Antichthon, The Forgotten Anti-Earth   4 comments

Etymologically speaking “Antichthon” is a Greek word that literally means “Antiearth”.

The existence of an Antiearth was proposed by the Pythagorean school in the V century B.C. Philolaus of Croton thought that it must exist a planet with an orbit diametrically opposite to the Earth’s orbit. This unknown antisymmetric planet received the name of Antichthon.

But the existence of the Anti-Earth was radically refused by Aristotle. The ptolemaic solar system model defended by Aristotle was the prevailing and it remained unchallenged until the European Renaissance.

Today we preserve unquestioned the solar system model proposed by Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler, and moved by the inertial Newtonian forces.

When Copernicus questioned the solar solar system model that had remained unchallenged almost 20 centuries, he thought about two questions: the enormous complexity reached by the traditional model with the pass of the time, and its anomalous asymmetries, it looked like a monstruos sculpture, in their own words, created by the members of very different creatures.

With the Sun at the middle of the system it acquired an enormous simplicity. And it showed a perfect and circular symmetry. Because for Copernicus first and Galileo later, all planetary orbits were circular. Kepler was convenced about of the circularity of planetary orbits too, but the precises measures that Ticho Brahe got with the recently invented telescopes, showed him that planetary orbits were elliptical. With elliptical orbits, planetary velocities could not be constant as always had been believed. With the Sun on one of the focus of the orbital ellipses, planets necessarily must accelerate when they approximate to the sun at perihelion, and they must decelerate when they move away at their aphelion. This movements were mathematically explained by the Newton Laws.

Now we have a very simple solar system model with a lot of unexplained asymmetries. Because Newton Laws explain planetary movements but not planetary asymmetries. Each planetary orbit has a different eccentricity, they have different planes of inclination, some planets like Venus, Uranus and Pluto have retrogrades movements…

This solar system model is considered unquestionably true almost 500 years later that it was conceived. It seems that our scientists trust in its veracity because we are able to put some machines in some planets and have telescopes in the space. But for us the most important thing is, how many things are we no able to do with this model?

For us, the problem is not that the current solar system model has asymmetries. The problem is that they remains currently unexplained in a mechanical way. Current science do not have a unique and mechanical explanation for all these asymmetries. For us all consequences need a cause. And in this case, for us, this cause must be necessarily mechanical and rational.

Current science only have found some particular explanations for each particular asymmetry. Some of that explanations are simple hypothesis that are accepted without too much difficult by the scientific community because they do not question the accepted and paradigmatic model, they reenforce it. Think about the retrograde movement of Venus, for example and the diverse hypothesis that have been proposed.

We think that exist a unique mechanism that explains all the planetary asymmetries. If Newton laws are able to explain the variable planetary velocities, they should be able to explain why some planets have a retrograde movement on themselves and others do not. They should be able to explain all the fluctuations of planetary axis, and they should be able to explain why all planetary orbits have a different eccentricity, for example.

For us the mechanism that explains all these asymmetries must be exactly the same that explains all the asymmetries at atomic level. Because is not possible that exist two different natures, the micro and macrocosms, with different laws. For us it is not necessary to look for new and unknown laws, it is only necessary to change and to amplify our perspective.

If you have read other posts from this blog, you will know that we think that gravity is a force of pressure and that it vary periodically. All gravitational fields expand and contract periodically with a specific frequency and phase that changes trough the time.

When at least two gravitational fields intersect, they create in their intersection 4 new fields or dimensions. And these new fields can be orbited by different material masses.

We think that planetary movements are not inertial, they are caused by the pushing force produced by the periodical variation of those intersected gravitational fields. When a gravitational fields contracts, it creates an inward movement, and when it expands it creates an upward movement.

I have drawn a picture with two entangled gravitational fields, they would be the gravitational fields of our Earth and a very close and unknown Anti-Erth:


As you can see, we think that our moon does not orbit around the Earth, it is orbiting around one of the fields created by the gravitational field of Earth and Antiearth. It would be a shared gravitational field.

The orbital plane of our Moon fluctuate toward a side and the another at different times and in a different way, depending on the phases of variation from the Earth and the Anti-Earth’s gravitational fields, if they both expand and contract simultaneously, or if one expands when the another contracts an vice versa.

The fields’ curvature are obviously exaggerated. It is known that the Moon’s orbital plane fluctuate only likely 6 degrees toward each side. It is known that Moon perigees and apogees change periodically too.

We are not able (still) to check this model with currently known astronomical datas about distances, orbits, and periodical fluctuations. We do not know (still) where to place each known solar system planet and moon in this model. But here we are suggesting a mechanical explanation about motions and periodical fluctuations. We explain why asymmetries exist with a unique mechanism. Velocities change because of the same gravity that produces the spatial variations, not because another forces. And this mechanisms would be aplicable not only to our Earth and Moon, it would be aplicable to any stellar system and to any atomic molecule.

I have drawn a picture that would represent our solar system. There is a sun in the middle of the system, it is a heliocentric model, but planets do not orbit around the central Sun. There are other 4 suns which their gravitational fields entangled with the gravitational field of the central sun, one by each spatial direction.


We could not see the light of the other suns because of their gravitational curvatures would deviate their light.

The model would be similar to a carbon molecule formed by a central carbon “atom” bounded to 4 other “atoms” that are placed around it. (Here I am speaking about a non mainstream concept of atom as you can see in other post on this blog).


In the picture below you can see where it would be placed each planetary orbit. In each field could exist at least two planets.


Pythagorean thought about the existence of a central Sun and a Anti-Sun too. The existence of antimatter were clearly hypothesized by them 25 centuries before than Paul Dirac did at atomic level.

Do we really think that they have nothing to tell us? Have found our mainstream scientists the antimatter that they are looking for? it is a rethoric question.

Finally I have put below a picture that I put in other previous post about the spiral and infinite structure of the matter:



Publicado febrero 20, 2014 por also65 en Uncategorized

Etiquetado con , , ,

4 Respuestas a “Antichthon, The Forgotten Anti-Earth

Suscríbete a los comentarios mediante RSS.

  1. Alfonso This night i visited antichthon and integrated chiron in that very place in my hand (!) .
    What really struck me was that he, antichthon, had tree moons.
    I’ll write again when i have more suprasensitive visions.
    Best, pierre.

    • Pierre, I have devoted the last four years thinking about the ideas that I have written on this blog. I have discussed with many people about them and I do not care sarcastic comments from those that have never thought anything about physics by themselves. Let me suggest to you start thinking by yourself. Thanks for comment anyway. Regards.

  2. Alfonso, I and other people I know find your theories extraordinarily interesting. Additionally, for all know and have cared to read and find out (having had my curiosity aroused somehow by series Nova’s Brian Greene’s The Elegant Universe series or “The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett” (Scientific American) – I find your mathematical demonstrations align well with some attempts Modern Physics have started in order to explain the missing links in both macro and micro Universe laws. Have you tried to provoke the interest of eminent societies and institutions on these findings? I would recommend you write a book and also write to different Universities and diverse academic societies.

    Juan M. Rodriguez
    • Hi Juan, thank you for you kind comment. I wrote to many universities over the last two years but I did not receive any response. Currently there is a strong stream of people – non professional physicists – thinking by themselves about Nature and creating their own non mainstream theories looking for understanding and approaching to better comprehensions of reality. You can make it too, if you want to, we all are able to think rationally about nature. I suppose all of us are knocking on the door of professional physicists and university academics, and surely they have no time and have adopted a defensive posture too. Furthermore current science has become a very closed and endogamic realm, you need to follow the same academic steps they followed to be heard, to use their own strict academic language to be published, to develop a strong “mathematical” structure to be understood. Most physicists are not used to thinking rationally outside of their mathematical abstractions, many of them are very worried about the development of their own careers and prestiges, many other simply are unable to question the ideas they learned and transformed into scientific believes. But I think we can be optimistic about the coming future, new ideas are coming, we are seeing them even inside of the professional realm, and they will open wider comprehensions of reality soon or later, from a way or another one. The time of Noble prizes and similar fantasies is coming to its end, we already live in the time of the sharing knowledge. I hope we will experience a true new scientific revolution of the same – even larger – magnitud than originated by the European Renaissance, and that our experience of scarcity will be transformed into the experience of the infinite abundance which we already exist without being aware in.
      PD. If you did not read it, maybe you could enjoy a book titled “The Strangest man: The Hidden Life of Paul Dirac”. Kind regards.

Responder a 25 II 1960 Cancelar respuesta

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Google photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Conectando a %s

Este sitio usa Akismet para reducir el spam. Aprende cómo se procesan los datos de tus comentarios .

A %d blogueros les gusta esto: