Day 4

Kepler Didn’t Understand His 1st Law

September 12, 2016

Either that, or he lied about it.

In the above diagram, what is the source of gravitational interaction at focus 2?


Kepler’s 1st law is empirical, that is to say, is based on direct observation. Direct observation tells us that the planets appear to have elliptical orbits around the sun.


An ellipse is formed when an object is attracted to two sources of gravity. They are called Focus 1 and Focus 2.The plural is foci.


However, the explanation of Kepler’s 1st law doesn’t include a second source of gravity. The scientific explanation of why planetary orbits are elliptical is because they are ellipses.

Does that sound like circular reasoning to you?

According to science, Focus 1 and focus 2 are just the geometric points of the ellipse. They’re just there because the orbit is elliptical. There are more elaborate explanations about the curvature of space and gravity wells, but they are entirely fictitious. So even though Kepler’s law is empirical, the commonly accepted explanation for it is not. It is one of the major leaps of faith made in the dominant paradigm of science which it conveniently doesn’t mention.

Science = faith.

Science is abusing your trust.

Even though direct observation tells us that the planets appear to have elliptical orbits around the sun, science didn’t attempt to honestly account for why. Rather, it took off on its headlong rush to concoct a rationale for godless existence. This was a golden opportunity for the patriarchs of science to be able to hammer the last nails into the coffin of Geocentricity and they seized it. This is an example of intellectual abuse of the highest magnitude: confounding a simple issue in the obscurity of scientific jargon in order to hide and conceal truth.

Why are planetary orbits elliptical? they aren’t, they just appear to be. However, since science doesn’t have to prove anything to be able to make the cosmos work, it is safe to make up anything at all.

Do you want to know the answer?

Okay, I’ll tell you…

The source of gravity at focus 2 is the Earth.

The Earth-Sun radial distance is basically constant (give or take a minute amount of play). The other planets have elliptical orbits because they orbit the Earth-Sun system. The seasons are not the result of annual fluctuation in the earth-sun distance.

Mercury and Venus have elliptical orbits which have one focus inside the orbit (the Sun) and one focus outside (the Earth). The outer planets have elliptical orbits with both foci within them.

With this arrangement it is impossible to tell if Earth orbits the Sun or vice versa.

Now you will see that your empirical formulas aren’t empirical (because you have to guess missing information) and that a geocentric system accounts for all observations.

It is interesting that Tycho Brahe provided all the accurate data necessary to be able to give an honest explanation of Kepler’s 1st Law, but he was drowned out by the desire of sinful men to finally pin down the rationale for godless existence. Notice that in the heliocentric part of the .GIF they didn’t even both with ellipses. That is how cavalier the scientific community can be. They figure that saying the words is enough, most people are too stupid to understand anyway.


An even more elegant depiction of the motion of planetary bodies in our cosmos:




You Might Also Like


  • Reply Lennart Regebro July 17, 2017 at 5:50 am

    You are confusing how to DRAW an ellipse, and why it is an ellipse. You get an ellipse with ONE gravitational center. Those two dots are not gravitational centers. The string is not gravity.

    This does require high-school maths.

    • Reply Matty Lawrence July 17, 2017 at 6:35 am

      I’m sorry, your link doesn’t provide any physical cause for why, in the theoretical construct of heliocentricity, planetary orbits are elliptical.

      It only describes the observed effect which, in this case, are circular orbits like that of the moon, and, as it happens, also applies to the sun’s orbit of the earth.

      It’s easy for you to belittle me with taunts about high school science, but you have substituted science fiction for real science.

      Planetary orbits are not actually elliptical, that’s a contrivance necessary in heliocentricity, they are actually cardioid.

      You have absolute faith that science is right. However, no matter what you come up with to explain elliptical orbits, none of it is even a testable hypotheses, so, technically, it’s not even science.

      There is no difference between drawing an ellipse and causing planetary bodies to describe an ellipse. Denial of this self-evident truth is absolutely essential for the development of theoretical ways to account for our observations.

      • Reply Hapless Dark Star (@ColdDimSum) December 6, 2017 at 4:14 pm

        Mine does — I show how to get Newton’s Law of Gravitation from Kepler and that a mutual force vector between the two masses results in the orbit.

        And I discuss how violations of the expected orbit of Uranus predicted the location of Neptune and resulted in its discovery. That is predictive power.

        Neither mass is at either Focus — the Foci are simply a property of elliptical shapes. The genius of Newton was to recognize that a universal, mutual force proportional to the masses and inversely to the square of the distance produces exactly such an elliptical orbit.

        The Heliocentric model has been simulated millions of times by different scientists and college students, it is well-established to work and be extremely accurate.

        The only thing you show here is the Well Known, indeed, defining property of ellipses, that the LENGTH between F and F’ and any point on the ellipse is equal distance and you claim this is “new”? You show nothing at all about what Force would be required on an object to cause it to describe an elliptical path. You ASSERT that it’s from both Foci but you don’t show it in any way what-so-ever — you rely on the ignorance of your readership to miss this fact.

        You also have zero actual equations and you show no actual predictions or measurements. This doesn’t even qualify this mess for a sound hypothesis.

        • Reply Matty Lawrence December 6, 2017 at 6:25 pm

          Given the fact that the causal relationship between mass and gravity is an assumption based on circumstantial evidence, everything you just said is irrelevant.
          Have a nice day!

    Leave a Reply

    %d bloggers like this: