Explaining the ‘retrograde spin’ of Venus

The gravitational influence exerted by a celestial body depends upon many factors

-The velocity of spin
-The density of the surrounding Ether/ atmosphere
-Distance from the ‘core’

How far a planet exerts its influence depends upon the density/ type of the environment (and of course on the rate of spin). For example a body spinning inside a pond may ‘churn’ the water around it for 10meters distance and influence things up to that point. But if the body is surrounded by a ‘mantle’ of mercury (or any other denser medium), the body’s influence may not extend even for 5meters despite spinning at the same rate.

Imagine that the diameter of the spinning body is 1 meter and the thickness of the mantle layer is 0.5 meter. But someone looking from a distance may not appreciate the spinning body and its surrounding mantle layer separately and may view the ‘body-mantle complex’ as one single entity. So the distant observer may measure the spinning body’s size as 1.5meters and may think that the body spins much slower (because the mantle spins slower than the core of the body).

The same mantle model can be used to explain the apparent clockwise (retrograde) rotation of Venus (in contrast to the counter-clockwise rotation of other planets).

We know that the Sun rotates counter clock wise. That drags and spins the Ether around it and exerts ‘gravitational’ influence on the planets. If the planets were to be passive

1)They would revolve anticlockwise around the Sun
2)They would spin clockwise under the influence of the Sun’s anticlockwise spin
3)And they would ultimately get dragged into the Sun and there wouldn’t be a solar family for us to live and talk about.

We know that the planets are revolving counter-clockwise, but how come they are not spinning clockwise? And how come the planets are not falling into the Sun?

The fact that the planets are remaining in their orbits without falling into the Sun, implies that they are not passive but are exerting some opposing influence to counter the inward ‘pull’ by the Sun. And that opposing influence can come from an ‘active’ counter-clockwise spin of the planets. So just like the Sun, even the planets must be having an inherent counter-clockwise rotation.

But how come the planet Venus is spinning clockwise? We can explain this apparent retrograde spin of Venus using the same ‘mantle model’ described above. The actual size of Venus is probably much smaller than what the ‘astro-pastors’ have noted. The reason why Venus appears so big could be because of a thick mantle layer covering it. The ‘core’ may be actually spinning counter clockwise. While the inner mantle spins counter-clockwise under the influence of this Venus core, the outer mantle spins clockwise under the influence of the Sun. Because a distant observer may not appreciate what is happening in the core, he/she may conclude that the planet is spinning clockwise.

Thus my model of gravity provides clear physical basis for both attraction and repulsion forces while the ‘scientific religion’ gives only a ‘mythical’ description of them.

Revisiting Emitter theory and Neutral Pion decay

According to the Emitter theory, the velocity of an emitted particle is influenced by the velocity of its source. For example a bullet fired from a moving gun (from the top of a moving train) travels at a higher velocity than when it gets fired from a stationary gun. Of course this is what most of us would expect to happen with any particle or projectile in our everyday life. So when a photon gets emitted from a fast moving pion travelling at velocity ‘v’, relativists predicted that, if light particles behaved like the ‘ordinary’ particles/projectiles of our everyday life, the emitted photon would travel at a speed of ‘c+v’. But apparently the emitted photons from the decaying pions only travelled at velocity ‘c’ irrespective of the pion’s velocity. Hence relativists concluded that the speed of light is indeed constant and is not affected by that of the source.

Let’s now explore the truth without being biased by the scientific superstitions.

Is Emitter theory true?

Contrary to the commonly held belief, the velocity of an emitted body doesn’t get boosted by the motion of its source. And there is nothing special about photons in that regard.

To realise that, imagine a golf player standing on the top of a stationary train and hitting a golf ball. Imagine that the ball travels at 10meters/sec eastward. Now imagine that the train moves at 5meters/sec towards the east and the golfer hits another identical ball with exactly the same force as before. According to the Emitter theory, the golf ball should now travel at 15meters/sec with respect to a stationary observer. But it doesn’t because the ball now faces more resistance from air winds. As the source (which includes the train, the golfer and the golf ball) moves at 5meters/sec, it experiences winds coming from the opposite direction at the same speed i.e. 5meters/sec. So the golf ball now has to travel against strong winds unlike the situation when the train was stationary. And the faster the train moves, the stronger will be the winds, the more will the resistance to the ball and hence the slower will be the launching speed of the golf ball.

Similarly as the pion moves at velocity ‘v’ in the Ether medium, it feels Ether wind ‘blowing’ in the opposite direction at the same velocity. And this Ether wind offers more frictional force to the emitted photon. That explains why the speed of an emitted photon remains the same whether it gets emitted from a slow moving pion or a fast moving pion.

Having said that, Emitter theory holds true in one special scenario – when the golfer hits the golf ball inside the compartment of a moving train, the ball travels at a higher velocity. The reason is obvious- air resistance remains the same inside the compartment whether a train is moving or stationary. We can call this as ‘frame dragging’ though relativists may have a delusional description for the phrase.

Where were the photons before they got emitted from the pion?

Or from where do the photons come into existence when the pions decay?

When JJ Thompson observed beta rays being emitted from the ‘indivisible’ atoms, he didn’t make the stupid assumption that the rays suddenly popped into existence from nowhere by some divine synthesis. Rather he rightly concluded that these rays (later identified as electrons) must be coming from inside the atoms and hence must have existed inside them before the decay process. This was at a time when atoms were considered as fundamental and indivisible. Obviously an atom (or any object) can’t release something without being in possession of the same.
But when an electron releases a photon as it jumps to a lower energy level, or when a pion emits a photon as it decays, why don’t we apply the same simple logic? Why don’t the scientific folk think that the photons must have to be inside their ‘parental’ particles first, before they can get released or ‘fired’? Of course doing so would destroy their beautiful and mesmerising theory of relativity. So they feel comfortable by just saying- ‘a photon gets released’ or ‘photon just pops in’ etc and never try to clarify from exactly where and how that photon comes into existence.
The so called fundamental and indivisible particles may not actually be fundamental and indivisible. They could well have some internal architecture and composition, and photons may well be part of their internal milieu. We simply consider some particles as fundamental because we have not been able to ‘peep’ into these tiny particles. But our inabilities as humans can’t be sworn upon as Nature’s laws. The fact that photons get released during the decay of the ‘indivisible’ neutral pions indicates that the photons must be existing inside the pions in some yet undetectable format/ arrangement.
As pointed above, relativists won’t accept the above logical argument because that will destroy their superstition of constant speed of light – If photons are ‘allowed’ to exist inside the pions before getting emitted, then their relative velocity with respect to the pion before the decay would become zero and not ‘c’ (just like how a horse’s velocity with respect to the ‘horse-rider system’ would be zero).

‘Particle engines’

Imagine a horse that normally runs at a velocity of 10meters/sec. And imagine that the horse is made use of to ‘drive’ a cart. Obviously the horse can’t drive the cart faster than its lone velocity. Say for example the horse-cart moves at a velocity of 8 meters/sec. Now imagine that the horse gets ‘released’ from the cart and runs on its own. What would the velocity of the horse now? Obviously it would only run at its normal velocity i.e. 10 meters/sec. It would be stupid to apply the emitter principle here and expect the horse’s velocity to get boosted by the cart’s velocity.
Similarly imagine that a spaceship (pion) is flying at a speed of say 1000meters/sec with the help of 4 rocket engines (photons). If one of the rockets gets detached, this detached rocket will only fly at its own speed and will not get ‘boosted’ by the spaceship’s motion.
We believe that photons are the fundamental particles of energy. So it is logical to imagine them as providing the driving force to various particles of the quantum world, whether it is electrons or neutral pions or others. Obviously for any mass or particle to move through space, it needs energy. Because we believe that photons are the fundamental particles of energy, it must obviously be these particles which are responsible for the motion of any object at the most fundamental level. In other words, photons must be seen as the engines of the quantum world.
So when a particle decays, photons do not get ‘ejected’ but just get freed. And just like how a horse’s velocity doesn’t get boosted by the velocity of the cart it was driving, a photon’s velocity can’t get boosted by the velocity of the particle that it was moving.