Attiyah's Pendula

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

Attiyah's Planetary Motion
Attiyah's Pendula

It is out of doubt that from the Earth we can not at all directly see the other side of the Sun. Therefore, from the Earth's point of view, the Sun is two hemispheres: the perpetually Sun's Earth-facing hemisphere and the perpetually Sun's anti-Earth hemisphere. The perpetually unseen solar hemisphere is known as the far side of the Sun. However, if the Earth really rotates around the Sun according to the Kepler's first law, then it will be absolutely impossible to have any side of this star permanently unseen to the Earth-stationed observers. Therefore, I consider that nothing can account for this case as long as we continue adhering to the Kepler's first law.

I introduce this hypothesis in order to be discussed by scientists. I do not claim that I now have any mathematical proof or practical model to support Attiyah's Planetary Motion. I consider that the Kepler's second and third laws themselves support my hypothesis. It seems to me that Kepler failed to conclude that, relative to the Sun, the motion of the planets is the same as of the pendulum.Thus, he coined his second and third laws as alternative statements to express the laws of the simple harmonic motion of the planets. I'm inclined to say that Kepler (1571-1630 A.D.) was not aware of the work of Galileo (1564.1642 A.D.) on the pendulum and the laws of its motion he discovered.


The hypothesis of Attiyah's Planetary Motion is four propositions:

1- The planets move not around the Sun but in front of it.
2- The planetary motion in front of the Sun is of the simple harmonic type.
3- The planet (the bob), gravitational force (the length, the line between the planet's gravity center and the solar gravity center) and the Sun (the solar gravity center as the pivot point), altogether form a pendulum.
4- The planets oscillate in front of the Sun in hemiellipses or quasihemiellipses.

Notes:
1) This hypothesis is an alternative of Kepler's first law only.
2) This hypothesis does not apply to the motion of the satellites.


===============
Kepler's three laws
• Kepler's first law (The Law of Ellipses): The paths of the planets around the sun are elliptical in shape, with the center of the sun being located at one focus.
Thus, Kepler rejected the ancient Aristotelean, Ptolemaic,and Copernican belief in a circular motion.
• Kepler's second law (The Law of Equal Areas): An imaginary line drawn from the center of the sun to the center of the planet will sweeps out equal areas in equal intervals of time.
This means that the planet travels faster while close to the sun and slows down when it is farther from the sun. With his law, Kepler destroyed the Aristotelean astronomical theory that planets have a uniform velocity.
• Kepler's third law (The Law of Harmonies): The ratio of the squares of the periods of any two planets is equal to the ratio of the cubes of their average distances from the sun.
This means not only that larger orbits have longer periods, but also that the speed of a planet in a larger orbit is lower than in a smaller orbit.

N.B.
We must notice that the "far side" implies its meaning on a permanent basis. Please bear me to write the following iterating explanation.

The far side of the Sun is so called or described because it is always the far side, because it does not at all become the near side i.e. it never faces the Earth. It does not happen that it becomes facing the Earth-stationed observers. It never becomes the Earthward solar hemisphere. In this context, remember what does the far side of the Moon mean and how astronomers interpret it.

The other side that is the far side is always hidden. The far side of the Sun is the "back" of the Sun. We do not see the back of the Sun at all. The back of the Sun is perpetually prevented from rising on the Earth. We are permanently deprived of seeing this far side. Nor now neither then can we see the far side. Always only the same face of the Sun rises on the Earth. This is the near side. It is not at all the "far" side. The other far side does not rise on the Earth at all. All the time the far side does not face the Sun. It looks like as if the Sun is only a semisphere and that always we see only this very semisphere. In the perspective of the Earth, the far side, the anti-Earth side, is all the time the same side, and of course, the near side that is the Earth-facing solar hemisphere remains always the same side.

[gyro]

Einstein 'et all' had ideas, not all of them correct, and I wonder who they bounced them off and how different things would have been if they had access to forums/chat rooms and the like, or would they have played their cards close to their chests.

[LJF]

that seems possible, but im not sure, im not that good with astrophysics

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

SOHO Proves Attiyah's Pendula Theory


As long as SOHO travels in step with the Earth it will continue moving so that its path relative to the Sun is the same shape as that of the Earth. Since all the time SOHO is photographing such that the taken photos do not at all show the far side of the Sun, it must be concluded that SOHO makes its travel only in one half of the supposedly closed orbit. In other words, it must be concluded that, in relative to the Sun, SOHO always travels only half of the supposed rotation i.e. the conclusion is that it oscillates in a semicircle or semi-eclipse in front of the Sun. As long as SOHO travels in step with the Earth, it must be predicted that relative to the Sun, the Earth itself does not at all travel around the Sun in a complete circular or elliptical orbit. In other terms, regarding the Earth, it must be predicted that it only oscillates in front of the Sun and does not at all orbit it in a closed circular or elliptical path. However, if the latter prediction is right, the Earth-stationed observers must all the time see only the same hemisphere of the Sun. At this stage we are to ask: do the Earth-stationed observers all the time really see only the same hemisphere of the Sun?
Yes, certainly. In fact, from the Earth it is always impossible to directly see the far side of the Sun. From the Earth's point of view the far side is hidden all the time i.e. the Earth-stationed observers are perpetually deprived of seeing the far side of the Sun. Nor now neither then can the Earth-stationed observers see the far side of the Sun.
So far, unless scientists prove that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and also unless they prove that the Sun does this such that the time of this revolution is the same it takes to complete one rotation on its axis, unless these points are proved- Attiyah's pendula theory turns out to be right. Plainly speaking, the only way to explain the fact that the far side of the Sun is unseen all the time is to prove that there is a rotation of the Sun around the Earth such that this rotation takes the same time the Sun itself takes to rotate once on its axis. Otherwise, the scientific community must adopt Attiyah's Pendula theory.

Well, the video film SOHO's team released shows simulation models. These models are made on the supposition that the Earth rotates around the Sun in an ellipse.
However, the simulation models show the Earth and SOHO both rotating around the Sun. Rotating around the Sun necessarily means seeing the two hemispheres of the Sun. But it is a fact that all the time nor the Earth neither SOHO can see the far side of the Sun. Simply, not seeing the far side of the Sun means one of two possibilities:
1- That there is a rotation of the Sun around the Earth such that this rotation takes the same time the Sun itself takes to rotate once on its axis.
2- That nor the Earth neither SOHO makes a complete rotation around the Sun i.e. that either the Earth or SOHO makes only half a rotation repeating it regularly.
However, the first possibility is not acceptable at all because the Sun does not rotate around the Sun. Moreover, even on taking the revolution of the Earth around the Sun as an alternative of the imagined rotation of the Sun around the Earth, we find that the time of this rotation is not the same as the time the Sun itself needs to complete one rotation on it axis.
According to the exclusion of the first possibility, there will be no escape of adopting the other possibility which implies that either the Earth or SOHO travels in front of the Sun in a semiellpse or a quasisemiellpse i.e. the Earth sways in front of the Sun showing the simple harmonic type the pendulum itself normally shows.

[Rumples Riot]

This is utter poppy cock. Sorry Ray and all here, but this nonsense is simply that. Planetary motion is well understood and the planets do not move in front of the Sun in a pendular motion.

[Exfso]

My God, what a Crock of ****e. The mind boggles..

[Tony Leece]

Quote:

This is utter poppy cock
My God, what a Crock of ****e

Quote:

Understatments Gents :Chessy_Smile:

Shame we don't have an adults only section, where we could give this post the response it truly deserves:eartoear:

Surely this post is 3 days late. April fools day is the 1st not the 4th

[hpcoolahan]

Well i thought id leave this one here for you all to figure out for yourselves,,,and i agree with all of you.
This guy has posted the same stories and theories on a number of other forums , and promptly been banned on a few too.

lets see if he replys to our critisim!!

Cheers
Patrick

[Radar]

I'm not sure I understand what this theory is trying to say. Is it trying to say that we will never see one side of the sun? Because from my own Halpha observations the sun rotates quite nicely.

Or does this theory simply suggest that we can't see the "other"side of the sun because it is facing away from us? If that's the case, then that theory applies to every planet, moon and house in my street.

On a personal note, I think theories are healthy, but must be able to stand up to rigorous debate. Also some new theories that come out by amateurs discount the observations of others, such as Keppler in this case. To do that, you need practical, easy to understand examples of how Kepplers laws are inferior to the new ones. If this can't be done, then Kepplers laws stand.

I remember there was a theory on this forum a few months back where someone was saying the Earth was only a few thousand years old, and their reason for this was that cardon dating was not accurate, maybe so, maybe not, but they couldn't show how carbon dating was inaccurate or how their method was more accurate, so straight away, their theory has this gaping hole that can't be filled. That's not a theory in my opinion.

Theories are great and mentally healthy, but the background work needs to be done. :biggrin: