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.

The ISS and the Blue Screen of DEATH

So, today the Soyuz MS-05 Docked to the International Space Station, bringing along with it three new NASA crew members. Considering the fact that NASA changes crew members on the ISS all the time, this isn’t really all that spectacular. Unless of course, you stop and consider the actual severity of it all and how it tends to play out the same way every single time. If you want to, you can watch the entire video below. But, honestly I will just hit the highlights for you.

For starters, the ISS is roughly 250 miles above the surface of the earth in an area known as the thermosphere. In this area of the atmosphere, the temperatures can rise to nearly 3,500 degrees F. This is a rather peculiar predicament when we consider the high quantity of aluminum that exists on the outer portion of the ISS (the melting point of aluminum is only 1,200 degrees F).

Not only does the ISS exist in this hot region of space below the exosphere, but it is traveling at nearly 17,150 MPH. At this speed it only takes the ISS an hour and a half to do one full revolution around the earth. That is pretty freaking fast if you ask me. To put this into perspective, that is about 5 miles a second.

That right there has me asking one simple question about G force.

How in the world is someone able to withstand a constant pull of more than 9G while moving at that speed for that long? G force is based on the radius of motion accompanied by speed. And if the astronauts on the Soyuz are reaching a speed of 17,000 MPH with a radius of 6.371 million meters (radius of the earth) during acceleration, they are experiencing a constant pull of more than 9G the entire trip to the ISS. How in the world are they reaching that speed with only a 200 mile window between them and their destination? At 5 miles a second it would have passed up the ISS by 100 miles in less than 60 seconds. And, how are they not blacking out? Someone has to stay conscious if they intend to dock without crashing headlong into the ISS at more than 5 miles a second… right? And before you tell me that there is zero G, they are in the thermosphere… not the exosphere. The thermosphere is still an atmosphere rich area. So… please explain how they aren’t blacking out. And then, when they do dock at that obnoxious of a speed how is it that they are not bumping one another completely off course out of control? One little bump or unanticipated nudge would knock the ISS off of its current orbital path by more than 5 miles a second into a new direction. One little misstep nudge could have the ISS 10 miles away in less than two seconds. How is it logically possible for a docking to even occur when you consider these things as a reality?

1

With all of this type of stuff in mind I would like to take a moment to point out the NASA routine for docking onto the ISS. For starters, make sure that you get some super legit footage of the crew as they approach (clearly showing that they are traveling faster than you are in order to catch up to you while clearly not being at an altitude of 200 miles high).  Then… when they dock, make sure that you are not on the sun lit side of the earth according to protocol as usual (doing this helps make the illusion of a 17,150 MPH collision between two manned objects seem plausible). They are always on the dark side when the dock occurs leaving very little to be seen. Then, when the sun comes back around all of the work is magically done with everyone at ground control applauding the diligent efforts of everyone involved (every time).

unnamed

And of course… what NASA docking onto the ISS wouldn’t be complete without the dreaded blue screen of death. That’s right, people… that major moment when the cabins have pressurized and we are opening the hatch to bring the two crews together the camera goes blue (every single time). And whala!!! Just like you know NASA does every time, the camera comes back on just in time for that money shot of all the crew members standing in a row with their headsets on ready to talk to the public with smiling faces (because, you know… that wasn’t just a life and death situation just now). Apparently all Astronauts have nerves of iron. Their blood pressure isn’t through the ruff right now or anything…

Let’s totally forget the fact that the crew members in the Soyuz were wearing totally different outfits when they took off. Let’s totally forget that they just also spent more than two hours reach speeds of 17,000+ MPH with a radial velocity of more than 9G’s for the entire ride (the average person blacks out at 5G). But hey, no big deal… no sweat. No pale faces. No need to check vitals after going that fast in that short of a time while creating an intentional head on collision while on the verge of a blackout with a $150 billion dollar piece of equipment. We will check vitals after the interview.

Give me a break, people. There is no physical way for two opposing objects traveling at that speed to connect with such grace.

NASA is a liar. And that is all there is to it.

If you think I am making this stuff up, go find me footage of any astronauts passing through the airlock for either a spacewalk or during a docking/departure. You will not find it, because there is none. All you will ever find is the blue screen of death. And of course, today was no different.

Fake!!!

But don’t take my word for it… let’s watch this G force compilation.

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.

And somehow people still think we can’t fake space!!!

yep.png

2002-blue-marble-anomalies.png

Whatever… if you want to be asleep, at this point you are doing it by choice. The great deception is at hand.

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Revelation 12:9

Please note that it doesn’t say he will deceive some, or just the unbelievers. No… it says all.

Anyway, I’m ignorant.

Talk to you later.

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.

Subtle signs that hint to the truth

I have a lot of friends both Christian and non-Christian alike that love NASA. They love science and space exploration. They love learning about black holes, gas giants, and all the cool things NASA constantly puts out. I used to be like that too. But, the one thing that these two groups of people will disagree on is creation. The idea of God creating all things against the idea that it all started from nothing is a big debate. And today, many Christians side with the nothingness theory as if it were proven true, but still insist that God inspired the nothingness to create everything regardless of the fact that this concept goes against scripture.

And the pioneer of these epic discoveries just so happens to have no agenda at all. NASA is neither secular or Christian. Their agenda is clearly just one of science and the pursuit of knowledge… nothing more. Nothing less. That is one thing that both sides of the NASA fandom will agree on. NASA doesn’t have an agenda toward or against spiritual matters.

I am sorry, but I disagree with that entirely.

If they are known for being so none bias, then why is every single mission that they do related to pagan gods, Gnosticism, the occult, or outright luciferian concepts? And as of yesterday, we have yet again another example of this very thing to pile atop the countless other examples.

Meet Lucy, the mission that is apparently sending us to the Trojan Asteroids of Jupiter.

NASA-Lucy-spacecraft-studying-Jupiter-Trojan-asteroids-image-credit-Southwest-Research-Institute

Let’s totally set aside the fact that once again we are presented with nothing more than fake CGI junk rather than something tangible and real. Let’s stop and take a look the subliminal meanings behind this mission. And, in turn consider how NASA truly is none bias… or not.

The first thing to consider is the destination. We are sending a probe to a cluster of rocks known as Trojans. A Trojan by definition is a tool used to mislead large groups of people against the devices true intent. Secondly, we should stop and look at how and why the project was given its name; Lucy.

The name Lucy is derived from a Latin word, Lucius, meaning light. This explains why Satan is also known as Lucifer… also meaning light. And since the promises of Satan were transcendence and illumination, it is no wonder the movie Lucy was given such a name when evaluating what it was about (transcendence).

lucy_final_logosv

This patch symbolizes exactly the stance that NASA has on spiritual matters. With that in mind, I do not understand how so many Christians can so quickly rally behind this organization. Here, in this patch we have Lucy, the monkey skeleton… which stand on the bases of the evolution of mankind from primates to humans. Secondly, we have the rocks next to the probe. When compared to the ape bones to the probe we can see that it implies our evolutionary transcendence via the promises of Lucifer through knowledge and technology… who just so happens to hold the exact same meaning in his name as the word Lucy on the patch.

To make things even more interesting, the name of this NASA probe project was derived from the Beatles and a song called “Lucy in the sky with diamonds“. I could honestly rant on this fact forever. With that in mind I will simply point out that the album that this song appears on is heavily tied to LSD and Alice in Wonderland… which implies higher states of copiousness (Lucy being a great title since it means what it means).  Enough said.

So… why the diamond? Could it possibly be because it ties so well with the rest of the theme? I bet that could be the case. The diamond shape symbolizes ascension, clarity, and wisdom in many cultures.

With that said, here we have NASA propagating evolution to the masses, honoring Lucifer for his light of promising ascension, clarity, and wisdom through a band that is heavily associated with the occult. While at the same time admitting to your face that it is nothing more than a Trojan meant to mislead the masses, which is exactly what it is doing.

You want to keep believing in their fake CGI nonsense, you go right ahead.

As for myself, I will stick with the scriptures and the true scientific method. I don’t know. I guess I’m just ignorant, but a $19 billion dollar budget doesn’t automatically make your NASA cartoon truth. It is still just a cartoon.

And at the end of the day, I don’t care what you believe in… one thing is clear. NASA does promote a spiritual agenda weather you admit it or not. Just go back and look at the names of all their past missions.

There is a point when you could consider it all to be coincidence. But, let’s face it. We have been beyond that point for quite some time now.