Kepler is also a hoax

I put this short summary in here to be expanded with the math at a later time.
I had it in a powerpoint but it got all garbled up by MS at some point.
Anyone with basic university engineering math can just go ahead and verify this.
---


Keplers 1st "law" is also a hoax.

Kepler and his freemason buddies took a made-up elliptical orbit of the two central masses (pic. A), simply removed one of the masses (M2) and claimed the same orbit is still physically possible (pic. B). They did this because Tycho Brahe's data indicated to them that stars had a near elliptical movement on the firmament due to tilted rotation around the flat Earth.

To make the hoax, they as usual, use (1) circular reasoning, (2) conservation of energy, (3) conservation of momentum but avoid (4) force balance. Even today, NASA and professors covertly sneak a presumption of elliptical orbit into the math. And, naturally, there are instruction to professors and teachers on "How to teach Kepler", most likely in order for them not to do it in a way that will bust the illusion. They usually start with assuming an elliptical orbit by introducing eccentricity (usually denoted Epsilon) etc. Most cases also assume the same level of energy in the system also in case (B) as in case (A). Then they use the conservation of energy in the end-points (p) and (q) to calculate the speed at (q). They can also use force balance at those points, since they also reside on two different circular orbits around the central mass (M1).

And that's usually it - that is the "proof" you will mostly see in the universities. Of course, it is no way near being a real proof. Add the necessary nonsens answers to questions from the students. This all makes me wonder if professors and teachers really are that stupid or if they are well aware that they are lying.

The most generic polar coordinate math "proofs" out there are very convincing but they all fail at some point by not simultaneously proving (2), (3) and (4).  
They all clearly avoid (4) force-balance everywhere but excatly at the far ends (p) & (q) where the two kinds of orbits (and also the forces) are the same. Because when you also demand force balance everywhere in Kepler's hoax case (B)  and (C), the fake elliptical math implodes and show that ONLY a circular orbit around the one big central mass (M1), is actually stable (physically possible).

Whenever the orbits deviate from a circular one, for instance in/at the red circles in case (B) and (C), there is a definate need to either speed up or break the speed of the planet/moon. With only ONE central mass (M1), accounting for the circular orbit in case (B), there simply is NO OTHER FORCE to to create the additional necessary acceleration from circular orbit (or retardation into it). In the visualization, one can clearly see around point (p) in case (A) and (B), that the satellite planet (m) is (or need to be) more strongly accelerated in the X-direction than in the circular orbit. That is what makes the ellipse orbit more pointy than the circular orbit. - That extra force in the X-direction (along the longer axis of the ellipse) MUST come from somewhere. In case (A) there is the second central mass (M2), but in case (B) and (C) there is none. They took the second mass (M2) away since there is only one Sun in their "solar system", and - ironically - that is why their fake ellipse math implodes. Same is basically true at all other points on these fake non-circular orbits, with the far ends (p) and (q) being the only exceptions.

Just like in all the NASA/Hollywood movies, you would need to have rockets on all "planets" and moons running continuously (with more or less boost) in order to make those non-circular orbits physically possible ANYWHERE.



This all even presuming reality is what they say it is and such rocket engines were even possible to build and there was any way near enough fuel to make them run more than a second. And presuming it would have ANY significant effect on the lava/rock ball Earth. - I am curious, as a comparison, how much reaction drive forward do you usually experience from the excretion of a miniscule squirt of sweat in one of the pores of the skin on your back? -Enough to drive you home from work? Or at least accross the room? - just asking. It's called "science fiction" for a reason ...

Of course NASA and the masonic liars have tried (and failed) to muddy the waters by, for instance tampering with the concept of mass, into "effective mass". Some try use the excuse that the gravitational force varies with distance from (M1), but it cannot explain this because at/near a circular orbit, the distance is basically constant. There is also a clear mismatch between the distance between the orbit and (M1) around (p) versus the force required.  Especially near (p). And yes, someone argue that the eccentricity of the "real" orbits are low (nearly circular), but that does not change the basic physicality of the situation. All elliptical orbits require two central-force sources if those are to account for the supposed "science" - one in each focus.



And to put a BIG final nail in this whole hoax, ALL of the above ideas and math presumes a stationary sun(!) Certainly not one that shoots in some kind of non-linear (accelerated) orbit around a center of a "galaxy". The Earth is not experiencing the same "gravity" from the galaxy as the sun does since it is nearly always either closer or more distant to the center of "gravity" of the "galaxy".

Same is true, in the earth-moon scenario. The moon would be completely incapable of following an accelerated earth. Yet, that is EXACTLY what the sun-worshipers are claiming(!) - That the moon is always experiencing the same "gravity" from the sun as the earth is. Even that this "gravity" force is then magically stronger when the the moon is at its furthest point away from the sun(!), since it manages to push the moon further forward in earths direction of speed, than it does when the moon is at its closest distance to the sun(!). - the spiral of movement of the moon cannot be uniform if the earth is in a curved orbit around the sun.

Amazing that these black-magic visual chantings actually passes for "science".
These occult priests are even contradicting their own statements about the nature of their "gravity".

Ultimately there are NO stable non-circular orbits (elliptical, egg-shaped or otherwise), even in a stationary single-source central-force concept like this.
Not for the Earth, not for the moon and not for the Sun in any "Galaxy". And of course, that is ALL assuming Newton's pulling "gravity" is not also the complete hoax that it is.

- It's all one big pile lies upon lies ...