Evaluating the position of Earth with respect to it's orbit

[P Gray]

Allright. Here's the concept. The position of the Earth with respect to whether Earth is stopped in it's orbit should be easy to determine. Consider the following:
1) dig a hole in your yard deep enough to be below the frost line, place a metal pipe in the hole and cement it in place.
2) permanently attach a space type telescope to the pole
3) at exactly a specific time at night, (example midnight) align the crosshairs of the scope on a star in a constellation, with the proviso that the constellation is in the plane of the ecliptic
4) tighten the devices on the scope on the scope that attach the scope to the pole
5) check the alignment of the crosshairs each night at exactly the same time (example: midnight)
6) it seems by math to me that if the Earth is travelling in its orbit around the sun, then the following must occur
7) the crosshairs will slowly move away from the star chosen
I wish someone would do this and hook it up to a webcam. We could all check it and see if the crosshairs stay on target.
8) I realize with the "wobble" there may be some variability, but with the Earth progressing in an orbit, the "drift" of the crosshairs will be unmistakeable, large, and consistent. There.....end of the orbit debate. Please someone take this challenge on.... let's see the results. Thanks

 

[Disclosure]

I am not an astronomer, but this sort of observation in 3) would give you what is called sidereal time.

Sidereal time differs slightly, about 4 minutes, from a solar day (loosely speaking what our clocks measure) so "at a specific time of night" implies you are measuring the interval using time based on our solar day, which would always be out by approx 4 minutes with respect to sidereal time, so the recticule would always drift.

It might be possible to compare measured solar time vs. measured sidereal time though.

[P Gray]

Disclosure said:

I am not an astronomer, but this sort of observation in 3) would give you what is called sidereal time.

Sidereal time differs slightly, about 4 minutes, from a solar day (loosely speaking what our clocks measure) so "at a specific time of night" implies you are measuring the interval using time based on our solar day, which would always be out by approx 4 minutes with respect to sidereal time, so the recticule would always drift.

It might be possible to compare measured solar time vs. measured sidereal time though.

............... Reply by PG............. The concept is to look at a star far away from Earth at the same time each night. The phrase "same time" means for this discussion, at the same point of the Earth on the Earth's rotation about its own axis. If there is an orbiting earth, then it will move through its orbit around the sun of (given a 365 day interval for the orbit) a value of 1 divided by 365 in a 24 hour period (1/365 = 0.002739). To obtain when 12 midnight occurs each night, it is sufficient to simply purchase a quartz crystal controlled battery operated clock from Wal Mart or Target. Set the clock for 12 midnight the first time you see the star and set the crosshairs. Simply look for the star each night at 12 midnight as determined by this clock. If there is an orbiting earth, then the star should cross the crosshairs a little sooner than 12 midnight each night. The interval is determined by taking the number of minutes in a 24 hour interval (1440) and multiplying this times 0.002739. The value for this follows: 1440 x 0.002739 = 3.9 minutes It is my estimation that if the earth is orbiting the sun, then the star will show up on the crosshairs 3.9 minutes earlier each night. As you can see, a difference of 3-4 minutes from the timing clock makes little difference over time because the "drift" of the star away from the crosshairs (providing the Earth is in a 365 day orbit) is progressive... it's not 3.9 minutes sooner on some days, and 3.9 minutes later on other days in a random pattern, instead it follows a pattern where the drift is always sooner, for each and every day, relentlessly. For example, after 30 days, the value for how much sooner the star will be transiting the crosshairs is calculated as follows: (30 days times an earlier arrival of 4 minutes per day = 30 x 4 = 120). This means that in just 30 days of observing the star will transit the crosshairs about 120 minutes earlier than the originally chosen time of midnight. Unless my math is wrong, this is such a big change in such a relatively short observation interval, that its either true or it isn't. This is why I wish someone would hook up a webcamera to a fixed telescope and lets all see what happens. pg

[Mariaelisa Torres]

Yes Allen. The indian healer, when they saw a plant and wanted to know its properties, they will move it around their bodies, until the fruit resonated with a certain body part, and was attracted to that part of the body, and they knew it was good for that organ.

Allan Marimootoo said:

close your eyes. all main stars and planets have a corresponding organ/place in your body.
there are 108 main places to check.
tis easier when you dont think.
try it. you will know.bless you

[Mariaelisa Torres]

P. Gray, so what is your conclusion?

If you realize with the "wobble" there may be some variability, but with the Earth progressing in an orbit, the "drift" of the crosshairs will be unmistakeable, large, and consistent. There.....end of the orbit debate.

Could you help me and be more specific? I think you are saying like the Sophists, If you realize that W makes some effect over B, and B is progressing on C, the cross hairs will be large, so that's the solution to C. Did I get it right?

[Mariaelisa Torres]

I invite you to come to the Llanos, so you can see the sky, and see that for the past 3 years we have had the same constellations on the same place, but the change of position is only marked by the wobble.

[Kris H]

Regarding #7, why do you wish someone else would do it? Can't you do it yourself?

#8 - Not sure how this experiment would affect the "debate". Zetas have explained the "element of doubt," which would account for an appearance of Earth traveling in orbit naturally.

Are you trying to raise confusion here? That is antithetical to this Ning's stated purpose.

[astrogal50]

I hope you do come up with something. Thanks!

Jim Balister said:

I am working on a better way to check star movements, wobble, and the earth tilting North. It shows that the Z's are right. I will have this up in a day or so.

[P Gray]

Kris H said:

Regarding #7, why do you wish someone else would do it? Can't you do it yourself?

#8 - Not sure how this experiment would affect the "debate". Zetas have explained the "element of doubt," which would account for an appearance of Earth traveling in orbit naturally.

Are you trying to raise confusion here? That is antithetical to this Ning's stated purpose.

...reply from P Gray..... I am desperately attempting to figure out how to place a reply....sheeeeesssh this site is complicated..

[P Gray]

...reply from PGray..... the lining up of stars to point to the "north star" will demonstrate that the earth has a new axis of rotation in the sense of where the axis or rotation of the earth passes through the body of the earth, or that the earth's axis of rotation has changed in the sense that there is a new portion of the sky toward which the axis now points. I guess a final possibility would be that the stars far from earth in the sky have changed their spatial relationships to each other. It is my intuition that infomation about the specifics of the axis of the earth's rotation with respect to the alignment of this axis with stars that are far from earth is not an issue that is exactly the same as a discussion of what exactly would be seen by a scope with fixed and unchanged attachment to the earth put together for the purpose of evaluating the presence or absence of whether the earth is in an orbit around the sun. I feel both of these issues (axis changes, orbit changes) are very important, but I feel they can vary independently of each other. Note: I am working on a longer post to address issues raised, but I can't quite get the hang of how to add these replies. I had a nice reply (I thought) but it did not seem to want to load up, then I do other replies and they work fine...sigh..... sometimes the magic works ....sometimes it doesn't. Bear with me, it should be obvious to all..I'm the newbie here. pgJim Balister said:

OK as promised. The star map I drew is not to scale. But if you look at the North Star and the Big Dipper together, you can see that the earth has moved both up and to the right. The dipper actually tilts a little better then I drew. Now normaly the dippers last two stars of the cup piont towards and above Polaris. But during the winter months it was pointing straight Polaris. To me that shows the wobble. So there is no need for fancy dancy equiptment. Just watch the dipper in relationship to the North Star!

[P Gray]

….reply by P Gray….. with respect to me doing this project. I feel the scope needs to have crosshairs, and must have enough light gathering capacity to be “seeable” by a webcamera. The webcamera will probably need some sort of fairly clean (i.e. low signal to noise ratio) photonic amplification capability in order to for its CCD grid to sense the light from distant stars. There will be a need for an optical adapter to allow the lens system of the webcamera to index properly against the optics of the scope. All of this involves $’s, I think. Also, I’m not totally sure of the internet instructions that will put the output of the webcamera into an internet accessible data stream. Finally, the night skies here aren’t reliably clear all that much….so alas… I can talk about this, but I can’t do it. As to sowing seeds of confusion, angst, or disruption, there is no intent of that here. I feel the results of this scope tracking experiment, while interesting, are not any big issue for the Zeta originated material. What follows is reasoning by me to demonstrate that there is importance to the SOZT…EOZT data. I think one would see that this reasoning holds its argument points independent of the results of a scope study. OK…on to some musing…The power of this material (and I add, with the proviso that one sticks pretty much exclusively to the information residing inside the SOZT….EOZT zone), anyway the power of this material clearly stands out. It has a relationship and familiarity with the human condition that shows depth of understanding, its hard to simply conclude the SOZT….EOZT words are those simply created by just your basic American. Perhaps by a committee or institution, that’s at least feasible, but just one person, with just one average life, and no extensive data stores, and no training or experience in the creation of articles of persuasion…well….it just seems unlikely to me. There is also a word and phraseology consideration of what’s inside SOZT….EOZT. One can clearly see a playful intellect, there’s literary nods and winks, there’s a sort of back plane humor, and the slipped in…”ah…ha gotcha’ there” word based images that are in these writings…again, its hard to say, “oh well, just anybody could build a fairly internally consistent coherent sophisticated body of work like this, if they wanted to..” The question being, so how many other sets of phraseology and concepts have you seen like the SOZT….EOZT set ? Another consideration, as in the Cayce material, I feel we can all agree, inside the SOZT…EOZT zone is not what we would call the “King’s English”, there’s just that weird turn of a phrase or slightly disjointed connections of word sets, that again, you think that’s so easy, you try it. So anyway, I feel the body of SOZT….EOZT stands, independent of this scope study. OK now, the “element of doubt” problem. Let’s just consider this…. So are we to postulate that ALL the distant stars are progressed by a fakery type trick ? Because ALL would have to be fake moved, since one cannot predict for any particular scope, just which distant star would be chosen as the initial crosshair line-up point. And say ALL stars are progressed, what exactly would that mean ? OK, let’s have them not progressed by fakery, then what’s to conclude ? Some seeds of doubt would exist in the SOZT….EOZT words. One thing about this seeding of doubt in the main work would have a depressurization effect against consideration of the SOZT….EOZT data by institutions that have to make conclusions about what gets out or not. Was this orbit thing a pressure relief valve ? Are we being given a clever hint or push to “read carefully, consider thoughtfully” ? I don’t know. And, hey, here’s a cool one….suppose the scope shows there really is no progression. WOW !

Kris H said:

Regarding #7, why do you wish someone else would do it? Can't you do it yourself?

#8 - Not sure how this experiment would affect the "debate". Zetas have explained the "element of doubt," which would account for an appearance of Earth traveling in orbit naturally.

Are you trying to raise confusion here? That is antithetical to this Ning's stated purpose.

[Kris H]

Thanks for clarifying. Your initial blog post was rather brief, so I wanted more background.

I would like to add one point. The Zetas would not have to "move" every star in the sky. They only have to bend the light rays to appear in their "normal" positions. I think this would be rather easy for them.

I agree with your comments about the body of ZT work. It is vast, and has been around since 1995(?), and yet, instead of the ZT geting dated and having holes develop, it becomes more and more accurate with time, and is still going strong in 2010. This despite a paid debunker campaign against it.

I'm still not sure about your experiment. I think when they are allowed to show us that we are stuck in orbit, we will know it, without a need for any webcams. But c'est la vie. Good luck to you.