit. If he had known this, he would have become useless to the evolutionists, for they do not want all atoms to weigh the same.

I asked the question above but with Newton instead of Galileo, and got this response that starts to indicate a miscommunication between google and I, as though AI doesn't understand what I'm asking. In any case, note that Newton viewed orbital speed as a combination of mass and solar distance, which is wrong:

Yes, Isaac Newton knew that a planet's own weight (or mass) did not determine its orbital speed; rather, the orbital speed depends on the mass of the body being orbited (like the Sun) and the distance from that body. Newton's laws of motion and universal gravitation demonstrated that while the planet's mass cancels out in the calculation for the gravitational force causing its orbit, the mass of the central body (the Sun) is crucial.

My translation of the latter part of that paragraph is:, if we pump rocks into the Earth to make it heavier, the Earth won't need to orbit faster because it's not really getting heavier with the extra rocks, because it's still so small in comparison to the sun. The response explains what is meant by planetary weight having nothing do do with orbital speed, but it's not what my law is saying about orbital speed versus planet weight.

Let's try re-phrasing the question: "Did Newton know that greater planet weight needs a faster orbit?" AI in contradiction: "Newton understood that a planet's distance from the Sun, not its weight, dictates its orbital speed: the closer a planet is to the Sun, the stronger the gravitational pull and the faster the planet must move to maintain its orbit." Ya-but, the distance from the sun IS planetary weight. The stronger the gravitational pull, the greater the weight. AI is again trying to differentiate between weight and gravitational pull, which is nonsense.

Things then get corny with my question, using "mass" instead of "weight" this time: "did Newton know that greater planet mass needs a faster orbit?" A can of worms is starting to open where AI is finally addressing mass versus speed:

No, greater planetary mass does not require a faster orbit; it requires a slower one. A more massive planet's stronger gravitational pull means it experiences a greater centripetal force [oh no, not that word] from the central star, but for its orbit to remain stable, its orbital velocity decreases [NONSENSE]. Newton's work described this relationship: a more massive planet, ORBITING AT THE SAME DISTANCE [caps mine] as a less massive one, would have a slower orbital speed and a longer orbital period to balance the stronger gravitational pull.

That is just Jack-in-the-box surprising where Jack has the face of Pandora. It's even credited Newton himself for that idea. First, we are told that a planet closer to the sun, having more weight, needs a faster orbit, and now a more massive planet needs a slower orbit because it's more like sluggish Joe-fats with his shoelaces untied. If Newton believed this, then it's true he didn't understand orbits.

He understood right that, the further from the sun, the slower the orbit, but if he also thought that a heavier (I mean, more massive) planet is slower in orbit speed, it exposes how wrong the entire establishment of his day was looking at orbit mechanics.

NO STUPID, the heavier the planet, the more force it needs to get to perfect orbit. It can't orbit slower than a lighter one in orbit, or the sun will suck it in. To counter the greater weight, it needs to be sent harder into orbit, but not faster. I made the mistake last week of thinking a heavier planet needs to be sent FASTER. No, it needs to be sent HARDER, with more force until it's at perfect-orbit velocity. All planets at the same orbit travel at the same speed.

When asking: "did Newton know that, If Earth were at the orbit of Mercury, both planets would orbit at the same speed?" AI now contradicts what it said above:

No, Newton would not have known this because the statement is incorrect; if Earth were at Mercury's orbit, both planets would not orbit at the same speed. Newton's laws, particularly his theory of universal gravitation and laws of motion, explained that the closer a planet is to the Sun, the faster it orbits, a principle also described by Kepler's Third Law. Therefore, Earth, if placed at Mercury's closer orbit, would actually orbit faster than Mercury does now, while Mercury, if placed at Earth's orbit, would orbit slower.

But-but-but. Oh, forget it, it's only AI, a stupid robot. It can respond either with Joe-fats or Speeding Gonzales, what does it care? If the data bank has both, it'll retrieve both eventually for similar queries. AI is going to ruin the world.

Case closed. Newton did not know that planets at the same orbit have the same speed. He therefore did not understand orbital mechanics fully. All he knew is that planets get lighter, with less weight, with distance from the sun. He and Kepler were likely hoping to incorporate that pattern into their math laws. My bet is he thought that more mass or greater size would need faster orbit speed.

To be sure that the Joe-fats scenario isn't the modern belief, I asked google: "do modern astronomers believe that more massive planets need slower orbit velocity?" This time we get the goods:

No, more massive planets do not inherently require a slower orbital velocity; in fact, to maintain a stable orbit, a more massive planet would require a faster orbital velocity, all else being equal, as mass is a factor in calculating orbital speed but not the sole determining factor. The primary factors determining orbital speed are the planet's distance from the central body and the mass of the central body, not the mass of the planet itself

There we go, they see BOTH the solar distance and the planetary mass as factors, just as one could suspect. TO THIS DAY they teach this. It's logical, but wrong. The other problem is that they derive planetary mass according to the gravity=mass monster. We can imagine that they try to balance that creature on the rope of incorporating planetary mass into orbital speed. Get the aspirin bottle and the couch, we're going to need them.

Guaranteed, the solar system does not work as the goofs think it should, but they aren't going to tell anyone because they want brainwashing powers. Too much self-criticism, and many admissions of failures, spoils the cult.

IT'S VERY IMPORTANT that planet size makes no difference for orbit speed. It's very important for my claim that the sun is less than 18 million miles away, for this makes the planets much smaller than claimed by the goofs. If planet size did matter, then the sun could not be less than 18 million miles away. That's what I've learned this week.

In not knowing, prior to the discovery of asteroids, that planet size does not matter for determining planetary periods, astronomy was barking up the 93-million tree because, when the planets work out to be very small (i.e. light) within something as small as an 18-million AI, very slow orbits are called for, wherefore planets like Mars would have orbital periods in the range of many dozens of years if not 100 or more. See that? Does it look like a problem at all, do you think? That's why I nearly died of a heart attack upon seeing it on my math calculator.

Let's go back to what was done above, where we could imagine astronomers of the 18th century thinking just like my logic below, but where they had inklings of how badly problematic that logic is:

...a planet 2 times further from the sun will weigh 4 times less such that it needs to be sent into orbit at 4 times less speed. As the orbital path of a planet twice as far from the sun is twice as long, it will take that planet 8 years to travel the orbit once.

...if Mars and Earth weighed the same at Earth's orbit, Mars would have a period of about 8 years if twice as far out. If Mars (6.65 less volume than Earth) weighed 8 times less than Earth, it's speed would need to be 8 times slower, raising its period to 8 x 8 = 64 years. This cannot be correct.

Now imagine if Mars was five times smaller in a solar system with an 18-million-mile AU (sun-Earth distance). It would have a volume in the ballpark of 840 times smaller than Earth (I did the math on the calculator that almost gave me a heart attack). If 8 times smaller gets dozens of years for the period, 840 times smaller, needing a super-slow orbit, is going to get ridiculously ridiculous to the point of tightening the nerves that then apply pressure to the heart to almost stop it. I was lucky, because there was reason for calm amid the scare: Galileo's ghost suddenly appeared on my desk. I remembered the way out: planet weight doesn't matter for forming orbital periods.

We can predict that the astronomers started to bark up a tree that was significantly larger than 18 million, gunning for more like 100 million, but they therefore needed to find ways to get that number in ways that were acceptable. They therefore lied to themselves, perhaps to ease their consciences, but others lied because a huge solar system would grant a commendable service to the theory of cosmic evolution.

By the way, trust AI for nothing. It reported the volume of Mars as 132 trillion cubic miles, then changes it according to how I phrase the question, but it gave 39 million cubic miles when it should be more like 39 billion. This is going to screw up the world's information system the longer people share the wrong data, on top of the fact that the science goofs have lied a million lies.

The problem above with huge orbital periods for very small planets vanishes with the reality that planetary size has nothing to do with orbital speeds. We can make Mars as small as we wish in a greatly-reduced solar-system size, but it's not going to become slower. Ditto for all of the planets.

You understand that, if the Earth is closer to the sun, all the planets get closer to Earth. Just as a sun 5 times closer (retains same size in the sky) means that its diameter works out to 5 times less, ditto for all the planets. All solar-system and planetary volumes shrink in proportion to how much smaller the AU is as compared to 93 million miles.

The only correct thing known about Mars, by the establishment, is that it's period is 1.88 times that of Earth. It cannot know Mars' orbital speed if it doesn't know the length or radius of Mars' orbit.

You'll say to me, ya-but NASA has gone to Mars several times, and so it should know how far Mars is more than anyone. Ya-but, NASA lies. It has no idea how fast its rockets travel when going to Mars. You can't use a spedometer on a rocket. The truth must be that, the first time a ship was sent to Mars, they calculated the average rocket speed from the amount of time it took to get there. After that, they figured out how much fuel is needed to get that far, and so they figured that a bucket of fuel gets them a lot further than it actually does.

Isn't it a bit ridiculously hard to believe that they could make a rocket craft with enough fuel to get halfway to Mars over a couple of dozen million miles? I'm not buying it. It not that far away. Travelling up away from gravity needs a lot more fuel than travelling horizontally on a road.

It wasn't until I reduced the size of Mars by 5.5 times to find it 840 times less voluminous that I had such a crisis that I remembered the Galileo method of orbital mechanics, not his mechanics, but mine according to his Pisa discovery. And only then did I remember that even asteroids can orbit at the same speed as planets at the same distance from the sun. The crisis was as per my equating planet weight with orbital speed, making the reduced Mars so small that it would thereby have way more than its 1.88-year period.

Seconds into the crisis, I was asking God where I went wrong. Thank God that the Galileo mechanics had been dealt with some two years ago. I recall grappling with this problem: if the planets are all constantly falling as they travel their orbital paths, why do they not accelerate in that fall? Maybe they do. Maybe it causes elliptical orbits. Maybe the fall accelerates such that the planet comes continuously closer to the sun...until the extra lateral (orbit-wise) speed obtained by the fall cancels the fall, causing the planet to move further away from the sun again.

Kepler's second law states that a planet is moving fastest when closest to the sun. However, that is badly stated because it gives the strange impression that solar-gravity force alone somehow causes the faster speed, strange because the planet moves perpendicular to the gravity force. Solar gravity does play a role if the faster speed is due to fall, but it's ultimately the latter itself that causes the faster speed.

The reason that the planet is fastest when closest to the sun is that it's then at its maximum fall, where the lateral speed only begins to get the superiority, for lateral speed is exactly what brings the planet further away from the sun again. Over and over, it's a battle between the falling toward the sun, and the travelling away from it. One corrects the other, eventually, by outdoing it.

Parallax Can't Work To Determine Distance

In theory, the most-reliable way to find planetary sizes is by triangulation, often called or confused with, parallax. I cannot find parallax data online for planets, even when asking google outright for it. The explanation could be due to the admission that parallax, in non-theory (in reality), becomes unreliable due to atmospheric bending of light.

If we ask why telescopes in outer space can't be used for triangulating the true distance to a neighboring planet, I suppose it's because their moving, which spoils the measurement.

Parallax is nothing more than forming three lines of a triangle. In finding planetary distance, the base of a triangle is a line from one telescope to a second telescope. Both telescopes point to the center of the planet, which creates the rest of the triangle. By knowing the length of the triangle's base and the two angles to the planet from the telescopes, the planet's distance can be easily calculated.

The problem is, the more distant the telescopes are placed across the planet for increased measurement accuracy, the more they are at the edges of the planet, where the light of the planet needs to pass through the most air. Air not only alters the direction of the planet's light, but deforms it. Yet this is only one of the challenges to getting accurate parallax measurements.

A small change in the angle of the telescopes will calculate a difference of many millions of miles for the planetary distance. Therefore, we can safely assume that the goofs have trued to manipulate parallax measurements in order to snag their 93-million-mile beast. But let's see their results anyway. Let's see how many who attempted such measurements agreed in their results? Or will google merely cherry pick the people who got closest to 93 million? Of course.

OR, could it be true that triangulation attempts kept getting a planet far too close to Earth such that it whacked the legs out from under the 93-million beast? I wonder. Could that explain why we can't find a full list of measuring attempts with their results?

Contrary to astronomy's stooges, speed-of-light measurements to find planetary distance are not superior to the triangulation methods. The stooges have conveniently made a law for themselves, that the speed of light is always the same in a vacuum. It's convenient because planetary distances could not be found if light changes speed significantly through outer space as compared to the air/vacuum in a laboratory on the ground. They badly needed a reliable measuring stick to find sun-planet and star-Earth distances, and where such a stick did not exist, they invented the convenient speed-of-light stick that never shrinks nor grows no matter what space it goes through. The evolutionist stooges were ecstatic.

The people who invented this stick use it as a club over the heads of Creationists. The stooges have never once voiced the objection that light acts faster than the experiments show. Even the people who conduct the experiments must know that light, when it enters a mirror, slows down to a halt within the mirror, and then bounces back out. As the speed of light cannot be calculated without mirrors, the stooges ought to at least come clean by admitting that it takes time for the light to enter and bounce off of the mirror. That extra time ruins the measurement, because any speed measurement involves time as a fundamental ingredient of the math.

The admission that it takes time to bounce off the mirror is very bad for big-bangers because it means that light could be instant. After all, light speed must be faster than they measure it using mirrors, and instant happens to be faster. If light is instant from the stars, or much faster than found by the mirror method of measuring its speed, there's no way prove that stars are billions of years old. The convenient measuring stick gave the stooges that happy thing, but the mirror pulls the chair out from under them.

One online stooge of the lunatic kind is not ashamed to throw her hat into the ring of fellow lunatics and science warlocks because there are so many of them now. Sabine Hossenfelder, a science witch, has a video, "Time Stops at the Speed of Light." There is no relationship or connection between time and the speed of anything. These dangerous and rebellious people need to be locked up, and God will lock them up, forbid them to partake in His Society. Are we to believe that there is no time in space because sunlight moves toward Earth?

In reality, light is a true wave "travelling" through a wave medium, and in the laboratory, the particles of the wave medium are essentially stationary. That is, the free electrons that make up that wave medium are barely moving at all in a building's room, and not much at all in the open air. The wave (which is not a particle) "travels" though that medium either instantly, or much closer to it than acting as if travelling at 186,000 mps.

I can explain how a light wave travels instantly because gravity repels electrons. Therefore, electrons are not held down by gravity, and as such there is ZERO INERTIA involved in a wave. Ahh, we are back to inertia as I define it, the correct definition, which is that stationary particles have inertia only insomuch as gravity attracts them.

In the case of the solar wind, where the free electrons have motion, they pose no inertial resistance to motion if motion-energy comes up from behind them, and smacks them on the behind. It's not a collision. There's no free electrons colliding with free electrons, in a light wave from sun to Earth. Rather, there are free electrons pushing free electrons that cannot resist the push because the electrons further out from the sun travel faster than any electrons behind them, for they are all accelerating at greater speeds with greater distance from the sun.

If there is zero resistance when one solar-wind electron pushes the one ahead of it, the latter starts to move INSTANTLY. No time is lost in the process. But if light is sent to Venus from the Earth when Venus is as close to Earth as possible, the light waves go into the solar wind, and so the waves are now described as electrons bumping electrons backward toward the sun, which to me looks like every bump is a COLLISION. It begs whether the light wave is slower in this reversed direction toward the sun.

We are probably correct to think that, when there is a light beam sent to Venus or Mars to check out how far the planet is, the test will be done when the planets are closest, which inevitably involves forcing light DIRECTLY against the solar wind.

On the other hand, I have a hard time believing that a light wave bounced off of a planet's surface could get back to Earth strong enough to be detected. I'm saying that this claim could be a scam.

In the direction of the solar wind, every electron that bumps an electron ahead of it (this bumping is light wave) is moving a little slower, though essentially they are at the same speed such that there is no collision to slow anything down. The wave just moves freely with NOTHING to slow it down, suggesting instant action from wave start to wave end.

It seems to me that there is zero inertia involved when light waves strike through stationary electrons in a laboratory's air. The speed of light is instant but for the mirror acting like mud to the bounce-off.

The true distances of the planets from the sun were reportedly found by the "transit of Venus": "During transit of Venus experiments, telescopes were placed as far apart as possible, spanning the globe to maximize the trigonometric parallax, which allowed for the accurate calculation of the Earth-Sun distance." There's at least two problems, possibly three: 1) potential atmospheric bending of light to the telescopes; 2) speed-of-light experiments that jibe with the Venus-transit results; 3) the people doing the experiment my have been cultist frauds to begin with, with an agenda.

As the distance to Venus was found by the transit experiment to be the same distance claimed for speed-of-light experiments, where the latter cannot be correct because Earth is only 18 million miles or less from the sun, and because they don't even know the speed of light, then the people conducting the transit experiment and/or making the related calculations were frauds. It's not to be expected that they found the same distance to Venus as the goofs claim by other methods unless they were all conniving frauds. What were they up to? They badly needed the 93 million beast.

The sun-Earth distance was proposed by Cassini in the 17th century as 87 million miles, which gave the establishment a ballpark figure to work with. His figure was based on some tricky-dicky parallax using Mars that I'll try to explain below. His figure wasn't out until the late 17th century, four decades after Kepler's death.

Cassini's telescope was in Paris while his partner's was in northern South America. Before I look into what he was doing, let's mention that the sun's travel per unit time (i.e. its sky speed) across the noontime sky can be measured accurately i.e. without sunlight-bending mucking things up. Any deviations to the noontime speed, when the sun is moving elsewhere in the sky, marks the amount of light bending. We therefore ask Google concerning this:

Sunlight bends by an average of about 34 arcminutes (0.57 degrees) due to atmospheric refraction when the sun is on the horizon, but this amount is variable and can be significantly higher in different conditions. The atmosphere acts as a lens, making the sun appear higher in the sky, which accounts for approximately two minutes of extra daylight at both sunrise and sunset.

A whopping two minutes! That .57 degrees is roughly the diameter of the sun as the eye sees it in the sky. That's a lot of sky length in comparison to the wee size of Mars or Venus as seen by the eye. If anyone tries to get the distance to Mars or Venus using two telescopes as per the parallax method, even though the planet is not on the horizon, we still expect light bending in proportion to the angles of the telescopes off the perfect vertical. It's known that light doesn't bend when coming straight down on a transparent substance, but does bend when striking it on angles. Therefore, one cannot find the true distance to neighboring planets via parallax unless one at least makes adjustments for light bending. And that's where fudgers can fudge their giddy best to get the 93-million beast to pop out of their telescopes.

Cassini thought he could find the sun-Mars or sun-Earth distance by using two telescopes far from each other, and measuring with each one how much Mars moves along the stellar background. Was Cassini a trick? Aren't evolutionists nothing but a bag of tricks? Yes.

In Cassini's parallax method, he eliminates the problem of light bending because each telescope has the job only of getting the angle between a shot of Mars and a shot of a star (the same star for both telescopes) As both the starlight and the Mars light are bent, the angle stays true to a situation in which there is no air.

Each telescope takes a shot of Mars, then moves over to take a shot of the star, and the number of degrees that the telescope moves over is recorded. The two angle's numbers are then used together in a simple subtraction, and that difference becomes the parallax angle at the tip of the triangle that supposedly finds the Earth-Mars distance. But I see a problem.

The two angles cannot be related to each other because they are taken in 3-dimensional space. This two-telescope method would work only if both telescopes pointed to Mars and the star as dots on a 2-dimensional piece of paper. In 3-dimensional space, you can't just take two angles from anywhere you wish, and then put them together in math as if they reveal anything reliable.

The two telescopes were about 7,500 miles apart while a half planet is 12,500 miles wide. Perhaps they placed themselves where they thought best to eliminate the 3-D problem, I wouldn't know.

Asking Google for "parallax results for Mars," it takes us back to "A historical example..." if the 19th century. Ya but, what about recent measurements? Who done them? Did their results all agree, or does the establishment cherry pick the ones who get the publicization because they got closest to the expected / desired distances?

The fact is, one doesn't need to find a parallax angle at all. Knowing the distance between the two telescopes, and the angle of each telescope when pointed to the center of Mars, is all that's needed. That coughs up the distance to the planet with merely an online right-angle-triangle calculator. No background star is needed. If they don't use that method, the only possible reasons are: 1) the known angles of the two telescopes cannot be accurately attuned with each other since zero degree is not the same for both; or 2) light bends through the air, making the measured angle wrong.

Problem 1) explains why Cassini didn't use this method, as telescopic systems in his day were not exactly refined. The best way to do this method is from a flat ground where both telescopes have the same zero-degree line, both lines parallel. For example, zero degrees for both is straight up in all directions. The two telescopes then shift to point at Mars, and the two angles off of zero degrees will supposedly find the distance to any planet, once adjustments are made for bending of light. The earth is not flat ground, complicating things, but, anyway, how accurate are the zero-degree lines from true verticals at both telescope locations? This is called, iffy.

Where Mars is to the right of one telescope, it needs to shift both to the right and down. The other telescope needs to shift to the left and down too, but will not shift in the downward direction by the same distance as the other because the telescopes are not likely going to be on the same latitudinal line of the Earth.

The article below has a drawing with a background star shown. There are five lines protruding from the Earth circle. The bottom line and the fourth line above it make for the alpha 'a' and beta 'b' angles shown. Neither line is shown pointing to the star, but in fact they are to be viewed as such, as if meeting at the star way off the page. The two lines are shown parallel because that's part of the math method. The parallax angle they are after is angle 'p'.
https://www.mccarthyobservatory.org/pdfs/pm020102.pdf

The angle 'b' involves one telescope only, and the angle 'a' involves the other telescope only. Those angles are therefore true to their respective telescopes, and there is therefore no need to put the telescopic angles in sync. You can glean here that there is no way to know the distance to the star, even though line 1 and line 4 both go to the star to form a triangle apex, because the angles of the telescopes are not in sync.

The article above tells that the two lines to the star are regarded as parallel, though they are not really. The 'p' angle, obtained on that premise, is found as 'a' angle minus 'b' angle.

Once the 'p' angle is obtained, the distance to Mars cannot yet be figured by knowing the distance between telescopes, which is the base of the triangle. Rather, the angle of one of the telescopes is needed too. Google AI: "No, the distance from the base to the apex cannot be determined with only the base distance and the apex angle; you would need at least one more measurement, such as a second angle..."

The article has a second drawing based on some need to point one telescope toward Mars hours apart from another angle measurement. For me, this drawing looks like an up-grading of the trick, to make things too complicated for Mr. Public to deal with. It's ultimately looking like voodoo to kill Mr. Public's desire to know what in tarnation the gods are talking about. The greater the complications, th greater the error.

The article's Section B ends with the admission that the angles recorded by both telescopes were not recorded at the same time:

And remember, Cassini and Flamsteed were using pendulum clocks to measure time – without motor drives on their telescopes, there was plenty of uncertainty.

In 1673, both Cassini and Flamsteed reported that, based on their measurement of the parallax of Mars, the distance from Earth to Sun was estimated to be 87,000,000 miles. For the first time, astronomers had a true vision of the size of the solar system!

There you have a very-trusting blockhead, the writer of the article. He's worse than a blockhead; he's an accomplice to dirty science. Subsequent parallax measurements were probably cherry-picked to the extent that the establishment settled on a 93-million-mile sun, and every stooge worth his salt said the same, or else.

NEWS

The Massie-Khanna resolution in Congress this week wants to release some Epstein files that Trump doesn't want released. Fortunately, a maximum-transparency resolution passed Wednesday, but only by the slim margin of 212 to 208. Here's a short clip of the congressional debate shortly before the vote. Trump is the only reason that this bill passed, because all Democrats voted for it hoping to get him into political trouble:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zohrNSyoIo

The video above shows that Trump is being very nice to Ghislaine Maxwell as per her saying nice things about him recently. It stinks.

Apparently, Epstein subdued his teen victims by promising a glorious career in modeling or acting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyU5HRFYlMg

It is a shame that Comer's congressional team is forcing the Clintons and others in for questioning instead of Kash Patel questioning them with the threat of real incrimination. People can lie bald-faced in Congress and get away with it without a problem, and everyone knows it. I realize that any people guilty with Epstein will refuse to answer FBI questions, but that officially incriminates these people, which is preparation for arrests. "Judge," the FBI can say, "Bill Clinton refused to answer questions in case he might incriminate himself. Judge, he could have said that he had nothing to do with teens and teens abuse, but he chose not to say it."

You saw the House Speaker, Mike Johnson, in the video above. He looked like he was happy with the 212 - 208 vote, but media are reporting: "Speaker reportedly urged members to back Republican committee’s Epstein investigation over bipartisan bill forcing release of more evidence." See that? A separate push was advanced by Trump supporters (like Johnson) that not only favors Trump's wish to keep the Epstein files more secret, but is intended to sabotage the Massie-Khanna bill because the latter has new disclosures while the material released by the House today/tomorrow is material that's already out in public, or so the critics claim. Massie is hoping to force Pam Bondi to release files that Trump (her boss) doesn't want released.

Most Republicans in the House oppose Massie's bill, and probably more than half of them due to Trump's criminal attitude. It's such a shame to see the Republican bloc go down in such infamy, denying the rights of the public to get justice from a brutal and criminal cabal. Trump is obstructing justice not only on the Epstein issue, but for the previous Justice department. The Republican bloc is only talking the talk on Epstein, but in reality, it doesn't want this issue to remain alive. The suspicion is that Trump and some in the bloc are protecting the guilty within the Epstein ring, especially Israelis whom the bloc is committed to.

Thomas Massie hopes to have his bill passed before the end of this month. He needs 218 House signatures to keep the push alive, and while all 212 Democrats are expected to sign, Trump is threatening any Republicans who sign. I wonder if the gutless wonders in Trump social media will properly lambaste Trump for this obvious cover-up attempt. Today's resolution passes because only 208 Republicans voted against it, meaning that there are more than enough Republicans who abstained from voting who can put Massie's effort over the top. As of Wednesday, Massie is two votes short. Here's Massie's push this week:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-epstein-survivors-stand-with-reps-massie-and-khanna-to-push-for-epstein-files-transparency-act

The video above gets potent as some victim-whistleblowers are coming out not holding any punches, begging Trump to be transparent on behalf of justice. Trump says even this week that this issue is a waste-of-time "Democrat hoax." No guff. It's not freedom for Republicans to express their prerogatives. It's dictatorial censorship with a big stick, threatening punishment on any Republican who dares to magnify Epstein-ring crimes.

Just because Massie appeared on CNN on this issue, don't get the impression that he's a RINO. Nobody says he's a RINO:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ziPHHxH4Zc

Comer and Johnson are claiming they want "full transparency," yet Massie claims their release of 34,000 documents by the Comer team comes with redactions of the criminals who abused the girls. Isn't Comer ashamed of himself to say "full transparency"? James O'Keefe did a sting against one of Pam Bondi's underlings who said, on hidden camera, that the Republicans want to hide or remove any Republicans in the FBI Epstein files, and leave only Democrats. This picture can explain why Trump opposes Massie, in hopes of salvaging the congressional Republicans he needs to advance his agendas.

The media who present Epstein news are most ignorant to repeatedly show Epstein's face, and at times with Maxwell as two love birds. I detest these media companies who pretend to care for the girls when in reality they use the issue for making $$$s. It's a sick media world, and it's making me sick to follow this story. The girls, now women, aren't taking responsibility for what they did. They had the choice to abandon Epstein on the first day he showed his horns, but did not abandon him, yet leftist media holds these women up as dear ones, in reality their club to club Trump to death, if possible. SICK SICK SICK.

The leftists are the ones who pushed porn and prostitution, fornication and abortion, faggots and trans-sexuals, and are right now poised to push pedophilia. Suddenly, with the opportunity to bash Trump, they pretend to be aghast at older men with 16-year-old prostitutes. Yet, Trump is showing dishonesty to call it a Democrat "hoax" just because Democrats are manipulating a political ploy to their best advantage.

There's nothing wrong with anything that Trump speaks here on cleaning up crime in Obama-loving U.S. cities. It's refreshing that he's actually on-topic passionately rather than bragging too much about himself or his programs. I like this side of Trump, but instead of saying "we" cleaned up DC, he should have said the military did it. A man shouldn't take credit for doing what's normally expected of his job; but if he does a good job, let others praise him, not his own mouth. The video ends with him bragging:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MegQDFhcGp0

With military on the streets, the United States is becoming like the Roman empire.

Trump may have been more humble than usual because he was speaking on the same day that the Massie-Khanna bill was under discussion in Congress.

A major court has ruled this week to allow the Trump administration to cancel Biden's grants to green energy, perfect for helping to ruin mark carney's hope$ and dream$.

Th first nine minutes of this week's Highwire looks pretty-darn promising for exposing what looks to me like a deliberate assault against the health of children by vaccinations. Later in the video, you can watch Robert Kennedy on the tips of his nerves fighting against population-control Democrat demonoids:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/LHLZzfEQD1tX

Here's the missing minute from the Epstein video purportedly released by Pam Bondi. As she was told by the jailhouse that this missing minute was a routine function of the camera system, to remove one minute before midnight, every midnight (nobody believed this report), it's not likely true that the people at the jail just decided to come clean all on their own, to make public this one minute. It's not likely true that Pam Bondi decided to come clean without making an announcement about it, which would have required her to reveal to the nation that the jailhouse had previously lied to her about the missing minute.

Therefore, perhaps, Dan Bongino or his co-deputy plied the DoJ to get this missing minute out for the sake of being honest in what is otherwise a deep embarrassment that he wants no part of. It stinks, however, that nobody at the FBI, who are supposed to be friends of Trump's base, have explained this video. IT STINKS. However, all blame goes, not to Bondi, but to Trump. She and the FBI bosses are all acting as they know Trump wants them to act, lust like liars, because he's demanding they protect his will on this issue, and that requires making false statements. Bondi likely lied for him concerning the missing minute, because she herself didn't believe the jailhouse report to her. Pam did Trump's will but did not do the will of her boss, Jesus. Now she's in hot water.

Below is the missing minute showing one of the two officers walking toward a door, past the staircase that goes up to Epstein's cell. The door is not shown from this camera view, but does show from another camera in the jailhouse. I've not heard from anyone else that the officer was off work at midnight, and so we would like to know why, some two minutes after he walked past the stairs above, he then goes out door 46 leading to the outside. The video owner doesn't seem to realize that this officer, after calling another person to open door 46 for him, gets impatient and opens the door with the key out of his pocket.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3BGOJDLaJA

It seems there are two possible reasons why this missing minute was originally withheld: 1) the video was released to assure the nation that there's no proof of foul play with Epstein's cell, yet this officer walking toward the stairs could indicate otherwise; 2) this officer was part of killing or secretly releasing Epstein. The question now is: is the missing minute even the missing minute, or is it a trick where some other footage was feigned as the missing minute?

Thomas Massie on James O'Keefe, telling of his struggle against Trumpian billionaires seeking to ruin his political career. Trump has become a criminal president now weaponizing his own government against those who rightly disagree with him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4iNfXxYrMM

---

NEXT UPDATE Next Monday

Here's all four Gospels wrapped into one story.

For Some Prophetic Proof for Jesus as the Predicted Son of God.
Also, you might like this related video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3EjmxJYHvM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efl7EpwmYUs

Pre-Tribulation Preparation for a Post-Tribulation Rapture

---