The Great American Eclipse of 2017

On Monday, August 21st we have the Great American Eclipse happening. It is a pretty exciting thing indeed to have such an event taking place across the entire continent of North America. With that in mind, I have been thinking on it quite a bit… and honestly, I have one major question.

c-1920

But, before I ask my question we need to clarify how it all works. Bear with me for a moment while I try to elaborate on what we need to know to grasp how these bodies orbit or spin in relation to one another. Hopefully this is written in a way that it isn’t too hard to follow.

So… here we go.

To make one complete rotation in 24 hours, a point near the equator of the earth must move at close to 1,000 miles per hour (1,600 km/hr). The speed gets less as you move north, but it’s still a good clip throughout the United States. With that being the case, for simplicity sake, we will say that the earth spins at 1,000 miles per hour while making one full revolution within a 24 hour period. Within the course of one full rotation, the earth spins a total of 24,000 miles in 24 hours (seems simple enough).

The Moon orbits the earth at a speed of 2,288 miles per hour (3,683 kilometers per hour). During this time it travels a distance of 1,423,000 miles (2,290,000 kilometers) for one full revolution. The sidereal month is the time it takes to the moon to make one complete orbit around Earth. This is about 27.32 days. The synodic month is the time it takes the Moon to reach the same visual phase. This varies notably throughout the year, but averages around 29.53 days.

This would mean that one full revolution for the moon takes close to 27 or 30 full 24 hour periods. This would then further imply that the earth would in essence spin on its axis a total of 27 to 30 times while the moon itself completes one single revolution. In other words the moon during one full 24 hour period would have traveled only a total of 54,912 miles. This is roughly 1,368,088 miles shy of completing one full revolution.

To better grasp what I am getting at, the following video is a great animated visualization of these two bodies and their respective speeds of motion (the earth spinning on its axis and the moon orbiting the earth). This video makes it seem a lot less complicated than I just did, for sure.

In this video you will notice that both bodies are moving from West to East. The earth spins on its axis in an eastward direction. The moon orbits the earth in an eastward direction as well. With that in mind, both of these objects move from west to east in their respective speeds. This is something we can all agree upon I hope. The earth is going one speed. The moon is going another speed. They both travel in the same direction.

Seems simple enough…

There is however a major error that occurs when you consider the two speeds and the fact that the earth is generating a full revolution at more than 27 times that of the moon’s speed. As a result, although the Moon is moving to the east relative to the earth, the much faster westward motion of the sky is carrying it to the west, so despite its eastward motion relative to the center of the Earth, it rises in the east and sets in the west, just like any other celestial body.

To better grasp what I am rambling about, go back and watch that video again. You will notice that although the earth and moon are both traveling eastward, the earth’s greater speed is causing the moon to appear to travel east to west rather than west to east in relevance to the observer from ground level on the earth.

The point here is simply this; although the moon travels from the west in an eastward direction, the earth spins so fast that it causes the observer from ground level to see the moon traveling backwards from east to west instead. With this in mind, go back and watch the animation one last time to see what I am talking about.

Now, assuming that I haven’t lost you… here is the question.

Despite the fact that both the earth and the moon are traveling from west to east, the relative motion of both bodies causes the moon to appear to be traveling backwards from east to west. If this is the case (which it is) please… someone explain to me how in the world is the Great American Eclipse on the 21st is apparently occurring from West to East?

1

This absolutely defies the Copernican Principle.

Again, if the moon due to relativity appears to the observer to be traveling from east to west, how in the world is this eclipse happening from west to east? Someone, please explain to me how this doesn’t totally disprove the Copernican Principle of Heliocentric Cosmological Evolution?

This eclipse is only going to last like 4 hours across the United States. But before we look at the math behind this… let’s let Neil Degrasse Tyson explain real quick how math surpasses our senses. Don’t trust what you can see, touch, or feel… No, instead, trust the math.

With that in mind, let’s look at some math real quick. In order for the moon to defy our senses, no longer appearing to travel from east to west despite the fact that it supposedly isn’t, it would inevitably need to somehow speed up and begin traveling in an eastward direction faster than that of the earth’s spin.

And since it will only take 4 hours for the moon to cross North America on the 21st, this would then mean that the moon is somehow no longer traveling (according to math) 1,423,000 miles in the course of 720 hours. No, instead… on the 21st it will magically have sped up from 2,288 miles per hour to a whopping 69,644 miles per hour so as to defy the east to west observational conundrum.

Hhhmmmmm… I don’t know why, but this bible verse seems to come to mind.

And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; – Luke 21:25

Who are we kidding though, I am clearly just ignorant.

To the average observer here on earth the moon travels from east to west. But, on the 21st it will be doing its own thing. Don’t worry about it. Just let the math do the talking. Like Neil Degrasse Tyson said, we can’t trust what we see anyway. The science guys will explain this one away. Keep on letting them do your thinking for you.

What does NASA have to say? 

Wrong!!!

Whatever… rant over.
Space is fake.

So many sixes it’s making my head spin

Earth’s orbital plane is known as the ecliptic plane, and Earth’s tilt is known to astronomers as the obliquity of the ecliptic, being the angle between the ecliptic and the celestial equator on the celestial sphere. Earth currently has an axial tilt of about 23.4°.

tilt

An axial plane is based on the 90° pivot. With that in mind I find it rather strange to consider that the opposing tilt of the earth equates to a rather interesting number. What I mean by that is this; if we were to subtract 23.4° from 90°, we get exactly 66.6°.

Hhmmm…

What a wonderful coincidence.

But, it doesn’t stop there. According to Live Science, we are also carrying a velocity of roughly 66,600 MPH as we fly through space around the sun.

1200px-North_season

Hhmmm….

What another wonderful coincidence.

Or even better… what about the fact that the curvature of the earth for one mile squared equates to exactly 0.666 ft. If you don’t believe me you can do the math yourself using this program.

I bet, if you decided to not stop there and continued to look at the math behind how the secular world describes their godless creation, the coincidences wouldn’t stop here.

But then again, who are we kidding… right? I clearly am just ignorant.

If you want to believe you are flying through space at 66,600 miles per hour around the sun while on an opposing tilt of 66.6° with a radial drop of 0.666 ft per mile squared under your feet, you go right head.

I think I’ll put my feet on the bible instead of the wisdom of secular men, thank you very much.

1 Chr. 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Ps. 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …”

Ps. 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable …”

1858a9e

Now, don’t get me wrong… I do realize that there are plenty of verses that suggest the world does move. For example:

Ps. 99:1: “The Lord reigneth … let the earth be moved.”

Job 26:7: “He … hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Is. 24:19: “the earth is moved exceedingly.”

With that in mind I am neither arguing for or against the motion of the earth. All I am getting at here is the simple fact that we are so quick to settle on the side of the secular world when it comes to Biblical creation. If we are so quick to stand up against things like the theory of evolution, why then would describing the creation of earth and the celestial bodies above be any different? Rather than standing on the truth of God’s word, we have given the Biblical attributes of cosmology over to the wisdom of men, diminishing that portion of the Bible to allegory rather than truth.

Just think about it.

If Satan really is in charge right now, and his goal is to deceive men into believing that God does not exist, the quickest way to do something like that would be to distort their view on creation itself.

But… I digress.

I’m clearly just ignorant. All of those numbers above are clearly just a coincidence.

Believe in the wisdom of men much?

This post is in no way attempting to point out what I believe, but rather the proposition of an honest question with an honest answer being sought. Lately, I have been combing through my bible and taking a look at what it might have to say about cosmology. And surprisingly enough, I have found that it has quite a bit more to say than I expected.

Angel's-stairs

With that in mind, here is my question: If the Copernican Principle of Heliocentric Cosmological Evolution is the truth as we are taught both in the secular and Christian realm… how is it that both the first chapter and the last chapter of the bible defy a need for the sun’s gravitational pull on the solar system (something Earth could not exist without according to the CPHCE)?

Without the gravitational pull of the sun on the earth, moon, and other celestial bodies within the heliosheath, the heliosheath itself would not exist… protecting us from the bombardment of the cosmos around us.

Voyager_1_entering_heliosheath_region.jpg

The sun is supposedly 96 million miles away with a radius of about 433,000 miles. That’s pretty epic. And when you account for gravity, it becomes very apparent that nothing on this earth can sustain without that gigantic beast of a star.

I would hope that most Christians are familiar with the following scriptures, but here they are anyway… as they are a major source for my question.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Genesis 1:1-19

You should notice that the earth was made first. Not the sun. You should also notice that the grass and plants yielding seed and fruit occurred prior to the creation of the sun. Now, obviously, there was light prior to the sun as seen in verse 3. And time and time again we have proven that you can grow plants with artificial light rather than sunlight. So, that question is already answered within the scriptures. Light existed without the aid of the sun which allowed the plants to grow. But, the plants isn’t my focus here… gravity is.

But it doesn’t stop there.

And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.Revelation 22:5

The very last chapter of the bible talks about the new creation with the new river and the new tree of life. In verse 5 we are basically told that there will be no moon or sun. The greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night will not be needed because the Lord will give forth light. A great example of this would be Genesis 1:3 as obviously stated before.

So, again… here we are with another problem for the Copernican Principle of Heliocentric Cosmological Evolution. If you take away the sun… you take away its gravitational pull, which according to the CPHCE is necessary for existence.

At what point are we actually going to start leaning on the scriptures rather than the wisdom of men?

confused-guy-scratches-head500x310

According to the CPHCE we are told that the sun is a star. Not only that, but we are told that it is one of the smallest stars. My bible has something very different to say about that as a matter of fact. My bible says that the sun is “THE” great light. And that the stars are separate from it. It goes even further to suggest that one day the stars will fall to the earth. Please explain how that is possible if all the stars are bigger than the sun and so far away that it would take trillions of billions of years for them to reach us?

Not to mention the fact that the sun is called a “he“. The moon is called a “her“… and the stars time and time again are referred to as the angels of heaven. So, what are the stars then? Big massive balls of gas zillions of miles away… or angelic beings that can and will fall to the earth (one of which is given a key to the bottomless pit at some point)?

Anyway… back to the actual question.

Please explain to me how earth can sustain without the aid of the gravitational force of the sun both at creation and after Judgment while still holding onto the Copernican Principle as believers?

Because, trust me… if you think a man can walk on water, die, rise from the dead, and float into the clouds… the world already thinks you are crazy. What would it honestly matter to them for us to start taking the bible’s account of the cosmos serious as well?

The bible is either inerrant or it isn’t.

What is more ridiculous; to trust my God given senses… or to deny them because man said I should?

I guess that makes me ignorant.

My Visit the the McDonald Observatory

Well, today is my birthday. And to celebrate my birthday, Sarah and I went all the way out to the McDonald Observatory in West Texas. This place is in the middle of nowhere up on top of some pretty epic mountains. Today, while we were there we not only got to visit the actual telescopes (one of which I had the pleasure of personally controlling manually), but we also observed the sun.

ob1.jpg

It was a pretty cool experience and I have to admit, the scenery on the way there was breathtaking.

But, I will say… there is one thing that today’s trip got me thinking about. First off, the Polaris Star (also known as the North Star) is stationary in the night sky. I asked the tour guide how it was possible for the North Star to be stationary in the night sky while we traverse the void of space in four directions at once. He managed to not grasp what I was actually asking, and instead mentioned a 5th motion that he posed does change the North Star dramatically. Not only has this motion of Polaris never been observed in the last 6,000 years of recorded cosmology, but it apparently happens every 27,000 years. Again, something that can’t be observed. Makes sense to me.

ob2.jpg

How can we state a fact like that without the ability to actually observe it? Seems like science… lol.

But, anyway… that isn’t what this blog is about. This blog is about the sun… because, at the end of the day that was what the main part of the tour was about.

So… according to modern day astronomy the sun is a star. Not only that, but it is one of the smallest stars. According to this same modern day teaching of the cosmos the sun was formed prior to the earth and is currently 93 million miles away.

So then… why is it that everything we are taught about the cosmos today is absolutely backwards from what the bible says? According to the bible the earth was made first (not the sun). The Sun and moon were made separate from the stars (meaning the sun is not a star). The sun and moon are both called great lights (according to the Copernican Principle our sun is not great when compared to other stars). The bible also says that the sun, moon, and stars all exist inside of the firmament. And that this firmament is where the birds fly.

So then, which is true?

Are we to believe as Christians that the bible is the inerrant truth (except when it talks about science, which makes it no longer inerrant)? Or, are we going to believe the cabalistic indoctrinations of the Copernican Principle of Heliocentric Cosmological Evolution?

Rather than being long winder, trying to make a lot of points (which I feel I could easily do) I want to just leave you with this thought.

Why is it that literally everything we are told about the cosmos is the exact opposite of what the bible says?

snake.jpg

Anyway, my birthday trip was fun. Space exploration is fake. The sun, moon, and stars are close and small. Satellites do not exist beyond the stratosphere (all we are ever shown is CGI and cartoons).

The earth is motionless. I know this to be true because that is what my senses tell me and that is what my bible tells me.

The earth was made first. The one way speed of light is assumed. With that said, everything you have been told about the cosmos is an assumption.

m1.jpg

Have a good day, and thanks for reading. For my birthday, my challenge to you is to go back and read what the bible says about the cosmos. What it has to say is very clear… very clear indeed.

the sun, apparently the final frontier

Well, apparently we are going to the sun. Seems legit to me. I honestly have to say, Don Pettit said it best: “If dinosaurs had explored space, they would still be alive today”. That too, also seems legit. I just don’t understand it. How in the ever loving truth does anyone actually believe any of this nonsensical CGI garbage?

All of the images and animations we are shown of the sun with its massive bursts of solar flares is absolute idiocy. The following is a much closer representation to the truth than what we are constantly shown. Do you see any flares of chaos or configurations of heating gas in either of these sets of images below? No… because this is what the sun actually looks like. Don’t get me wrong, the stuff we are presented looks way cooler and way more exciting (flares and masses of moving gas), but that does not make it truth!

NASA_s-SDO-Sees-a-Stretch-of-Spotless-Sun

But hey, if the entire world wants to think we are flying through space in 4 directions at once at unfathomable speeds while still managing to hold a motionless glass of water in their hands, then let them think whatever they want. The type of people that believe that type of nonsensical stuff are the same ones believing in NASA’s current claims of reaching out to the sun. Sure… next thing you know it we’ll be landing a man on the sun too. Or better yet, a man on Mars so we can get over there to figure out who the heck has been cleaning those solar panels on the Rovers for all these years.

Anyway, since most of you that read this blog know that I am totally against NASA and the concept the Copernican Principle in general, I thought I would share with you a few of the items on my Etsy Store that go right along with the theme of how I feel about today’s so called modern science. Because, you know… millions and billions of years is clearly observable, testable, and repeatable.

patches

In short, NASA is a liar, Michelson and Morley proved the earth was motionless already, and the ISS acronym actually stands for; international scam station. Science is something we can observe, test, and repeat. And almost all of what we are taught today about the world  around us defies observation, can’t be tested, and therefore can not be repeated.

Pseudoscience is a religion.

But no… seriously. I only have 3 questions. One, if the material hasn’t existed until now… what are we using said material for with practical application here on earth (none, because it doesn’t exist)? If a rocket leaves the atmosphere at let’s say, 800 miles an hour, how in the ever loving truth are they accelerating it to godlike speeds in the vacuum of space with nothing to push or pull against when trying to generate extra momentum? And finally, why are you buying into this nonsense? If we have a 4 inch shield that could withstand the radiation and heat that NASA claims, we could put a man in a suit made of that same material and go in and clean up Trinoble.

Just think about it. Use common sense and a basic understanding of physics and you will see right through this ridiculousness.

Then again, maybe I’m just ignorant.

Pseudoscience takes faith; you do realize that… right

As I have begun to get on this kick of taking a new approach to how I view science (digging through the data myself rather than taking someone’s word for it), I have begun to notice a vast difference between what we call empirical science and pseudoscience. For those of you that don’t know, here is what they are:

Empirical science – Relying on or derived from observation or experiment. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment. Of or being a philosophy of medicine emphasizing practical experience and observation over scientific theory.

Pseudoscience – a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

What I find scary about these vast differences is how quickly the scientific community makes that leap from observation and experimentation into the realm of assumption across every platform of science, while in turn building their logic on theory and faith while continuing to argue that what they are doing is in fact still considered true science. If you build up concepts based on assumptions, it does not matter how far you go. All you have managed to do is create a long string of assumptions based off of your initial assumption. But that’s just it… modern science doesn’t like to use the word assumption. They like to replace it with dazzling words like; estimated, principle calculations (meaning: self-evident proposition or assumption), hypothesis, theory, and comparison (aka; circular reasoning).

So, what am I getting at? Why does this matter?

Here is “just one” video example explaining how we know what we know about the layers of Earth from the crust all the way to the core. First, please note that the narrator is wrong in that we have only drilled about 4 miles deep. This is false. We have drilled nearly 7 miles deep. It is called the Kola Superdeep Borehole, but that is beside the point. What matters is how quickly this video jumps from empirical evidence to pseudoscience while talking about it as if it were fact… and then taking a step further and making new assumptions based on initially introduced pseudoscience.

At less than one minute into the video we are already using phrases like “scientists believe“. From there, we begin to watch as the assumptions are built upon more assumptions. And yet, it sounds so scientific. At one and a half minutes in he tells us about a computer simulation. Just because I can simulate motion doesn’t make the motion fact. This simulation is based on “scientific belief” first mentioned at the one minute mark, not fact. He states that the “new model” reveals… as if we can go from empirical evidence to an assumption, and then use that assumption to arrive back at empirical evidence through a computer generated simulation of pseudoscience. At two and one half minutes in he states that more than a million years ago the north and south poles were in opposing positions. Please tell me how you can empirically come to that conclusion without piggybacking pseudoscience along the way? You can’t. And yet, the guy literally says that we know this to be true because of “science“.

But what is science?

science – the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment (please note the last three words of this definition).

So, what’s the deal?

The point is this; there is a vast difference between fact and faith. And with this point in mind I have begun to look long and hard at what I have been taught throughout my life to be true by the scientific community. What I have found is rather alarming, in that, the scientific method time after time has been compromised for scientific faith based belief (also known as pseudoscience).

2_4_12_01

How can we honestly know what is at the core of the earth when the Kola Superdeep Borehole drill-depth is only a little more than 7.5 miles (12 kilometers). To put that in perspective, Kola descends further than the deepest point of the ocean, which lies at nearly 6.8 miles (11 kilometers). This is only one third of the way through the continental crust. To put that into perspective, that is only the first of many supposed layer. This is 0.002 percent of the way to the center.

The fact is… you can’t know. And what we have been taught to be true is merely based on assumption. Sounds a lot like faith to me. And the last time I checked science was about the provable facts, not faith.

So, this is the question, then: when did we trade in the scientific method for a scientific religion? And, have you been indoctrinated into this new world religion? If most of what science presents today is “theory“, it seems like the world is standing on a lot of faith.

Psalms 118:8 – It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

And that is exactly what is happening in the world today. Science is the new religion when you consider how much of it has been compromised for pseudoscience. If what you believe in takes a level of blind faith, I don’t care what you call it, because I call it religion. The issue I have, and the reason I am posting this, is simple. This type of “thinking/science/teaching” is littered throughout all aspects of what we are taught to be truth by the scientific world. If you don’t actually know, quit teaching it as if it were fact. And further more, if religion doesn’t belong in the classroom, then why are these types of things being taught?

Scientism is alive. Are you indoctrinated?

But who are we really kidding… I don’t know anything. I’m just ignorant.

The Cavendish Experiment compromised by the pendulum effect?

I have a new question for the “scientists of today”. This question is in relationship to the Cavendish Experiment. For those of you that don’t know anything about this experiment, it’s a really big deal for physics and how we measure the known universe both in lengths and relative mass. How big is the earth? How massive is the moon? If the two objects are said to be such and such density, then they must be thus far apart for relative rotation to occur. And so on and so on. This experiment essentially weighed the earth giving us the gravitational constant. This constant is used to measure everything we know about the known universe. So, for me as a fan of space, this is the backbone of this field of science. For those of you that don’t know how the test works, here is a video of what the test was.

The thing that I find most odd about this test is the following. No one has actually successfully replicated this experiment, at least not that I have found. If you do a test and yielded a positive result, wouldn’t you want to test and retest the result to insure that you have it correct. Or better yet, change some variables to insure that the test isn’t being compromised by some outside force? Here is a video of s science professor expressing his admiration for the experiment despite having never gotten the experiment to work, himself. I find this odd.

Now, I have done enough digging that I have come across quite a few people who have attempted this experiment to varying degrees. And at that, with a few factors that in my opinion actually compromise the results. If you will note, the first two videos suggested two things. One, a closed system; so that no wind current would alter the results. And two; that the observer couldn’t be in the same room because their mass would alter the state of the experiment. And yet, if you look you will find countless attempts in open space with the observer present, no real control on the fixed points for observation, and air conditioning being factored into the process. All the tests you will find are relatively the same, and in my eyes inconclusive.

The idea behind the test is simple. The large mass of balls will gravitationally attract the smaller mass of balls toward themselves inward, twisting the pendulum or torsion rod toward the larger masses, thus giving us the gravitational constant when factoring the arch of the changes. When it comes to all of these tests, all I see is a free spinning shaft with two balls eventually touching against a resistance point. And because they touched the experiment essentially worked.

I’m sorry, but I don’t buy it. And here’s why. How many of you have heard of a foucault pendulum? For those of you who don’t know what that is, here it is.

So, here is my issue with how the most recent Cavendish Experiments have been done. Wouldn’t it stand to reason that a freestanding object on a cord hanging down from a fixed point would be compromised by the rotation of the earth? And if that is true, as the foucault pendulum clearly shows us, then wouldn’t the Cavendish Experiment be successful every time based on the pendulum effect alone? Eventually the rotational momentum would force the rods in a direction causing the smaller masses to find themselves resting against the larger objects?

With that in mind I propose an experiment (one of which I have yet to see done). The only way to determine for sure that the pendulum effect does not in any way neutralize the test results of the Cavendish Experiment we must do the test in three distinctly different ways. One, we set it up as shown by all the other endless attempts you will find online. The result will be the same as always. The smaller masses turn and connect with the larger ones. The second test would be to raise the smaller masses up directly above the larger masses by mere meters so that they don’t actually make contact. After doing this we set the masses 90 degrees from one another or at a 15 as shown in the first video and leave it alone. Over the course of 48 hours or more one of three things will have occurred. One, the smaller masses will do nothing. Two, they will find themselves fixed above the larger masses as the Experiment would suggest (attraction working as it should). Or three, the pendulum effect will make itself known and we will see the smaller masses rotate above the larger masses with no added resistance over a very long period of time. Then, let’s assume that the attraction does occur as we would expect/hope. If that is the case, the third and final test would be to start the test over and do it this time with the larger masses removed. If the smaller masses find themselves eventually resting in the same parallel point as the previous two tests eliminating the pendulum effect as a possiblye veritable, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that there are other variables we need to be considering that may be affecting the result (ie; Northern Pole. Large objects in or around the experiment that may alter its result)?

With this in mind, I find it hard to believe we found Big G from this experiment with no real re-verification of any kind taking place. Before we can truly say that this test works we need to 100 percent insure that the pendulum effect does not play a role in any way toward altering the results of this experiment. And so far, from what I have seen, no one has done this.

Why is that?

Please note I am not one of those people with some silly hidden agenda. I am just an honest guy seeking honest answers about science and how we understand the world around us.

So, why is it important to insure that we remove the pendulum affect from this experiment? Everything you know about the size, distance, and gravitational attraction of our known solar system is resting on the results of this one test (results I might add that were given to use in the 1800’s and have yet to be precisely duplicated since).