Analysis of JPL ephemeris data using Rømer's eclipse timing method reveals that the heliocentric model's claimed distances and dynamics are internally inconsistent, as six different moons produce six different values for the speed of light (including negative values), and 90-94% of Io's and Europa's eclipse timing residuals correlate with Earth's tropical year and Sun-Jupiter synodic period—periods that should not exist in a heliocentric framework.
拡張機能をインストールして、あらゆる動画内を即座に検索しましょう
Earth-Anchored Signals in Galilean Eclipse Timings @EarthAwakenings (AUDIO FIX)追加:
Testing one, two. Testing one, two.
>> We got sounds good.
>> Greetings, gentlemen. We're going to go over a little uh earth anchored sinosoidal signal that appears in Jupiter's eclipse uh timings.
So, we're go we're going to go over that here in a second. I'm going to go roll my my introduction, then we'll begin. uh if we could please hold all questions and and comments and stuff until the end unless you feel that it's absolutely pivotal and I won't get mad at you. You are free to interrupt, but you are, you know, rolling the dice. So, use your best judgment. But, uh everyone's always pretty cordial and stuff when we do open presies for everything. So, everything should be should be fine. Yeah, the quicker I can get through this the because I gota I got a got some data points to go over, got some finer points to cover and then I want to cover the accessibility of the data for everyone so that anyone who's curious or wants to reproduce this can uh go over it themselves. So, give me a second. I'll be right back and we'll get into it.
Can we get some uh preemptively while he's getting the stream up and running?
Can we get some uh some moderation preemptively prepared in case we get trolls cuz we're assuming >> I'm ready to go, bro. We're ready to pop. Can I get a what? What? We're ready to go, bro.
>> All right. Thank you, sir.
You ready? Y'all ready for this?
>> Let's kick some cosmological butt.
Yeah, this is going to be a banger right here. Let's go.
I'm sure the gloers are just going to just going to agree to all their their everything their model says that happened.
>> Now, I'm expecting a lot of conceiving.
>> Yeah. Are you going to publish this work? I mean this is obviously high >> mute them.
>> All right, welcome everyone.
>> Sorry. Hello and welcome everyone. We are about to get into a presentation of some data that was gathered by the ether cosmology research group and we're going to get into that now. So uh like I was just saying please hold questions and stuff till the end unless you feel it's absolutely pertinent. We're going to go through everything now. So here we go.
slideshow first slide. So the earth anchored signals and the Galilean eclipse timings. So a quick back history real quick on this is it said that you can take the eclipse timings the the difference of them and derive the speed of light using Ror's method and that's kind of what Ror proposed under the hypothesis that the speed of light was not infinite. it was finite.
And so when we reference uh the ROR method and his and his the data set that was available to him at the time, he derived a value of about 220 km a second, 220,000 km a second, excuse me, which is, you know, much lower than the expected value.
Uh the modern interpretation is that Ror didn't have a complete data set to work with. So, you know, it's expected that he wouldn't get the full data set. But just the fact that it proved that there was a uh delay in the speed of light that could be used that way for ranging is uh what validated his hypothesis.
And so uh there's a couple of things that follow in the narrative from that that build upon that as if uh that build upon that that truth so to speak. And uh we're going to we're going to closely examine that. So we'll get in we'll uh continue on here. So that's the that's the back history of Ror and what his method was and what it was doing. So this is a 350year-old objection that is still present in modern data. So Cassini reported the Galilean eclipse timing irregularity that depends on Earth's distance to Jupiter as a proposed finite velocity of light. He withdrew the proposal in a year because it implied that the speed of light was different for each Galilean moon. So a big part of this narrative that is constructed for the validation of helioentrism in a finite speed of light uh at the at the accepted value that's used for a constant uh which is which ends up being like a metric relating the astronomical unit to distance over time for the you know for the for the time of flight for light to propagate. So this is all tied into the system on the back end and originally when Galileo proposed the this method for determining longitude it was quickly accepted and used uh for surveying for the next you know two to three centuries. So the method itself uh using the eclipse timing differences to determine longitude was you know they determined that that was a very accurate and useful way to determine your longitude. So they had Cassini and Ror uh working on generating eclipse tables so that people could you know reference what the expected should be and then verse and then subtract what was measured and then from that they could multiply out what their longitude is from the timing difference from what's observed versus what's expected. So Cassini went through this process of analyzing the eclipse cycles that were that were going to be in use. So it would be Io Europa and Ganymede. And so when he when he uh applied this method, he found that the speed of light, you know, gives different values for different moons. And Ror was Cassini's student and he knew this. And so, uh, anyway, he ends up reproposing the same thing that his teacher is ends up rejecting as a valid way to do ranging.
Um, and then people go ahead and just carry on with that narrative. So using that extraction method uh using the most accurate complete data set known to man the JPLD 441 ephemeris uh we can we can calculate all the full cycle of the eclipses. We don't have to we're not constraint constrained by an observerentric view and having to wait and missing eclipse cycles and having an incomplete data set.
Everything can be calculated from the sun Jupiter IO relationship. So we have the full geometry of their eclipse cycle from the g uh from the Jupiter ccentric perspective and when we when we utilize that to derive the speed of light without assuming it we get six different values. Um the other the other four the other three values come from the other Jupiter's other moon Kalisto because we added that one and then we did two of Saturn's moons Titan and Rya. So all of those give different distances or I'm sorry different velocities for the speed of light and thus this and thus be would be different distances and that completely contradicts the model because it's already the speed of light is already timing corrected and uh put into all this to to describe the distances for everything. Um so that's a direct contradiction of the model. So here we see the derived values for the speed of light implied based off of using the ROR ranging method here and we see the exact thing that Cassini observed where this leads to inconsistent results for Kalisto. It leads to negative 420 which would be physically meaningless. It implies that the event happened before it started.
Um and then Rya and Titan here give uh you know values that don't give what the accepted value should be here noted as code data in the uh in the in the report here and code data is just the people that establish the standard for the for the value of C there. So that's just whatever the modern value is that's what it should be. Okay. So we're we're looking here at a graph here. Nice little bar graph. We have the expected value for C and we have values that exceed it. We have values that are far under it. Nothing consistent. We have Kalisto all all the way out here in negative land.
And uh let's see.
Okay.
Yeah. So when you when you uh try to calculate this using the assumed distances with the speed of light assumed into it, the way that that the way that it would be calculated in the ephemeris, the way that they've cooked it in, uh when you try to recover the speed of light based off of the eclipse cycle, you get uh pretty much the exact speed of light that you would expect.
But when you when you derive it without assuming C, these are the values that you get which directly contradict the model. If if the distances and everything are as asserted, then any observer on Earth should be able to derive the speed of light using the this data set here. Okay. So, what this means, what this immediately rules out because there's different values and whatnot is that it's not it's not a case of maybe the JPL entered the wrong decimal place value for the speed of light or something. Oops, just changed all on its own. Uh so the uh if if that were the case then all the delta C's would be uh would all have the same value and they could all be corrected by the same fix but this but in this case you can see here the delta C is all different value so there's not going to be a single clean fix for this and a the wrong AU globally ruled out so the time that light takes to propagate to the from from the from the uh sun to the you know, maybe that's wrong. Well, that would also be tied in with the with C being wrong or whatever. So, that's not going to fit either.
Um because otherwise you could correct a single distance value and then they would all fix. But likewise with the uh delta C that doesn't work. Okay. So out of that out of this timing difference, there's also a secondary uh issue that that pops up and this is something else that Cassini noted and a couple others uh in the in the his in the history in the historical text have talked about and this has never been resolved.
So we've got this fluctuation in Io's orbital period. it changes periodically.
And so Cassini was in charge of calculating those tables. And what he found was there's like a there's a there's a there's a delta, you know, per periodicity to them that uh that's equivalent to their orbital period changing, which means like uh that's going to affect their eclipse timings. And so when you plot the minimum and maximums of those uh amplitudes over the distance of of where Jupiter is throughout the year, you know, relative to us, you know, proximity wise on over its minaxims, you can see a relationship that absorbs uh when you so like what we're doing is basically um part of the process. Sorry, let me let me restart this. So, the process that Cassini was doing to uh to make his eclipse cycle involved uh separating the eclipse cycles out evenly and then integrating the eccentricity orbit of Jupiter. So, this would make like an idealized constant eclipse cycle for them to compare against, right? And when you subtract that idealized data set from the observed data set, you know what's actually observed, there's a residual amount there that when you add Earth's tropical year and the sun, Earth, Jupiter sonic year together, 94 to 91, depending on the moon you're analyzing, either Io or um Europa uh 90 94 to 91% of that uh variance is accounted for by that synotic period meaning like the pro meaning like the relationship of when it's closest and furthest in their model from from the earth. There's there's that's what's affecting the eclipse cycle which is impossible in their model. There's no explanation for it dynamically. Uh it doesn't make any sense. And when when these eclipses are calculated, you know, they're not even the earth's geometry position is not even considered in it. Uh we're it can be calculated from the sun Jupiter um moon uh you know IO relationship. So it doesn't there should be no reason why earth is factored into this. I'm going to drink a sip of water real quick. Give me a second.
Okay. So when we talk about residual, that's what we're that's what we're referencing here. When you subtract out when you subtract that out, you find a pattern in there. And so this is what that pattern looks like in a graph form.
So we have the blue plot here is a sine wave of earth of the minimum and maximum distances that Jupiter is from Earth throughout the throughout this three-year period here. So we got the minimum and maximums here.
And as we see this red plot, this is the change in uh Io's orbital period. So we see here that when it gets closer and further, the you know that's what's that like that's what's explained by 94 to 91% of the of the of the sine waves lining up for a relationship. And we'll get into how all that fits in as we continue here.
Um here we have the the lom scargle scale which is basically relating uh uh uh it's like relating patterns over like short short data sets where like it's like like it's an incomplete section. So like obviously we could do a larger excuse me a larger data set but we're we did a three-year period here. So in any case, we're showing here that the dominant signal is still the earth and uh the earth tropical year and the Jupiter sonotic period.
So, so basically if you were looking at it in if if like if the distances are invalid or whatever then what we would be looking at would be the relationship in terms of Jupiter's angular position in the sky relative to the sun at any point in the year that you're analyzing the data set over. So um that would be the relationship.
So uh so at those different angular positions that's when it would be you know in the heliocentric model closest and furthest corresponding uh to the position of the sun. So see here all right so the annual harmonic is 25 times too large. So uh the relationship of the sonotic and tropical year relationship fitting that sine wave uh in the heliocentric prediction would be 0.02%.
There should be absolutely no relationship. Um and yet what is measured and what we and what the relationship actually is is 0.46 and 0.9 or 49 for the uh IO relationship.
Oh sorry 2% sorry not 0.2 2 um and then 49 and 46% respectively of the signal.
So like the earth's sonotic year is making up 46% of the total thing and then the uh leftover amount is the sonotic period between us. So these combinations should not lead to anything meaningfully conclusive yet it's 25 times the what they would predict.
The dynamical reputation now this one's really important here because helioentrism asserts dynamics. We have specific values of masses that relate to distances. We have certain parameters that are supposed to be followed that correspond to these things. You know, if everything is true that's asserted about the heliocentric model. So we can calculate how much influence earth would have on Io's moon using its gravitational influence and vice versa.
We would have to do the reciprocal to see how much Jupiter would influence our moon. And when we look at the values here, we have 46 nanconds for the earth influencing Io. And keep in mind there's a 200 second sonotic period uh difference that excuse me that's supposed to be explained. And so 46 nonds is not enough to explain 200 seconds. And then the reciprocal of that would be the Jupiter on the Earth Moon relationship. in here they would influence it by 54 milliseconds. So there's no such there's no such timing differences uh measured in any lunar ranging things where they talk about you know they use a a laser to measure the distance to the moon. They would have uh you know they would be able to measure these sort of reciprocal influences if they were actually occurring and uh you know within this threshold obviously this isn't even enough to explain it anyway. So uh there's no dynamic explanation in the heliocentric model for that relationship to exist and yet it's in the data. So the title pertibbation signal strength here uh we're just looking at the earth on IO required signal strength to explain that here uh is almost as much as the sun on the earth and the moon. So that would essentially be like you know the the earth would also have to somehow have basically the mass of the sun to influence earth uh Io in the way that it's doing that's just preposterous.
So 350 years of absorption. So Cassini named it. How they conceded it. Lelass forced it into the tables via integration and I'm sorry via pertibbation theory and modern ephemerises still carry the unsolved residual. And that's how we landed upon it when we tried to derive the speed of light uh from using the the the ROR extraction uh using using modern ephemeris data. So here's a little timeline uh rendition breakdown that I that I touched upon earlier. 1675 Cassini reports an irregularity in Io's period that depends on Earth Jupiter distance that uh and proposes a finite speed of C withdraws it within a year because C does not give a consistent value for all four moons.
Now, I'm not saying that the speed of light is infinite or anything like that, but I'm saying that the way that they were trying to use it for ranging didn't work because it gave different values.
So, he that's that's what he was withdrawing over. And then 1694, how endorses rumor on the strength of IO alone and just saying like, you know, incomplete data set like there's literally like no justification for it.
The teacher of the guy literally was like, this doesn't make sense. It can't be it can't work for one moon and not the other four. That's that's incoherent. Um so anyway, uh acknowledges and so he also like wrote this in print where he talks about how uh ROR's hypothesis would be entirely overthrown if if Cassini's objections were correct and we derived them, substantiated them and like they're definitely correct.
They're not incorrect. Um so anyway in 1805 uh Lelass who uh you know then so as time went on by the way like they you know kept trying to force this in and then not really address it or talk about it. Um but in any case uh when James Bradley came around and measured so so-called stellar aberration they took that as confirmation that uh Ror was right about the speed of light being finite and then they just chocked up the the fact that he didn't derive the correct value to you know incomplete data set. So they were happy to to take that and whatnot. And then so anyway, Lelass have been working on doing the perturbation theory to explain how Ganymede, Io, and Europa are influencing one another and creating essentially a fake earthbased periodicity from their own gravitational potentials pulling themselves inward towards Jupiter. Uh that's causing this. And so uh this is his he gives a proof for the for the 421 ratio resonance theorem, which is that pertabbation theory I was just telling you guys about. And then uh he had what was it? He had the lambert force the tables to fit the uh that into the mean uh position of them throughout the year so that it would match. And then in addition to that he had the Lambert put uh put the stellar aberration measurement in IO's in So let's see slight correction here.
Lelass couldn't fit it in. He had a multiarch minute residual left over. He made the Lambert force that in because the regular harmonic fit did not account for it. So when he forced it into the uh mean motion for the year, that's what that's what is meant by that. So even even trying to get them to perturbate each other, he couldn't do it. Uh and then after that he also had the Lambert put the put stellar aberration uh into it you know calculated out as if it was uh something that was measured from them but in order to do that you ha you have to assert the astronomical unit to get the distance to get it to work out ratio-wise and we'll go over that as we continue so in Haley's own words the same inequality for two degrees of motion is likewise found in the other satellites requiring a much greater time as the two hours in the fourth satellite which is Kalisto uh which if appeared by observation would overthrow Missouri's hypothesis entirely. So direct quote uh from what he wrote in the uh and that's documented in the historical documentation done by Cohen in 1944.
Um so here's here's the uh Bradley situation. So when the Lambert was tasked to incorporate aberration into IO um what you would have to do here is basically have your this L value this is represents your distance defined by the astronomical unit overse time of flight uh to make it from the sun to you know the moon and so to get so to put that value in there oops to get that value in there so that he could derive the 20 arcs uh 20.25 arcsec uh aberration at the time. That was the accepted value. It's actually changed a little bit. Um but anyway, to get that in there, he had to adjust this time of flight to make it match the assumed distance. So, this is showing that, you know, these distances that are calculated in are locked into the model.
And we're seeing here like the groundup formulation and reification of the distances to the model based off of accepted ratios that are you know observed within observed and then applied to the model. Um and then they don't match reality but then uh we can see here like how they're just going to go ahead and adjust that in there so that it can match.
And then so we'll go over the uh the Jupiter note text for uh for the derivation for all this.
So the consequences of this the Lambert's 1805 announcement that IO's Eclipse recovers Bradley's 20.25 arcseconds is the is by identity equivalent to IO's Eclipse recovering C within 1.2% of code data. There is no path through this calculation that produces a different C. The real IO single parameter fit which is referenced here in notebook five we'll go over is kappa equals 12.94 second not 20.5 uh 25. So the same way that we derive the speed of light independently without um trying to assume it or fit it into the model operation the same way from this uh and what you get is not the same value that they cooked into it.
Okay. Uh so here we have um some modern gentlemen uh doing a similar analysis and getting different values for the speed of light.
three independent methods of them trying to derive it and they end up at three different signs and magnitudes for the same parameter on the same moon. So these these are all different people who tried different methods to derive you know to try to like correctly derive the speed of light without you know forcing it too much and it's not it's not really possible apparent unfortunately.
Okay, so we have uh cross system anchors here. The same pattern in mainstream data.
So uh let's see here.
All right. And now we're going to go over the uh the synthetic data. So like simulating everything out the way that it would be under the assumptions that they that they make to get C to BC to for the assumed distances and whatnot versus the real inputs here. So we see that from the derived speed of light using the assumed values and the circularity we get oh look no surprise we derive the speed of light and then using real world data we get values that don't match the speed of light at all and completely contradict the distances that would have to be associated with it. So we'll that's also in the Jupyter notebook and we'll go over that. So when the input matches the textbook heliocentric model the output match uh the output matches the textbook constant the cross moon dispersion in the real data uh not is not the is not data fitting.
So like we see the contradictions here in these analyses where they uh you know try to frame the the difference. So, we're saying Earth period and Senotic annual or I'm sorry, the Senotic period and Earth's tropical period, you know, that's what we're going over. And then these gentlemen tried different uh explanations as well, but still trying to like remain true to the the Helios C model and not really calling out what's happening here. So, uh empirically, the Earth is a privileged frame. So what happens from this observation because of this relationship and it being unique to Earth, if you were to try and apply any other periods to it from another reference frame, you know, Mars, Venus, what have you, you would not get the same value. You would or, you know, you wouldn't get that sine wave correlation relationship. It would it wouldn't have it would have nothing to do with that planet that you're viewing from. And so that makes you uh Earth unique in this way. makes it a preferred uh reference frame for this and and that's a direct contradiction to the relativistic paradigm where the uh where a preferred frame physical and mathematical is not uh you know there's no allowance for that everything's supposed to be relative to some other thing in motion but this shows a this this frame has no equivalent uh there's no reciprocity uh from earth to Jupiter in terms of the perturbation or anything like that. So none of this is uh contradicts it entirely. So what the data shows the the period signal joentric eclipse times at the earth tropical year and the earth sun jupiter sonotic period both frames uh both are earth frame frequencies. So 94 to 91% are explained by these periods and special and general relativity require that there is no preferred frame. There should be excuse me there should be no signal at frame uh at frame x frequencies and it should have that should appear in frame y etc. And we tried to do the tried to do the dynamics on it doesn't match. You can't get reciprocity out of it. Um so that's pretty uh pretty damning to the model here. And let's go over like what this forces in terms of conclusions here.
Uh so let's see. So six moons, six values, none equal code data, and some even include negative values. There's an earth anchored uh period uh residual. 90 to 94% of the IO and Europa's residuals residuals is is two sinosoids at 365.25 2 5 days and 398.884 days and then that gives a relationship that is 25 times greater than what is expected. The dynamics predict uh fail to describe the pertabbation by an order to by an order of magnitude of nine and the reciprocal factor is missing in our efase. There's no Jupiter corrections.
Uh so conclusion the single single consistent value of C is empirically not recoverable from the Galilean and Satarian eclipse data using the standard ROR extraction in the modern JPL ephemeris. Six moons, six values, one negative spread larger than the code data itself. The earth anchored periodic signals are present in the hoventric eclipse cycle and the amplitudes of the heliocentric framework in Newtonian framework cannot produce produced through any combination of light time title gravitational acceleration third body orbital parameter mechanism uh with the accepted parameters. Cassini in August 1675 cross moon objection is empirically confirmed in the 20 20 uh 2026 uh data to second precision. The heliocentric model has been internally consistent on its dynamical claim about the hoventric Galilean eclipse timings for 350 years in counting. So we've got some open challenges to refute this, right? Because maybe we're wrong. Maybe this is uh oh internally inconsistent. Sorry. Um, so yeah, maybe you know, maybe we're wrong about this though, right? So we've made some specific claims in here. So here's what needs refuting specifically.
Here's how to rectify this this claim.
So challenge one, produce one single value from C from the JPL ephemeris over the same window via the same ror extraction consistent with all six moons, Io, Europa, Ganymede, Castello, Rhea, and Titan. produce or is challenge two. Produce a heliocentric Newtonian mechanism with accepted masses and distances that generates the observed annual period component of uh Earth tropical year equaling about 60 seconds and IO's residual without violating Newtonian reciprocity. Oops.
Challenge three. show the JPL ephemeris itself containing a fitting artifact at two specific frame periods with the earth uh tropical year and the sonotic period for sun jupiter earth matching the empirical 4.6 6 to 4.9 or you know the 46% 49% and both IO and Europa simultaneously under independent fits.
Challenge four reconcile the presence of the coherent periodic signal at the earth defined frequencies in the hovacentric eclipse times dealing with no preferred frame postulates of general and special relativity. So in other words show it from another frame. Challenge five.
Derive the stellar aberration constant kappa 20.5 arcsec from the Galilean eclipse timing alone without baking in Bradley's stellar aberration value as a prior constraint in the timing of flight distance using L equals astronomical unit over C to fix what the distance would have to be to get that value. In other words, produce a complete clean model light recovery of kappa from IO's eclipses from the modern JPL ephemeris that is independent of the value its fitting or it's uh its fit is trying to land on. So what's the what the notebook finds is the single parameter there is uh fit you know no rattling. So here we go. So IO single parameter range fit on 206 raw immersions where we got that's where we got that value for almost 13 arcseconds and then per moon dispersion of the project implied 13 52 for Europa 15 for Ganymede and -14 for Kalisto no moon recovers Bradley the same procedure across moons disagrees by tens of arcseconds so the clean independent recovery of Papa from the Galilean eclipses has not been demonstrated in 350 years. The Lambert's 1805 result required either a multiparameter orbital model with C inserted by hand or a selection rule which keeps the res uh which the residual has to keep. So 350 years later, it's this residual is still here. You can find out more about it here on the GitHub and I'll get the links here in a second for everything and we'll go over some of the some of the stuff and how it works. So, second.
So, uh when you go to the GitHub, there's a section here for it's called notebooks.
It has everything in this Jupyter notebook. If you're not familiar with Jupyter Notebook, uh check out some YouTube tutorials. It's pretty it's a pretty awesome thing. It's basically like a markdown text file that you can read and also execute code from. So you can see what the uh what the math is actually doing, what it's producing.
It's pretty neat. So we'll go over here in a second. But anyway, those files can be found here in the notebooks section of the uh what do you call it? uh the the GitHub and then in releases here there is um all the this PDF and the the PowerPoint that I just used and the Pythons that were used to generate the graphs and stuff that are in it and whatnot. So all of that stuff is in here if you guys are interested in that. And then the overall structure of it is basically everything that was used to incorporate uh you know to to put the to put the data to you know generate this master data sheet table for the positions and vectors of everything so that it could be all interpret interpret interpreted um you know through you know through applying the math through the spreadsheet. But spreadsheets are kind of hard to gain any meaning from when you got a bunch of tables and equations you're not familiar with. So that's where the Jupiter notebook should be able to help bridge the gap. It's a pretty cool setup. So anyway, links to the spreadsheets and stuff are all here.
And then of course on my personal obsidian, there's an earth anchored signal section. There's an index here to start with that goes over what everything uh what all pretails in here.
And uh yeah, you can you can read through all of this analysis, critiques, attempts, log. So uh when we were trying to derive the speed of light, you can see all the attempts here that were made to derive C without assuming it to get the proper value. It's quite an extensive list of attempts here, but none of them gave uh gave the value and it was thus concluded that it was not not possible and then we came across the history of all that where you know it turned out to be that they actually already knew about this and you know so on and so forth. Um, so let's see. So everything is like all in here. You can check these out and all the citations and stuff that are that are mentioned.
Go back to a sources page where you can read uh screenshots and contextualized summaries and stuff of what's you know of what was clipped or whatever. And you have the source name obviously so you can go and look it up for yourself. But yeah, everything is in here. So I'm going to put these links in the main chat.
They are in the event description here.
And then we'll go over the Jupiter thing real quick. And then um I think that's everything.
You always got to be careful with this one.
Second, right, all the information is in there.
Now, we'll get to the Jupiter thing. So when you open up Jupiter notebook, um like I said, it starts out as kind of like a a markdown file. So you can see the the formatting here, pretty familiar. But then you'll see these chunks of code here. And what you can do is you can either run them all sequentially individually. So you can you come here, you click run, and then this will pop out of it. So it's going so what it's doing here is it's uh uh getting some val it's pulling some values uh and then yeah basically you know just goes over all that but more importantly here we'll go down to the hypothetical uh aberration value where you know you can only get the aberration value by curve fitting the AU over C here through this process. Let me play it all out.
Run the Yeah, there's a So, when you go to a different tab or whatever, when you go up here, there's a run all command for the cells. So, what you'll definitely want to do is, you know, click on one of these things that you want to look at.
When you have the one selected, click here, go to run all, and then as you read through, that'll generate all of the it'll show you what the code is, what's what it's running as you go through it. So, here we go.
Oops.
Why did Why didn't it do the thing? It's not doing the thing.
All right. One second.
There we go.
Okay. So, uh, when you do the run all command, if you have any problems with it, just close and reopen, do do the classic. So, anyway, when you run that, you can see what all the code is executing, what it's doing. Um, so in here, it's trying to fit what value, what distance value is going to correspond to that aberration amount using the speed of light. And that's what it comes out to.
So, Are there uh graph bots on here?
>> What's that?
>> Yeah, there's one.
So, predicted aberration versus the uh the curve fit there for the perfect distance. So, the the astronomical unit overse this is the sweet spot for that distance to give that amount of apparation.
essentially. So it just just kind of walks you through all of that.
>> Is this basically demonstrating that like what it's actually showing is that Bradley is just artificially inserting the accepted value or they they artificially inserted Bradley's accepted value for C in order to then say that they were extracting it.
>> Yeah. So so you know this is all bas Yeah. This is all basically algebra and so once you have you know two of the components you can solve the other like similar to trig or whatever. So um so yeah all they had to do was line up that perfect ratio for the astronomical unit overseas to get their time of flight to match what the distance would be to produce that amount and that's what it comes out to be. So they exactly got it into exactly what they you know at the only spot that it would fit in. So if you do any other any other thing or you try to derive it um independently like we did with the speed of light, you get different angles that don't correspond to 20 20 arcsec.
>> So like the real measurements you're saying are like these values right here.
It's like 13 52 15 arcsec. It's not actually 20. It's like all over the place, but they basically >> force it to be 20 and then they had a residual left over and that's what uh what was his name? Lelass or whatever was trying to get his his cohort to to sweep up in a table or something in a forcefitit you were saying.
>> Yes. Pert you to use pertibbation theory to explain it. Yeah. And like uh those guys that I was talking about earlier that that did the modern uh rendition of this and like came up with their own explanations as to why it could possibly not not be working. They um they also tried what you just mentioned >> and that was when they were saying something about like uh it appears to not fit and that IO appears to be drifting away from predictions.
>> Yeah, they were refer Yeah, exactly.
They were referencing Lelass's um pertabbation theory which predicts that there's going to be an inward pull you know as the causal mechanism and there the relationship that they showed that it was actually that the pl that the moons would actually be drifting apart or you know drifting further away. So yeah, just completely internally inconsistent at all fronts, never been smoothly integrated in any meaningful explanation. Like they like they had to go as far as to say that these three moons and like they just they just like dude that your boy Kalisto just gets they don't even they're like who what moon are you talking about?
So anyway, they try to wrap it up into these three where it doesn't give negative results and stuff. Um, and even within that, you know, it doesn't doesn't work. Can't be done.
>> So Kalisto just like doesn't behave anything and they just nobody touches that one.
>> Kalisto Kalisto does not obey.
>> Okay.
Is there more graphs on here?
>> Yeah. Um, no, I think that's it for the graphs on on that one for the hypothetical to try and derive that. Um, so yeah, there's um the synthetic data set where we simulate out everything uh assuming the same circularity that the JPL does for the distances and whatnot to get C in there. And we derive the speed of light oops we derive the speed of light as expected.
So what's the significance of this >> method?
Yeah. So the significance of this is it's not that our method is wrong or our math is wrong. It's that the real world data contradicts the model fitting.
So that's why you So when you say you use synthetic data, you're basically saying like if you assume that C is C and that the AU is the AU and that the what is it like a constant period you're assuming then that means that everything Oh.
So there's like a straight line. So this is okay. I see it now.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So this is what they would predict with no residual pertabbation like influenced you know due to earth per se, right? So if you just run it as they would intend assuming the au and c are uh are as told to us by them then this is the relationship that you get and it's really important to note that the astronomical unit is a ratio of earth's radius because the measurement that was taken uh to establish physical meaningfulness to the astronomical unit in terms of a unit of measurement that we could understand like a kilometer or a meter was done using triangulation when Venus was in a certain position. in the sky with respect to us and the sun.
So we formed a baseline of a triangle extending outward from earth's rad you know from the center of earth. So incorporating uh earth's radius as a side of the triangle going to the sun and that's how that uh relationship relates earth's radius to the astronomical unit itself. And then obviously the speed of light is defined by a meter and a meter is a ratio of the terrestrial meridian which is 110 millionth of a of a terrestrial meridian. So that's uh the distance from the north pole to the equator uh is worked into that. So all these different things are uh interrelated ratios of one another which builds internal consistency. And so the way that uh you know if you use the system in which it's assumed then you will get these values.
If you try to derive one of the variables independently using the real world data you get a contradiction to the model that is you know irreconcilable because the model should match reality.
So I so I guess clarify if I'm wrong the point of this synthetic data fit is to prove that it the method itself is perfectly sound because when you plug in the expected values you get what is expected out but when you plug in the real world data which has this like unexplainable perturbation you get like wildly incorrect values in real life.
So, it's not that Ror's method is broken. It's that the data shows a real a real uh relationship that shouldn't be there with respect to Earth.
Yes, sir. And the data like the real world data isn't wrong because you could literally use the eclipse timing differences to determine your longitude.
>> I mean, I don't think anyone would argue that JPL's data is wrong. That would be a a very crazy position for them to take just to try to disagree with you.
>> I could have sworn I heard someone say that the other day.
Didn't they say like, "Oh, so JPL got something wrong. So what?" or something.
>> Are are Shane, are you unaware of all the completely independent measurements of the astronomical unit outside of Parallax?
>> No. So that's exactly what we're what we're going over. They're not uh independent. And when we look at like for example the radar ones, they don't even include any metric on the x and y axis of the graph. So you can't even tell the magnitude difference from the noise that they're trying to say that they're differentiating the signal from.
And then when you look at the methodology of how they're relating the measurement timing window to when they expect to get the fit for the amplitude of the uh signal to the noise and stuff, it's literally all curve fitting. And what makes it more even more damning is that their methods can't even be reproduced by other people. So we just have to take their word for it, you know, scientifically and trust their their their the prestigiousness of their uh achievements and accolades and and uh institution that they did the experiments under and whatnot and reported under. And and if all of that were true, if those values that they extrapolated out and interpreted as physical distances, independent measurements of the astronomical unit, if those were actually physically meaningful, then any lad on Earth could calculate the uh uh could could derive the speed of light using the eclipse timing differences without any sort of uh without having to assume it circularly.
So what this shows is that their interpretation, the methods that they use to determine the physical distances of this are wrong.
What does that have to do with the radio with radar data?
>> Uh before you go to Q&A, Alan, uh is this the end of what you wanted to present on?
>> Uh let's see here. I think so. I got all the link shared. I got the Jupiter stuff, the Jupyter notebook stuff. So, uh yeah, I think that's everything.
>> Was there something about history you were going to show or or am I saw it in one of your tabs? I don't know if you plan on showing it.
>> Oh, the historical timeline.
>> Thought there was something about like Newton or something.
>> Uh, so Schnutton um went ahead and accepted um what was it? Not ROR, but he accepted.
>> So that guy Haley was like, "Hey." Yeah.
Yeah. Haley, it's I'm pretty sure it's Haley.
>> Yeah. Yeah, >> Haley was like, "Hey, the uh even though Cassini was right and there's no explanation for this, I'm going to go with your boy Ror." Newton also did the same thing and worked in, you know, those distances based off of that into his gravitational theory. Is that what you're talking about?
>> Yeah. And didn't they take it to like some kind of Academy of Sciences and the Academy of Sciences said like Cassini is correct and we reject this entirely until Bradley came around 20 years later or something like that?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure we covered that in the prey.
>> Okay. I didn't remember you talking about that part in the prei. I just remember it being talked about at some point before, but >> yeah, the Yeah, it was the only thing that they could do to overturn uh Cassini's objection to it. And it's not even really overturning it. It's kind of sidestepping it because his point was about all the all the, you know, none of the other moons show the relationship. That was never addressed. the actual cause of the uh pertibbation isn't explained and uh all they all they really did was go yeah but rumors said that the speed of light is finite and that's right so like just because that's right ipso facto everything else is like okay >> that's pretty crazy okay so and did like the so like the academy of sciences when when they rejected it in the beginning because of Cassini's valid objections.
Did they like 20 years later after James Bradley like did his stellar aberration stuff did the Academy of Sciences turn around and be like, "Oh, I guess we'll just say you're right now." Is that is that basically just they just ipso factoed everything and never actually addressed like Cassini stuff?
>> Yeah, Cassini.
>> Yeah, Cassini withdrew his objection after that. He was like whatever.
>> Wow.
And it's still there today in JPL.
Mhm.
>> Nice, man.
>> Brick raising. Do you want to go to Q&A?
>> Absolutely.
>> All right. At the We're going to open the floor to Q& A's now. Please don't everybody chime in once or whatever.
So, I had to admit I missed part of the discussion because I was out with my dog. Did you ever cover your calculations and the data and how you numbers?
>> Yeah. So you if you weren't here for it, um he just it's shared in the event description and it's also going to be on the YouTube description, but he shared his um his GitHub which has the Jupyter notebook with all the code as well as the Excel spreadsheet with all the JPL ephemeris data as well as the Obsidian page with all the references and all the calculations uh as well as the uh download links the repository that contained this PowerPoint itself as well as the paper with the data in it. So all of that has been provided.
>> Where's that again? Please >> uh if you look at the EA event that we're in right now, like the event that's happening right now, the description for it should have links to the GitHub repository for all that stuff.
>> Um weren't you taken a back when you calculated a negative number for the speed of light?
>> It's not a real value. It's showing that the method doesn't work. Yeah, it's it's it's absolutely ludicrous that there could be a negative value. It implies that this uh trying to tie real distances to lights in the sky is not valid, >> right? It's almost like that was the whole point of this presentation, >> right? It was an internal consistency check against your model.
>> So, you think that you found something that nobody else has found over or No, you mean cuz that's true. No, we literally NASA NASA we literally cited specific like Cassini knew about it.
>> Cassini Ror knew about >> Laas knew about it. Holly, they all knew about it. Bradley, >> we just went the whole context of it.
>> The Academy of Sciences. So like seven seven prominent scientists including Newton.
You >> you know what I'll say I'll say this though. We did this kind of backwards.
We found this relationship uh before heavily researching it and so we actually thought that we did discover this for for a minute because we it came out of trying to derive C out of it and then we got this other pattern. We started looking into that and PZO was like oh well this uh you know does it match up with this this and this and then you know it turned out that it did.
So we thought we actually discovered something unique and then in the time between when we presented this on I think it what was it Monday morning or Sunday morning something like that when we presented it earlier in the week we at that time we thought this was entirely new and unique and then uh but between now and that day uh we found all this other uh research that >> they've known about it for 350 years >> yeah that they've known about it for 350 years talking about it directly. So, like I highly recommend uh also referencing the obsidian here where you can go through screenshots of the citations and read from the from the text themselves that the lads talking about it in particular. Uh there's one from 1944 by a gentleman named Cohen.
>> Don't you have the the paper the paper in a tab? Because the paper has some stuff that wasn't I didn't see in the prey.
Um >> yeah. Yeah, we could we could take a look at that real quick. Uh 1944 >> Cohen and Ror.
Okay.
So, let's see. It's basically just quotes of this stuff that we were talking about really. Um see where's that announcement of the second inequality?
>> So, yeah, let's see. I'm talking about the second inequality.
>> Yeah. So there's supposed to only be one, right? Which would just be the sonotic period because as Earth approaches Jupiter and as Earth goes away from Jupiter during its motion, it's like the speed of light the or the the AU distance at that point in time is going to be continuously changing at every point in time. So that's that sonic period should have a correlation but that should be the only correlation that's there which so like when you plot that out in the synthetic data it comes out as that as that uh straight line fit but when you actually use JPL data which is already light time corrected right so it's it's got the AU baked into it as it necessarily has to based on James Bradley Stler aberration us knowing C independently and the AU being quote unquote independently verified You end up getting that spiky sinosoid that has like the syosoid for the sonsic period and then the spikes from the tropical year the earth the earth 365 day year and those two combined together to explain you know 90 something% of the residual signal that shouldn't be there at all. There shouldn't be a residual in the JPL data. It should just be a flat line with zero amplitude because light time corrections already accounted for.
So there shouldn't even be a residual.
And that's what we was shown in the synthetic data when you just take one real eclipse and then you assume the constant period and you just propagate everything out using the real JPL locations but not actually using the uh eclipse timings, you perfectly extract C. But when you use the real data from JPL, you get the crazy Earth anchored syosoid.
You say this um also invalidates latitude. Why? Why is that?
>> No, we didn't say that.
>> Didn't say that.
>> I thought you said in invalid invalidates using the moons to determine latitude. Did you not say that?
>> Nope. We said you can't claim the ROR method is invalid to to use as an internal critique because you guys use it for longitude.
>> Well, okay. Why? Yeah, it was it was it was I was basically saying that you can't say it's invalid or doesn't work with the observations because it's a valid method that was used for 300 years to accurately determine longitude and you could still do it today.
>> Okay, I misunderstood that. I thought you said that you could not use this use the moons of Jupiter to determine latitude or longitude, excuse me.
>> Nope. Because the cool thing about longitude, right, is it's all just based on timing and angles in the sky.
>> So, >> yeah, timing timing from uh from Grinch, actually. Well, Grinch now, it used to be Washington DC or France or whatever system you're >> right. But longitude doesn't require you to know the AU or know anything else.
It's literally just time and angle. So, that's why you can use it for longitude, but you can't use it as a as a yard stick.
every single moon produces a different apparent value for C and they should all be one value then it should be correct instead it's you know six different values and all of them are wrong and that uh there's another paper which I didn't see in the presentation which is in the sources like a 2014 paper which has a table of them plotting it out as well and they show that when you look at like a a full annual data set you get error values between 30 and 240% error in the implied value of C. So like there's lots of teams of people who have done this, but of course everybody that's doing it, you know, in mainstream astronomy is trying to force it to fit what C is supposed to be. So whenever they get this erroneous data, which is most of the data that they get, >> they're like, well, there just must be something that we're not accounting for that's wrong. Like no one can figure out what's wrong with everyone's saying that there's something wrong. It's like a It's like a within the tiny niche community that knows about it. It's a consensus that there's something horribly wrong, but no one can figure out what it is and it's been there 350 years. But if you just simply plot it, you just get a clean syosoid that's tied to Earth.
>> So is um >> so is this method the currently used to determine C? Is that our standard?
>> This isn't Yeah, like that's such a loaded question. No one is claiming that C is wrong. Would it be like the distances? People have claimed distances to Jupiter and whatnot. So therefore, when this math works out, there's an issue.
>> Yeah, nailed it. That's pretty much it.
>> Yeah, it's either either the distance is wrong or the dynamical mechanism is wrong or both. We're saying probably both, right? Right? Cuz even if there was some magic distance which you plugged in and it fixed all the moons, which there isn't, right? You could any distance change you make is not going is only going to work for one moon and not the others. Any change in implied C is only going to work for one moon and not the others. But even if that wasn't even if that was a thing, there still wouldn't be a way that you could dynamically explain like how is the syosoidal wobble 91% correlated with Earth's position in space because gravity doesn't work. As as the as the chart showed, in order for Earth to have enough gravitational strength to perform the perturbation, it would have to be like what was it like 80% the size of the sun.
which is preposterous.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
Are you uh do you have that report by the way? Because there was a quote in the report that I thought was pertinent to show.
Sorry, my mic is muted. Was it the one you sent me the other day?
>> No, it was the the prey report. Like you have the prei PDF and the prey PowerPoint.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. This right here. Yeah. There's a quote on there from there's a quote on here from Lelass.
>> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Okay. Let me see if I can find that. There was a doozy.
Uh >> that's the Haley quote.
>> That's that's Haley.
>> Uh here we go.
>> Yeah.
>> Where he was telling dude to change the mean distance.
>> Yeah. So he said uh after basically that you're talking about how there was a leftover and there was 27 arcsec uh rate combination over a century and 196 in the longitude combination at the 1750 epoch. both were non zero. So there shouldn't have been any residual any residual angles left over after less did his harmonic fit. But there was right and so it says right here it's it's in French but translated it says however since the tables must be rigorously subject to the preceding theorem which is Bradley's Delombre for this purpose slightly altered the three preceding results.
So he just openly admits that like he had his student just change the values in the in the three moons eclipse tables in order to be able to fit what they needed to be for Bradley's theorem.
Literally admits it in his own work in his own writing and mechanic celest or whatever mechanique.
>> Isn't that crazy? He's like, "Yeah." So, we we tried to do the for harmonic force fit, and even once we did the harmonic force fit with my 421 uh resonance theorem, there's still 196 arcsec over, which is what, like over three arc minutes. There's still over three arc minutes left over. So, we I just had to ombre change the values.
What is Leela saying this, bro? Like, what the heck?
I just had my student change the values in the Eclipse tables so we could make it fit.
>> Oops.
>> What do you teach to your students? What subject?
So assuming that uh like what answer do you like where would I have to teach where the values that we derived using C match the assumed model? Like where would I have to teach to to fix that value? You think like what would what would make the what would like nullify the five challenges that were proposed?
Like >> underwater basket weaving. Underwater basket weaving.
Maybe if you like taught a welding class, then it would make uh Io's moons or Jupiter's moons wobble a little differently to what they needed to be.
Definitely welding.
>> Yeah. Where I teach doesn't change the fact that anyone can reproduce this work with the heliocentric accepted ephemeris data set and try to derive C independently using it and come to the same conclusion. I mean >> I left a trail of work behind so that people can reference it and use it themselves to verify.
>> Yeah. I mean the open challenge is there at the end of the presentation. There's only, you know, three different things that need to be done and they should be pretty simple if helioentrism is true, right? Just use the JPL ephemeris and reproduce C that's consistent across all six moons. Use the JPL ephemeris and produce a flatline signal that doesn't have an earth anchored amplitude residual. Yo yo >> since since we came to the same conclusion Cassini did but uh you know independently independently >> I feel like I feel like we teach at the same place Cassini taught. What what are your thoughts on that?
>> I don't know. I think I think Cassini is a little I think Cassini is a little bit >> more well.
>> What do you what do you think about that NASA? Like we didn't know anything about any of this. We simply just took the data, right, and plotted it out and showed like what the heck? It shows this stuff. And then we thought we had a novel thing and you mocked us for it.
Like, oh, you're finding something no one else has found. And then we went and looked and actually it's the exact same thing Cassini was talking about in 167.
>> It's been well known and pretty much, you know.
>> Oh. So, so would you retract your statement that like we just, you know, oh, you guys think that you found something no one else found? You're just h >> We did it one time. I mean, I I I mean, I don't know, you know, all the observations in science, and this one, you know, it sounds interesting, but I don't I'd have to look into it some more. It sounds like >> But just do it. Just repeat the experiment, dude. You get to do it in reality.
>> I don't know that to come out with a negative C number basically tells me that you're >> it. Dude, that's not what we didn't do that. That's >> Oh, you didn't you didn't you didn't do any observations. You just used JPL data and put it in JPL is every astronomical observation ever performed by humans.
What are you talking about >> that's recorded in history?
>> JPL is every astronomical observation ever recorded >> that that's recorded that we have Yeah.
That everything that's still in historical record that we have access to is incorporated in the JPL along with all the modern observatory and satellite data.
>> Yeah. And you can use it to make vectors to at any point in time to determine distances and angular relationships to any of the bodies that are in the set ephemeris.
>> Yeah. Don't worry.
>> Sounds like a rebuttal at first, but >> there were none to be found.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Don't worry, Alan. Like the the m the multi-billion dollar, you know, astronomy budget that builds these multiund million dollar observatories, those telescopes aren't good enough. I need to go on Amazon and buy a sea star myself and go take these measurements in order for it to be valid.
>> Yeah. I mean, well, that there was an See, that's the thing. There was an there was an astronomy group that did that. It was these guys right here that I put in the uh chat. It was these guys, I think.
Yeah, this is a modern ast a astronom or, you know, astronomy club group.
There's actually two of them.
um forget. Let me see if I can find their name content.
>> Maybe it's in the at the end section.
>> Oh, there it is. Observer and affiliation. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
>> Oh, stuff.
>> So, yeah. So, so yeah, yeah, people have tried to reproduce it and do this and then they go over those the different distance or the different values that come out of it. So, yeah, you're Yes, it certainly has been tried by uh some some people. So, >> lots of people >> and they pro and they use the ephemeris to determine where the positions should be to judge it in the first place. So, the angular position and timing is is Yeah, I'm just gonna get their data >> yet their data for the speed of light is nowhere near as varied as yours for some reason.
>> It's 30 to 240% error actually.
>> And also they tried different >> Sorry, hold on. Hold on one second.
>> Well, anyway, they tried different things to try and correct uh get the correct value.
>> Yeah, the um >> that was actually in one of the slides.
I can't remember what it was that they >> here. I got the OASIS link. Hold on. Let me pull up the OASI paper and get that table. There's definitely a uh a table on here and that paper that you're just looking at. That OASI paper. Um >> this one right here.
>> This is one second.
>> Uh no, that's the one where they took uh like a very small subset of the observations that were the closest ones I could get.
>> Oh, that was from the that was from the fit. Gotcha.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. that the raw one where they took the whole data set and just plotted it is is further down. It's uh Yeah, it's table four >> right right here.
>> Yeah. Weird. Look at them getting 382,000 for IO, 560,000 for IO, 110,000, 90,000 for Roa. That's what we got for Auroropa, I think. Um 95,000 for Ganmede, 213,000 for Ganymede. And then if you scroll down to a little bit below that, table five has uh a sonotic periods. And then there's a sentence under that where it says the differences compared to table four range from 20 to 240%.
>> Wow. Super weird that >> another, you know, a professional astronomy group in 2014 did this very thing that we're doing and got, you know, extremely similar results to us.
>> So either the speed of light is wrong or the distances are wrong.
It's got to be both, dude.
>> Well, it wouldn't be it doesn't have to be both, but it would be like the application of using the speed of light as a ratio to determine a physical distance is incorrect. Like that was what PZI mentioned earlier because that's, you know, yeah, Kalisto ends up with a negative value that's physically meaningless, >> right? And that's just what occurs from the like that's not that the data is wrong. It's that that's what Kalisto physically does in the sky. So, if you were going to say that it meant something, you'd be getting a negative value because it actually like I guess processes backwards or something. I don't I don't really know. I'd have to look more into it, but >> it takes a long time for it to complete its eclipse or whatever. It's not as fast as the other ones.
>> Would either of you be willing to do a debate with Astronomy Live about this? I know he nerds out on this kind of stuff specifically.
and he's like a PhD in the subject.
>> What would the debate be? Like what >> what's he going to do? Just try to say that all these people from 300 350 years straight are wrong and that he's the right one.
>> He's the >> He'll probably redo it with a radar and a telescope with something unanalogous and he debunked it or whatever.
>> Right. Right. And actually like >> bring up weather balloons.
>> Like what is what is the point of a >> what's the point of a debate? Like if you have a specific question, something that you would like to see him articulate, then you should what you said is you would like to see his opinion on it. So if that's the case, just go get his opinion on it. If you want to have a debate, you should have a premise of the debate. You should have a proposition and you should both sides should actually have a point that they're trying to make or defend.
Otherwise, you're just basically throwing two people into a ring to make who who's gonna sound the smartest to me, and that's how you're gonna make >> the claim is that the data shows inconsistency in the speed of light.
And I would argue that there's probably some assumptions being made here that somebody that's more familiar with the topic would be able to explain in detail why that assumption is incorrect.
>> That's not the claim, bro. Well, if we don't have any rebuttals, if we don't have any rebuttals right now, we are getting some >> some very some very >> What's that?
>> He what he said is just like we got to address that. It can't just move on.
Like it we're not claiming that C is actually wrong. We know what C is. We can measure it on Earth. Nobody here is claiming C is actually wrong.
>> That's not what I said. That's all you said that.
>> Hold on. Hold on. And in addition to that, one second, Jake, I got you.
>> But but in addition to that, Jake, you don't need to refer to someone else to have an opinion. All the sources are laid out here uh for you to read for yourself. And what you can see is that uh you know, Cassini came like this was all what we dis what we quote unquote discovered was a rediscovery of an already existing issue that was documented and never resolved. We went over the entire history of it. And so like like Toby was saying like yeah we could debate and that would be like fun for entertainment but like in reality these issu these challenges right here one through five will never ever and have never been resolved in 350 years regardless of who you ask today and what credentials they have.
And you could and you should read the entire narrative for yourself instead of relying on something like uh entertainment to to get the you know oh I think he argued it the more betterist.
Yeah but was he right? Were any of these refuted? Like these are the important things of this because over this 350 year timeline, no one has ever been able to resolve it and people much much smarter than myself have, you know, been over this data, made the ephemerises, etc., etc., went out to reproduce this stuff. You know, uh the the the pattern exists whether or not anyone argues it correctly or not.
If you'll remember, >> if there's not an actual >> real quick, I mean, if there's not an actual rebuttal on the table, um there are some like halfass rebuttals going around like uh that means uh that the sun's far away or or sorry, that means that Jupiter that means that Jupiter's far away. That's one of the rebuttals. or uh you know that means that >> just some halfass rebuttals that are like people not starting >> that's what I was about to say >> people not understanding what a people not understanding what an internal critique is >> what what I was about to say bro is like literally the whole point of this method is to test the internal consistency of the heliocentric model we're we're not we don't actually accept their claims to distance or dynamics we're demonstrating that if their claims to distance and dynamics were true, then it would be necessary for this method of eclipse timing to produce C every time for every moon. And it absolutely doesn't. And it would also be necessary for there not to be any kind of residual periodic signal.
And it would also be necessary for that residual period periodic signal that didn't exist to definitely not be correlated to Earth somehow magically.
Right. And so those are all, as Allan said, long-standing problems that are both acknowledged openly in the literature by the fathers of modern astronomy were never dealt with or solved and still persist in the JPL effort data today, even after everything's been lietime corrected perfectly with the real speed of light and the accepted astronomical unit. So there shouldn't be any residuals to even speak of at this point, yet they're still there.
So ultimately, if you remember, Allan, you know, had a presentation not that long ago about um big G and about solar system distances and all this stuff and how Kepler's laws are merely just observational artifacts of periodicities of stuff in the sky and they attempted to apply dynamics to it. And by attempting to apply dynamics, presumptively that's how they built a giant distance scale for the solar system. And then then they tied in mass and all those other things. But if all of that was true as they claim it is, then this could not happen. Like this right here cannot exist if the claims of helioentrism are true. You can't just have a model be right and then be wrong also.
So this is what an this is the purpose of an internal critique.
As Allen's other presentation demonstrated, it's not actually necessary for all those masses to be real or all those distances to be real.
Really, it all boils down to ratios of periodicities like that. Everything that we measure from Earth, all you all we ever do is look in a telescope. Every measurement you guys ever take of stuff up in the sky is you just looking at light. We just look at light. We we have light signals going in, light signals going out. And that's all we do is look at light. And by looking at light, you guys think that you can weigh rocks in the sky and tell what's causing them to move. It's actually [ __ ] But this is the point is this is showing you within the internal critique of the model itself how we can demonstrate to you that it's [ __ ] Anyways, the math ain't math into reality. These guys know they love the, you know, you know, it matches reality the best and you know, so they understand.
>> So to be clear, you guys are not willing to do a discussion with Astronomy Live on the topic. Not necessarily a debate, but just maybe an informal discussion.
>> I mean, can I just I would say the more constructive thing to do would be to like bring the person bring your boy the list and be like, "Hey, what are they missing or what what is the answer to these questions?" Yeah. what is the rebuttal? And then if he's like, "Oh, well, this is dead wrong." You can be like, "Oh, well, there you go. We have a debate topic." He says, "You're dead wrong on this point." And we're going, "Why don't you have a debate with him on this point here that you're showing instead of just like trying to, you know, like challenge, it's not on Allen to accept a debate from every which every which way, every person that wants to, you know, just try and sound smarter than him in public. It's not it's not how this works. It's not constructive.
The constructive thing is to be specific and ask the specific questions and and see if you can get, you know, pointby-point response or maybe your boy will send you a little email back with point by point responses and then you can come back and be like, "Hey, look, here's what he said. What do you guys think?"
>> I mean, guys, these guys do these open panels here.
>> Chaos.
>> These guys do the I know these guys do these open panels here all the time.
Bring your boy back. Let him give his rebuttal and and we do Q&A. He could be talking right now if he wanted to.
>> But the point is is like this is a little different from like, you know, debates on other things, right? Like this is not something that's going to be resolved through a debate. This is now within the domain of like a scientific proposition. Like this is a paper with method and fact claims, right? You don't you don't just have a debate and have a conversation be like, "Oh, he totally sounded smarter. You're totally wrong."
That like that's not the domain of this.
So, this is like in a different category at this point. This is a data presentation with fact claims and challenges. In order for someone to refute some to refute us on this, they're not just going to come in a debate and be like, "You're dumb."
They're going to have to go sequentially one by one through these five challenges and meet the challenge. Like, meeting these challenges would be the way that you refute us. It's not through like having a conversation telling us we're done.
>> Yeah. the these are the unresolved issues of 350 years. And like Jeremy said, I I host open stuff here all the time. If he happens to show up during one and wants to talk about it, I'll do that. But I I don't I have a personal uh I don't like the way that he behaved in the last two debates that we did, some of the stuff he did, and I don't want to interact with him on it like I it wouldn't be uh gratifying for me to to do that. So, I'm not going to >> The one that the one that really bothers me is your negative speed of light. It's the only claim I've ever seen from any of the data that the speed of light is negative.
>> That's our bro. Yeah, that's your problem, bro. That's our point.
>> No, I think it's I think you miscalculated it to tell you the truth.
>> That's my Don't prove that to us.
>> Yeah. So, to tell you the truth though, you would have to show that and derive it yourself. Dive in that doesn't give a negative value because you know what we did that we didn't show here? We also did this over different timelines, different intervals because right now it's three three years at one hour intervals for the eclipse cycles. I did I did uh what was it? Uh 10 years, 30 years, 100 years over different uh timing intervals and one interval specific to Kalisto's orbital period to get it to see if it would match up exactly. And I could never get it to do anything different. So you are welcome to do it, sir. I can't make it positive no matter what was tried. So, I just work here and you know, >> yeah, I mean I mean what you're basically saying is there's no way that this could produce uh an implied speed of light that's negative. And the the question I would ask is why? Because the only reason you would think that is if you're assuming that this method is valid and that this data is wrong, right? Like if if all we're doing is saying, "Hey, extract data from JPL for six moons and all the other five moons it extracts correctly and that same command extracts for the sixth moon."
You think it just randomly got some fairy tale data out of like Neverland for the sixth moon? Like what I mean, what was your claim?
>> Or you or you reversed two columns or you've made a sign error somewhere in your calculations. I don't know the answer. It just bothers me significantly that you've come up with a negative speed of light and continued to say that the speed of light is >> Yeah. Well, your personal grips >> are these questions that you guys came up with the five questions.
>> I mean, that's just like fluff like >> Yeah. Yeah. And they're based on Yeah.
Sorry. Real quick. Yes. And they're based on the actual standing issues andor implications of the issues being unresolved. So, yeah.
>> Like that's just fluff. I think your math's wrong. Uh, you know what I'm saying? That's nothing, dude. You got to come with it, bro. Come with >> Well, you know, you just you just gave you just gave the pre you just gave the presentation.
>> You can claim a negative speed of light.
I can find no other observation of this methodology that has a negative speed of light.
>> Oh, >> so you have one that has a positive >> research. Yeah. Show me where they derive positive ones with Kalista.
Well, I'm more looking for that.
>> He just got done saying he always got a negative result and you're saying you got a positive one. So, let's see it.
>> Well, it would be interesting. Negative speed of light is an interesting concept. I mean, >> dog, you just made a specific thing.
>> Yeah, you got to come with something.
You can't come with fluff, bro.
>> Well, I'm coming with >> a claim of a sense to me.
>> A claim of a claim put people down. Uh and on top of that uh Nasha shill the appearance of how the speed of light looks is independent of what you're saying right and then you made a specific claim about how all the speeds you've seen give positive results we haven't provided any cited any shown any so I asked you where they were at and then you started to say a different claim and I'm not here to play rigamaroo whack-a-ole guess what my real argument is so when you have something substantial send me a tag on Discord and you know highlight me and link me what you're uh you know what you're proposing just talking on voices like you're not going to do that endlessly that's that's preposter >> oh dude he deafened himself so he didn't have to hear you you know >> good >> all I'm trying to say is if you come up with a measurement or a calculation of a negative speed of >> all I'm trying to say is that you've said that and you're not going to repeat it again for the eenth just provide the source, bro.
And that's it. Like this is not a back and forth 20 times saying how you your feelings feel. This is like, you know, with once again, this is in the scientific domain now.
>> Yeah. Like if you don't just have a rebuttal with facts and data just not you can't just come with I think your math is wrong or something like you got to have something real.
>> The real for real.
>> Anybody else though? I mean, there's a bunch of people in here. I would love s for him to not try to hog the mic the entire time cuz other people might actually have, you know, like things to say.
>> Yeah. Does anyone have a question or like an actual rebuttal? Like, if you're going to rebut it, it needs to be an actual rebuttal or any questions or something.
>> Questions would be great.
>> Questions and a valid rebuttal now. Oh, this proves the sun, the Jupiter's a far distance away or something like an actual rebuttal to this.
I saw in the one of the things you had there was something from like 2010 2014.
So this isn't just old this isn't just like old uh you know hundreds of year old stuff. This is some they've done some modern things with this, right?
2010 20 something.
>> Mhm.
>> Yeah.
>> Yep. people have reproduced the uh timing measurement differences and tried to calculate C independently and got the similar results that we did.
So um you know question I wonder if you know let's just assume that this data is real since it's been known about for 350 years. It's been produced in every single ephemerra data set that's ever existed. So, so it seems pretty rational and reasonable to assume that the data is real since it's literally just JPL ephemerrades.
I mean, if they want to take the position that JPL ephemerades aren't real, then we can just go ahead and just let go of the heliocentric model. So, we don't even have to have the conversation. But if we assume that the data is real right and that by just plotting the data it just produces the sinosoid which it does and that the period of this sinosoid is 90 something% anchored to earth position which it is and that the implied speed of light is wrong which it is then you know is there any logical conclusion other than that it is an invalidation of the claims to distance and dynamics That seems to be the only valid, you know, answer as to why this is so because you can either attack the data and say the data is not real and it's made up or it's fake or you can say the data is real and if the data is real, which it is, then you're at a you're at an impass. You're like, okay, well, why is this, you know, impossible thing happening with real data?
That's the catch 22 that the heliocentric model is in right now because we're using their data to do this test, >> dude. Their data that's been verified to the precise millimeter accuracy, you know, etc., etc., through satellite ranging, spacecraft exploration, sending back data, uh supposed radio signals being sent from Earth, and then relaying back, reflecting off Venus, etc. at a certain time you know yada yada all these things are supposed to be physically confirmed to make meaning of the uh ratios that are uh you know derived through internal consistency and then when you try to independently verify one not using it as a ratio of the other it's like oops that's when the whole thing gets revealed as an internally consistent system that gets falsified during external critique >> I mean this right here is crazy right like look at this this this graph right here. This is probably like this. If we only had one graph to show of the whole thing, this would probably be the one, right? Like this should not exist. You should not have these two overlapping sinosoids, you know, 180 degrees or 90 degrees or whatever offset of Earth's distance from Jupiter and the period of Jupiter's moon changing like heliocentric dynamics says that that red that red graph should be a flat a flat horizontal line and Yet you get this like sawtooth sinosoid.
>> That is nuts.
>> It's like breathing.
>> Well, the beauty of this guys is that you're using their own data against them. That's what I love the most, right? That's what I like doing with their cosmological model. Yeah, that's the beauty of it. So, yeah, congrats for that.
>> Thank you, sir.
It was honestly an accident. It was just a whim that we found this.
>> It's like, you know what, dude? Remember that time like a year ago we tried to do the ROR method to derive C and it couldn't get it to work? It's like, yeah. It's like I have a sinking feeling that that whole thing might just be fake.
And it's like, well, let's test it and find out. And then we just tested it and got these curves.
And the very next morning because we were up late at night doing it all like late.
And that morning we came in here and we're like, "Hey guys, here's a little preliminary prey. We want to show you guys something and showed it to you."
And like you said, we thought it was something that like we had just discovered like, "Oh my gosh, we found something that no one knows about." And then come to find out they knew about it in 1765 or 1675 and have known about it for you know 351 years essentially.
So we independently like that's like that's that should be the proof right there, right? Like that's the question he asked NASA like that is the proof, right? Like how we didn't even know about this at all. We just were like, I wonder what happens if we plug in the data and try to use Ror's method. And we found the very thing that they were independently talking about writing Latin papers to each other 350 years ago.
So if you're going to say that this isn't a real thing, then why did we find the same thing that the fathers of modern astronomy found and are talking about in the papers?
>> Those are two different things. What are you talking about?
You see why why do you you you talk the most foolishness on this guy's app?
>> All right. Do you have a rebuttal? Do you have a rebuttal? An actual rebuttal or no?
>> Yes. My rebuttal is that you you live in ancient times. I'm I'm going to show you this.
>> What was your cell phone like in the year 2002?
>> How does my cell phone have to do with Jupiter?
>> There's no rebuttal. Yeah, it does.
>> Well, that giggle got me real good.
>> I'm going to go ahead and discontinue that uh line of questioning and we'll just assume that >> yeah, >> you had like an epic rebuttal or something or anyway.
>> Uh ancient times.
>> Yeah, he almost has me, dude.
>> Yeah. So, again, the ancient times claim, guys, remember you can still use this method to this day to determine your longitude. The real eclipse data is the real eclipse data. You can compare it to find your longitude. So it's not that this is an old method. It doesn't work. It, you know, blah blah blah. It's the same thing. It just doesn't derive the value that's needed to make the model true.
And we just and we went over the history of how they tried to fit the model to reality. They could never successfully do it.
350 years later, we independently stumbled across it trying to derive seed.
>> Yeah. So, um I'm looking in the uh YouTube chat right now. Um I guess I should have looked in that earlier.
There's some there's some questions in there. Um but yeah, so we did use the uh JPL data to analyze all six moons and Allan has that table somewhere. I think it was actually in the prey. Uh >> oh, I actually answered that.
>> Okay. Yeah.
>> In the text chat.
>> Well, he was saying that some of the moons did it and other ones didn't.
>> Half of the stream. So, >> yeah. Like, so the correlations like Io and had the strongest ones. Both of those are 90 something% correlations.
They're almost identical to one another.
Ganymede had like a 65% correlation.
And then Kalisto is like undetermined because it's just like a negative value that wouldn't have any physical meaning in a in a you know light ranging model.
Um and then Saturn's two moons had um decent I don't remember what the percentages were on those but they were decent. But Saturn's are a little weird because instead of being like a sinosoid, they have this like awkward shape of the graph where like the graph changes at the same point in time. Like just how right here on the sinus sword, you know, it goes up and then it changes to down at the same point in time. The same thing happens with >> actually show some of those.
>> Oh, the Saturn. Okay. Yeah. So they change at the same point in time, but it's like crazy directions all over the place for the Saturn moons, but on they're aligned on the time axis, which is the important important part.
Like the slope changes occur at the same point on the time axis. Yeah, there's one. That was it.
Um Um Not that one. No, there was a there was like a Oh. Oh, back up, back up, back up. Right. Yeah, right there on the down. No, no, no. Like where your moon where your uh down. Keep going down. Down to the next set of Saturns.
Those. Yep. Right there. Yep. Uh no. Maybe not that one. We've got so many. I'm trying to find it.
>> That's a good graph right there. But cuz that green dotted line shows what it should be.
>> Oh yeah. Click on Titan.
>> So they have different periods. You have to do them over a longer timeline which isn't in here. This is similar to the same threeyear data set.
>> It wasn't this one. It's uh that maybe it's the so one. Two two to the left.
Three to the left of this one. The sheets right there. Maybe one of those.
No, dude. I don't know where it is.
Yeah. I don't know. Oh, the other the only other thing is this one that I could think of or no, it had to have been in here actually. You guys are three for three. Battle of the beans unrefuted. Celestial Theatite unrefuted.
Seems like this is going to go unrefuted.
>> There's no rebuttal. The cool thing about this one is it has nothing to do with the shape of anything. It has to do with we're attacking their model directly through an internal critique.
So, it's uh I like that aspect of it cuz this is not an FE versus GE uh presentation. This is a helioentrism is fake and gay.
Yeah, I think it was in one of these uh Jupyter notebooks, dude.
Yeah, I know which one you're looking for. I can't remember where it exists.
>> Man, imagining so hard to the point that you give all these distances, sizes, speeds, and everything, and then you get caught. What do you do?
>> I know.
>> This could be a glitch. This could be a glitch in the lenticular lens ceiling on flat earth.
>> Dude, I think it had to be uh in the obsidian somewhere where we saw it. Anyway, in any case, doesn't matter. We'll figure it out later. But >> yeah, um there's no further questions or anything.
>> Did you have anything you wanted to close on?
>> Oh, sorry. I was just going to say if you want to see what the correlation amount was, it it is in the table. Like I we can't find the graph, but it is in the table from the presentation slideshow. So, uh the presentation slideshow has a table with the six different moons on there showing the correlation uh magnitudes for each one.
So that would be the easiest way to check it. It's just can't find the graph right now on the spot. Sorry. Um but yeah, I mean closing comments for me. I think I would say that ultimately I think that this presents in my personal opinion probably the strongest direct like not not topology not FE versus GE but the strongest direct internal critique of helioentrism that I have personally ever seen um in terms of just critiquing their model with their model's own data. you know, we we know about other stuff like experimental experimental uh reputations like, you know, interferometry and water telescopes and stuff like that, but as far as just looking up in the sky and saying, "Hey, let's use the data of our own model to test our own model, this is probably the best thing I think I've ever seen." So, great job, dude. Um, I know that no one's going to have any kind of a reputation because the only way they can refute it is to answer the challenges that are in the prey. And if all the astronomers of history haven't been able to answer those challenges for 350 years, I don't think some scrubs on Discord are going to be able to either.
>> Well, I look forward to uh you know what the what the Helios put together to try and uh figure this one out. Like >> I look forward to the valid honest engagement. Yeah, >> that's what I'm looking for. That's what I'm looking for. We're TLC. We don't want no scrubs.
>> Yeah. So if uh if anyone starts to look into this, wants to make an attempt or has any questions etc. Discord or tag me and uh you know we can get that sorted out and take a look at what's >> got one question in chat about the link to the presentation and they tagged you just now.
>> Oh nice. I think Shane just put it all in there right now. Thank you sir.
>> Nice. So in there uh in there Dazza is if you use Jupyter notebook there's the there's a Jupyter notebook folder in there for all the stuff and then there's also what's it called a link that has the PDF and PowerPoint in it as well. So you can see that in the 2026 release folder and then the rest of it is just different pies and stuff that were used to gather the initial uh stuff and generate these graphs and stuff. So you can uh see through all that. it's kind of messy or whatever, but the relevant stuff to make it easy is in those two folder sections of the GitHub and then everything else is on the Obsidian andor on the Excel sheet.
But the Excel sheet is basically converted into the Jupiter thing. So, just pick your pick your favorite flavor or whatever.
>> Nice. Yeah, it' be interesting to see if a single person within the, you know, anti-fe helio helio lover uh discord community has the, you know, intestinal fortitude to accept the accept the conclusions wherever they may take them from the data and from the science, you know, experimental sumisex or whatever.
>> I vote 100% mockery, 0% engagement, but we'll see. I've been wrong in the past.
>> All right. Well, let's All right. Well, let's not set them up for failure while they're not here to to say anything.
>> All right. Well, >> I would be interested in anything that would any answers just to examine the uh the argument.
>> I'd be interested in your answers, Eric.
How about are you not going to create a Python script that will answer all these for us?
>> He actually already started on a Python.
>> I figured that it was already in the work. But Allan kind of addressed that point. If you make a simulation uh with a model where everything works and you're going to get answers that will give you the speed of light. So then the question is is how does reality differ from the model? That is what I want I would like to know.
>> Yes, that's in >> Absolutely. And that's in the synthetic versus real plot.
I actually have a plot for that already generated for you, Eric.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you.
>> Where are the plots thickens?
>> Oh, dude. There's nothing like a good Eric Dad joke.
Anyway, um Eric gets the most honest.
>> What day is today's award yet again?
>> Sunday. So, we'll be We'll be back on Monday for some sort of null hypothesis shenanigans. And a quick shout out to Bull Knight, the Knight of the Bulls, who helped out with the Battle of the Beam stuff and getting the antenna stuff accurate to representing horizontal radio wave propagation. So, that was awesome. Shout out to him. But yeah, we'll be doing Battle of the Beams present null hypothesis on Monday at 8:00 PM Eastern. So, be here for that.
If you're not familiar with the Battle of the Beam stuff, you can find out more about it on my channel by searching Battle of the Beams or BO TB on uh on my channel. Or you can go to the Obsidian and reference the null hypothesis section and find the Battle of the Beams reference section there and read all about what's going to be discussed on Monday. Then Tuesday, we'll be on the Ether Cosmology Discord server probably doing some sort of reading night. I think last week we were reading the contextual history of the Mickelson Morley experiments that was going over a lot of the uh you know like personal letters and uh what's it called? Of course uh letters and bibliography stuff regarding you know Mickelson's mindset into the experiment and stuff because there's in modernity there's a there's a lot of like you know did he disprove the ether? Did he you know what was the experiment about? What was his intentions etc. So, we were going over the history of that. So, we'll probably be following up on that on Monday or I'm sorry, Tuesday. Then we'll be back again on Friday for Twitter community night hosted by Ken and Brian Sweet. Shout out to the lads holding it down on the Twitter sphere. Not to be confused with an actual sphere. It's just a conceptual sphere. The Twitter sphere has a radius of one until otherwise.
Okay. All right. And then uh we'll be back with Globusters the following week to go over a refinement of this work that was presented here today. So if anyone has any contentions or things that they can point out or you know you got something wrong you need to get a correction in between now and next Sunday, send us uh that information and we'll get that adjusted in the prey.
Thank you for your time. See you guys later in the week.
All right lads, we are offline. We're free to resume whatever it is we do around here.
関連おすすめ
Spiral Galaxy NGC 3370 from Hubble | NASA APOD 2025-11-05 #Shorts
galaxygallery
938 views•2026-05-30
SOMETHING inside the SUN is CHANGING
RaysAstrophotography
1K views•2026-06-03
NOAA Warning! Massive Double Cannibal CME Impacting Earth: G4 Storm Watch!
worldnewsreporttoday
1K views•2026-06-04
🌌 HD 189733 b | The Planet Where Glass Rains Sideways
EVENTHORIZONUK
3K views•2026-05-31
Captured the Blue Moon (with a twist) 🌙✨ #space #bluemoon #telescope
realAstroExplorer
674 views•2026-06-01
10 Planet Where a Black Hole Replaces the Sun
cosmicexplorer-EN
147 views•2026-06-02
Is this a copy of our galaxy? Discover Galaxy M81!
UniverseDocumentaries-cc4mb
995 views•2026-05-31
There May Be A Giant Hole In The Universe... And We Might Be Inside It | The Cosmic Ledger Entry 015
TheCosmicLedger
145 views•2026-05-31
