Physicist Stephen Hawking Thinks to Replace God with an M-Theory

The Hawking and Dawkins assault on our belief in the existence of God.





Following on from the determined efforts by one of the most famous atheistic scientist of our times, Richard Dawkins, to discredit religion once and for all in his book God Delusion, theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking has declared that his latest work shows that there was no creator of the universe.



Stephen Hawking solemnly declared, prior to the publication of his brand new book The Grand Design (September 2010), that God did not create the universe. The point is, he says, that our universe followed inevitably from the laws of nature.


Does Hawking’s ‘scientific encyclical’ finally pronounce doom upon all theology, just as Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason was said to have done in the case of metaphysics, thereby bringing it completely to an end?


And just what are these alleged ‘laws of nature’? From whence did they emanate?


The German scientist-philosopher Immanuel Kant (d. 1804), though he probably retained his belief in God, was forced to conclude - due to the logic of his quirky epistemology (or how knowledge is acquired) - that all intellectual proofs for the existence of God were invalid and that all metaphysical contentions were groundless. Richard Dawkins, by contrast, is a virulent atheist who is on a hell-bent mission to destroy all belief in God.


Stephen Hawking for his part, who has met with the most recent two popes, is perhaps more ambiguous than Dawkins. Hawking has, in his search for the ‘theory of everything’ - a preoccupation of scientists today - referred to ‘God’ in such fashion that one might have been led to conclude that he does actually think that God exists.


Thus prize-winning author, Graham Farmelo, has commented:

It is perhaps a bit rich for Hawking to make God redundant after granting him/her/it a celebrity cameo at the end of his multi-million selling A Brief History of Time. In his famous conclusion to the book, Hawking wrote that if scientists could find the most fundamental laws of nature "then we should know the mind of God".
But then Farmelo adds: “To be fair, he was writing metaphorically – we all know what he meant”.
Hawking, according to Dr. H. ‘Fritz’ Schaefer of the University of Colorado,

… is probably the most famous living scientist. His book, A Brief History of Time, is available in paperback …. It has sold in excess of 10 million copies, and I think he sold about five million before the paperback version. For a book to sell so many copies is almost unheard of in the history of science writing.


There has been a film made about the book. The film is also good. There has even been a book made about the film. Hawking has a wonderful sense of humor. He writes in the introduction of the second book, "This is the book of the film of the book. I don't know if they are planning a film of the book of the film of the book." [Schaefer’s 1994 lecture, University of Colorado, “Stephen Hawking, The Big Bang, and God”]



A Brief History of Time is considered to be the most popular book about cosmology ever written.


Stephen Hawking has claimed in his writings that "the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," and a less well-known cosmologist, Professor Alan Guth from MIT, says the "instant of creation remains unexplained." Indeed, the kind of science done by Stephen Hawking and others has an almost religious ring to it. He and his colleagues are trying to find the patterns in the basic fabric of reality – the mathematical laws that they believe govern the workings of nature at its finest level.



But can physics, which admittedly has delivered such great technological benefits to our modern world, serve also to determine for us whether or not God exists?


And are the new physical scientists legitimately able to take the place of the theologians and the metaphysicians?


Should we now consider that the traditional view of a rational knowledge above (supra) physics and serving as a handmaid to theology has been rendered obsolete, just as scientists tell us has been the fate also of the traditional cosmology?


Certainly Richard Dawkins would say so.


________________________________________


Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world. "The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." --U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991.




But Dawkins’s virulence is now starting to annoy even his fellow atheists. Thus David Penberthy, writing for Sydney’s Daily Telegraph (16th September, pp. 66-67), and entitling his article, “Atheist zealots a heavy cross to bear”, contrasts the approach of Dawkins with the milder form of American physicist Bobby Anderson, who has mischievously suggested that Earth has been created by a flying spaghetti monster, and who has requested for his ‘religion’, which he calls Pastafarianism, to be included in the Kansas curriculum:

For Anderson, what started as the highly specific ridicule of teaching theological nonsense as science has now ballooned into a more generalised form of juvenile abuse towards anyone who believes in God. ….
Yet Anderson is a paragon of non-believer civility compared to the brilliant English scientist and celebrity atheist Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene and other books on human evolution and natural selection.
A few years ago Dawkins fired off a particularly narky text – The God Delusion – which became a best-seller ….


The God Delusion starts off promising a reasoned and scientific examination of why there is no God and can be no God, but soon descends into schoolyard teasing of the flying spaghetti monster variety.
Anyone who saw Dawkins’ bullying effort on the ABC’s Q & A last year would recall the manner in which he continually interrupted and shouted down other panellists who disputed his view.


The irony here is that the thing which has always fired up atheists, such as me, is a dislike of the righteousness which many religious people display.


There is an impertinence at the centre of religion, namely the conviction that your God is the one and only and that everyone else is deluded in following a rival God or no God at all.


But this spiritual impertinence can be found in equal measure among many atheists, with the latest entrant to their number being none other than Australia’s own Koran-smoking Bible-inhaler [Brisbane legal academic Alex] Stewart.
… If [all] this is the best atheists can do it’s no wonder some of us are thinking about taking our non-faith and quietly returning to the closet.

Stephen Hawking apparently has no intention of doing this. Whilst being less bullying than Dawkins and less blatantly offensive than Alex Stewart, Hawking has now emphatically joined their chorus, if he wasn’t there already before. According to Farmelo’s assessment, God and all that pertains to Him has been rejected by Hawking, and has been replaced with Hawking’s view of a scientific explanation:

[Hawking] now suggests that the search for this particular Holy Grail is over, now that scientists have come up with a type of theory, known as M-theory, that may describe the behaviour of all the fundamental particles and force, and even account for the very birth of the universe. If this theory is backed up by experiment, it might perhaps replace all religious accounts of creation – in Hawking's capacious mind, it already has.

But: “One problem with the theory”, Farmelo believes, “is that it looks as though it will be extremely difficult to test, unless physicists can build a particle accelerator the size of a galaxy”. Yes that is quite a problem.
And Farmelo adds: “Even if the experimenters find a way round this and M-theory passes all their tests, the reasons for the mathematical order at the heart of the universe's order would remain an unsolvable mystery”.
But Farmelo, despite his caution, can still say:

There is plenty of evidence that these [scientific] laws hold good all the way back to the beginning of time, which is how scientists have put together an extremely detailed and well-tested theory of the Big Bang, the first few minutes of the universe. The Large Hadron Collider will soon be reproducing, at will, the conditions in the universe within a billionth of a second of the beginning of time.

And hence, he believes, the tendency for scientists to theologise:

This has led writers to invest these experiments with a theological significance. The distinguished experimenter Leon Lederman labelled the Higgs particle, being sought at the Collider, as the God Particle, with no good reason except as a hook to promote his book, which he named after it.

“Yet these experiments will tell us nothing about God”, Farmelo concludes. “They will simply steer us towards an improved theoretical understanding of our material universe, ultimately in terms of principles set out in mathematics”.
Such are the firm opinions of scientists and even apparently of those who consider that God does exist. And even certain scientists who like to regard themselves philosophically as Thomists, or vice versa, can be found amongst those who think that the laws of theoretical physics are actually uncovering the secrets of nature.
But are they?
Though scientists with a firm belief in God would place Him above all this, so Farmelo believes:

Even religious scientists – and there are still a few – never use the God concept in their scientific work. Perhaps it is time for a moratorium on the use of the concept in popularisations, too? This would avoid mixing up scientific and non-scientific statements and put an end to the consequent confusions. I think it wise for scientists and religious believers to keep out of each other's territory – no good has come out of their engagement and I suspect it never will.

Indeed, the matter is far too vast to be explained by a popular writer such as Farmelo. And so he is forced to a pacifist kind of conclusion that the best tactic is for scientists and people of faith just to stay right out of each other’s way and thereby avoid an almighty clash.
A philosopher of scientist, on the other hand, will need to face the key issues squarely and try to provide answers to the kinds of questions being posed in this article; for example, whether scientists really are entitled to go as far as they are now going in terms of theologising? This question takes us to the very heart of modern science.
The world in which the typical physicist moves is a world of great order and beauty. And it has its own distinctive mathematically based language. But is it also the real world, as the physicists are now claiming - given their pontifications - and is the language that they talk, and use to communicate amongst themselves, really a grammar of nature? Are scientists really discovering laws about nature, or are they in actual fact writing their own laws into nature? This has become a fundamental question of our age, the answer to which is imperative if we are to defend - or are still to see the need to bother to defend - all of the bygone traditions. And Dawkins and Hawking, who have brought the science-religion debate right back into the limelight, and who seem to be carrying the day, have made all the more urgent the answer to such questions, touching on the very nature of modern physics.
Since these are philosophical questions, it would be normal to expect that only those well schooled in philosophy would be in a position to tackle them. Physics is a highly rigorous and demanding world of its own, and one must wonder if someone as fully absorbed in it as a Stephen Hawking could have the time and the inclination also to master philosophy. Can such people be objective enough about their own science to be able to philosophise about what it really is? We know that creative people, such as artists and writers, can sometimes be the worst people to commentate about their own output - so immersed are they in what they are doing. It is often necessary for informed critics instead to provide that objective assessment of their creative work. And the very same applies to physics. Those who do physics are not necessarily those who know what physics is. To explain it, to classify it properly in the order of being, is the task of genuine philosophers of science. About two centuries ago, Immanuel Kant, a professional philosopher (though by no means a Thomist) with a deep knowledge also of science and mathematics, was able to make such an assessment and to say what the new physicists were actually doing. These, he said were actively imposing their a priori laws of nature upon the world (as opposed to the traditional scientists who had looked to study the world as it is). Thus the new physicists were, contrary to what they themselves imagined, engaging with nature only at the end rather than at the very beginning (if at all).
So the answer to our questions concerning whether or not physicists such as Stephen Hawking and his colleagues, in their trying to find the patterns in the basic fabric of reality, are actually revealing true laws of nature, and whether the new physics can justifiably be said to render obsolete God and theology, is an emphatic No. These people, as physicists, live in their own little theoretical worlds and communicate the one to the other with their fantastic mathematics and complex equations. It is to a great extent a world of science fiction. Perhaps it is fitting, therefore, that that other scientist (non physicist though) whom we have had cause to mention, Richard Dawkins, is married to an actress, Sarah “Lalla” Ward who became known from her appearances as Time Lady Romana in the British science fiction favourite, DR WHO.
Rather fittingly, then, John Cornwell tells that “the encomiums on the dust-jacket [of The God Delusion] feature a line-up of writers in the realm of fantasy fiction” (Darwin’s Angel, p. 10). The mathematical laws devised by physicists like Hawking are not laws of reality, but laws by which nature can be quantified and harnessed for utilitarian and scientific purposes. This was well understood by another philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein (d. 1951), when he wrote in his Tractatus Logico-philosophicus (6.341), in relation to the science of Sir Isaac Newton, that the Newtonian mechanics tell us nothing about the world: but what does tell us something about the world is the precise way in which it is able to be described by these means.
The real existence of many of the elements and particles so fundamental to modern science has never been proven. The same applies to Dark Matter. Recent newspaper articles carried headings such as “Dark matter discovery hopes raised at US mine”, but nothing has been proven. These elements belong to the world of artifacts, partly included in the ancient notion of entia rationis, or objects of thought incapable of existing outside the mind. It is a very low platform level of being indeed from which to presume to mount a Tower of Babel-like challenge against God the Supreme Being.
In time one great system of physics, such as Newton’s - in its day considered to be set in stone - will be rendered obsolete and will be replaced by another, more practically useful (for prediction purposes) model.
That is proof enough that modern physics is not fixed.
Farmelo (op. cit.) says somewhat similarly:

Science and religion are about fundamentally different things. No religion has ever been rendered obsolete by facts or observations, but this happens to most scientific theories, at least in the long run. Science advances over the wreckage of its theories by continually putting theoretical ideas to experimental test; no matter how beautiful a theoretical idea might be, it must be discarded if it is at odds with experiment. Like any other human activity, science has flaws and does not always flow smoothly, but no one can seriously doubt the progress it has made in helping us understand the world and in helping to underpin technology. A useful characteristic of a scientific theory is that it must be possible, at least in principle, for experimenters to prove it wrong. Newton and Darwin, two of the greatest theoreticians, both set out ideas in this way, putting their heads on Nature's chopping block. In Newton's case, at least, his ideas have been superseded after proving inadequate in some circumstances. Unlike many religions, science has no final authority; the Royal Society, the UK academy of sciences, expresses this neatly in its motto "Take nobody's word for it". No religion has ever been set out in terms of scientific statements.
….
The most famous atheist scientist of our times is the fearless Richard Dawkins, whose God Delusion set out to discredit religion once and for all. For him, it was Darwin's theory of evolution that dealt the fatal blow to religious belief. Powerful and eloquent though it was, religion continues to flourish, and scientists (albeit a minority) continue to go to church, just as Galileo, Newton, Faraday and others have done in the past. I suspect that none of them would have abandoned their respective faiths after reading Dawkins (admittedly, not a scientific statement). Religions will survive so long as they steer clear of making statements that can be shown to be factually wrong.
Yet this is where religion can sneak back into the picture. Einstein, to the frustration of many of his colleagues, was fond of referring to God when he was talking about the laws expressing the fundamental harmonies of the universe. As Dawkins rightly stresses, it is quite clear that Einstein did not think of God as a white-bearded benefactor capable of interfering with the functioning of the universe. Rather, Einstein followed closely the views of the philosopher Spinoza, for whom the concept of God is an expression of the underlying unity of the universe, something so wondrous that it can command a spiritual awe.
Einstein's views were largely shared by his acquaintance Paul Dirac, the greatest English theoretician since Newton. Dirac, like Newton and Hawking, held the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge University. For Dirac, the greatest mystery of the universe was that its most fundamental laws can be expressed in terms of beautiful mathematical equations [sic]. Towards the end of his life, in the 1970s and early 1980s, Dirac often said that mathematical beauty "is almost a religion to me".
As a young man, he was an outspoken atheist, drawing his colleague Wolfgang Pauli to comment, "There is no God and Dirac is his prophet." Decades later, in 1963, Dirac was happy to use theological imagery: "God is a mathematician of a very high order." He was speaking metaphorically, but we know what he meant.
Yet I think it is misleading, especially when talking about science to non-specialists, to play fast and loose with the idea of God.

Scientists can tend to re-cast ‘God’ according to their own mathematico-scientific proclivities.
A very good account of the limitations of modern science, and how it can lead us away from reality, can be found in the Internet article beginning on p. 23 below, “The ‘Rotating’ Earth”. For, as will be argued there:

Heliocentricity not only remains unproven, but the Newtonian physics which [was] its main support [is] being openly questioned, if not discredited, ever since Maurice Allais and others have shown experimentally that Newton’s theory of gravity can no longer account for proven facts. ....
Whether the earth rotates once a day from West to East as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from East to West, as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. That shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption which can never be proved or disproved by observation.

Stephen Hawking is complex. He had married a Christian, Jane, who made the statement in 1986, "Without my faith in God, I wouldn't have been able to live in this situation;" namely, the deteriorating health of her husband. "I would not have been able to marry Stephen in the first place because I wouldn't have had the optimism to carry me through and I wouldn't have been able to carry on with it." After she and Hawking divorced in the early 1990s she revealed that one of the reasons was his scorn for religion.
Hawking has met with two popes. Here is his account of a meeting with John Paul II:

Stephen Hawking says pope told him not to study
beginning of universe

HONG KONG (AP) – World-renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said Thursday that the late Pope John Paul II once told scientists that they should not study the beginning of the universe because it was the work of God.
Hawking, author of the best-seller, A Brief History of Time, said that that John Paul made the comment at a cosmology conference at the Vatican. ....
Hawking quoted the pope as saying, “It’s OK to study the universe and where it began. But we should not inquire into the beginning itself because that was the moment of creation and the work of God”.
The scientist then joked that he was glad John Paul did not realize that he had presented a paper at the conference suggesting how the universe began.
“I didn’t fancy the thought of being handed over to the Inquisition like Galileo”.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-06-15-hawking_x.htm

John Paul II was quite right. Hawking and his colleagues will never replicate the beginning, nor understand it through their physics. Our world is the poorer for, not science with its fascinations and triumphs, but for today’s complete obsession with the very lowest levels of being to the detriment of our studying the far more fascinating realm of higher being, of all that pertains to God and things spiritual.

The “Rotating” Earth Theory, Fact or Fiction?

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!

--Sir Walter Scott


Taken from: http://sites.google.com/site/abafte/geo


Throughout ancient times it was obvious that the moon went around the earth. This is still accepted today. But in the past it was just as obvious that the sun went around the earth as well. This was not because men in those days lacked fantasy and forgot to imagine non-existent movements of themselves and their surroundings. It is because they did their homework and examined all the evidence before them, that they came to the understanding that the earth was a firm, motionless sphere, neither in rotation around itself nor wandering through space around another body.

This geostatic and geocentric nature of the earth was repeatedly tested and verified as being factual for a quite some time (going back thousands of years) by knowledgeable, civilized, free people of all stripes, i.e. those who were supposed to know, like astronomers, natural philosophers (a.k.a. scientists), explorers, teachers, traders, seamen, navigators and various other free and educated men (as opposed to schooled, wage enslaved, homogenized, "experts" of modern times who wouldn't dare bite the hand that feeds them).

Then, all of a sudden, just 400 plus years ago, a band of court astrologers started pushing this idea that the earth was orbiting the sun this time, and that the sun was standing still at the center (hence the claim of the system being a 'solar' system). Nevertheless this new claim was not accompanied by any new proof. It was simply invoked and declarations were made that the fixed nature of earth needed to be disapproved.

Then, various kinds of earth movements were claimed to have existence and, subsequently abstract calculations were made of the speed and other attributes of these imaginary movements - presenting the results as if they have measured an actual motion. The major and in fact the only reason that was brought up for advancing this whole idea was that the then mainstream Ptolemaic model of the universe was deemed inconvenient in explaining and predicting the movements of the planets as they appear in the sky (especially one particular kind of movement: the retrograde motion of the planets in the sky).

But all along it was (and still is) a fact that a stationary earth, situated at the center of the universe also accounts for those retrograde motions, as shown by astronomer Tycho Brahe for example. And, although Ptolemy's epicyclical system was the long established one, it did not have exclusive monopoly. There were many ideas and models in circulation - like those of Pythagoras, Philolaus, Jean Buridan, Martianus Capella, Nicholas of Cusa and René Descartes to name a few.

After all, even Copernicus' own system was by his own admission (read his original, i.e. the first edition of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium) nothing more than a synoptic rehash of the already-existing diverse (part geocentric, part heliocentric, fire centric, animal centric...) ideas of men like Hicetas, Ecphantus, Heraclides and Aristarchus.

So then, all those years - and right up to now – nobody has ever succeeded in showing or even detecting any movement of the earth in space. However this complete lack of scientific evidence is not admitted. Instead a smokescreen of hearsays, popular opinions, organizational rulings, majority votes, superficial analogies, "expert" testimonies, personal convictions and such other means of persuasion (none of which qualify as scientific proof) are proposed and presented in order to support the heliocentric theory.

Heliocentricity is not a logically plausible (let alone irrefutable) theory that is based on scientific data but is actually, purely based on a series of assumptions that were built-up over the last 200 years. For example many (but not all) of the assertions regarding astronomical distances between celestial bodies are based on the necessary assumption that the earth must be revolving around the sun.

But at the same time, these assumed distances have another function whereby they are deployed as some sort of supportive argument for the "trueness" of the heliocentric hypothesis. For example we are told that sun is too big to revolve around the earth, despite the fact that the sun's size was determined in the first place by assuming how big it must have to be in order to allow a heliocentric premise! .... Other needed assumptions include:

■ the bendover earth (alleged 'tilt' of the earth's axis - a desperately needed heliocentric variable that has no basis in the physical world where the sun simply spirals from the Tropic of Cancer to the Tropic of Capricorn annually. Both of these tropic latitude lines are not tilted - they are at a 0° angle (= parallel) to the equator. The word "tropic" itself comes from the Greek term tropos, meaning turn, referring to the fact that the sun "turns back" at these lines that aren't tilted in any way,

■ the earth supposedly jittering around the sun at various speed levels (it orbits at a faster speed at one time, and then it goes relatively slower at another - then back faster again) but somehow, all this alleged speed-change remains unnoticeable),

■ the moon also being dragged along exactly at those same speed levels (100% complete synchronization with the wobbly earth despite being hundreds of thousands of miles away from it(!) Now how about that?,

■ even atmospheric gas (the air) being attached to the earth's surface (again completely synchronized but somehow (simultaneously) free-flowing enough to blow in every direction).

These are just samples of the never shown, never detected, never scientifically observed absurdities that are required to save the appearances of the heliocentric model.

Facts are facts

Heliocentrists have been known to point to certain geophysical and astronomical features as arguments which they claim supports their sun-centered view. For example they claim that the Cape Canaveral area in Florida is chosen as a site for NASA's rocket launch center because it is one of the more southern points on the U.S. mainland and therefore closest to the equator.

The same argument comes up regarding the reason why Europe's rocket launch center is located in French Guyana (in South America). There is supposed to be an advantage to being close to the equator when the goal is to get a vehicle into orbit: the "rotating" earth supposedly creates a centrifugal force that supposedly "lifts" the missiles. Well, the truth is that there is no real advantage: China's Jiuquan space center is found all the way up in the far north of the country (Inner Mongolia province). Why did the Chinese choose this site, when they have vast territory much further south which is closer to the equator? In fact, portions of southern China are closer to the equator than to the northern cosmodrome, from where they toss their taikonauts into orbit. The Russians are also reported to be developing a new space launch facility, which will be located much north of the current Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. This all means that a rocket launched tangentially from the Earth's equator doesn't really provide a more advantageous escape-velocity!

Getting closer to the supposed existence of an "equatorial centrifugal force" on the surface of the "rotating" earth (and other bogus heliocentric claims) is like getting closer and closer to an apparent pool of water in the desert: it dissolves and disappears right before your eyes in a spectacular fashion!

Another bogus argument that some solar system advocates bring up from time to time is inertia and momentum. What is it that the moving-earth theorists believe is the substance (or the vector field) that supposedly exerts a huge gravitational force on air molecules which prevents the atmosphere around the earth from trailing behind the allegedly speeding earth (as is the case for comets)? Their answer?: Nothing. Instead, heliocentrists usually propose a fraudulent analogy of how the earth's motion is comparable with some person walking inside a moving train. They claim that since the walker inside the train feels more or less the same as he or she feels when walking on the ground that somehow is supposed to reassure us that the earth could also be moving without we feeling it.

The problem with this analogy is of course the fact that once the person inside the train opens a window and faces the elements, he or she will feel it soon enough what the real speed is that the train is traveling at! Therefore the only correct analogy for someone walking on the ground of earth is someone walking in an open train or better yet - on the roof of a moving train. What will happen then?

Well, the person will instantly encounter a force that is proportional and in opposite direction to the moving train. But why? Isn't the surrounding air supposed to be following the train, just as we are told the atmosphere is allegedly doing so by keeping-up with the supposedly faster-than-bullet rotating earth? Looks like heliocentrists have decided to suspend the laws of physics (aerodynamics) just for this case of a badly needed moving earth theory!

But still somehow, this law of motion is supposed to apply in all other cases of moving things in the universe?! This contradiction is quietly adopted in order to hide the fact that there is a force that is causing an air drag or friction that wasn't there before the train arrived. The friction with the earth's surface wasn't there because, unlike the train, the earth didn't move!

Getting to the top (and bottom) of it

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... modern non-applied science has become nothing more than manipulative indulgence in fancy "thought experiments" and abstract, fuzzy math which have no relation to reality.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The star whose location is closest to the point vertically above north pole (= celestial pole) is Polaris, a.k.a. the North Star, around which all the other stars appear to rotate (as visible during the night). Now, why is it that only one single star is a pole star throughout the whole year? All kinds of other stars should have taken turn to become pole stars if the earth was slinging around the sun. But since that is not the case and Polaris remains the most northerly of the stars all year round, as seen on photographs of star-trails (see below), it can only mean that the earth is not orbiting the sun. Moreover, a moving and orbiting earth would have caused the paths of stars to appear as (spiral) lines instead of fully circular tracks that we observe night after night, and consequently the shapes of the constellations would have changed considerably over the course of a single year. So what we're looking at is what is real - WYSIWYG: stars orbiting the Earth once a sidereal day, i.e. the time it takes for a celestial object to rotate 360°. For the stars around the Earth this is: 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.091 seconds.

Truth has a way of being indestructible. It may or may not be popular at any given time, it may even be barely noticeable, but it is always there. And it turns out that the truth actually gets in the way of "science"! Modern theoretical (non-applied a.k.a 'pure') physics is not really science-driven but agenda-driven. It is populated with heavily politicized academia. It has become nothing much more than a sham propaganda-exercise of empty eloquence with false authority. The inventor of the electric world we live in, Nikola Tesla was spot-on when he remarked that modern non-applied science has become nothing more than manipulative indulgence in fancy "thought experiments" and abstract, fuzzy math which have no relation to reality. Instead of the theories being made to fit reality, what we have is the opposite: reality being adjusted or in fact completely overthrown, in order to fit agenda-driven theories and models.

A case in point is the time when an astronomer called James Bradley (1693-1762) used his colleague/boss Samuel Molyneux's telescope and had proposed that during one year a star that was right over where he was based in London (called Gamma Draconis) traced out a small ellipse. This was used to support the heliocentric argument that the earth had an elliptical orbit around the sun. The physicist, astronomer and mathematician Ruggero Giuseppe Boscovich (1711-1781) wanted to find out if Bradley's hypothesis was correct and proposed that a telescope filled with water (where light will travels slower in the water) and directed at the star should result in the observed ellipses becoming larger at the same rate of times if the Earth was moving. (Consequently if it would make no difference then the earth would be stationary).

This scientific experiment wasn't carried out though. Another scientist, François Dominique Arago (1786-1853) put a sheet of glass under his telescope and observed that when he moved the glass, the starlight image that he was looking through refracted and moved along with it. Arago expected that there would be a range of different angles of refraction since the earth is supposedly on the move, i.e. there should be a variety of different movements because of the positions and velocities of the earth at different times of the day and year.

The result however contradicted the expectation: there were no variations at different times of the year. Then sometime later one George Biddle Airy (1801-1892) decided to try out Boscovich's idea of a water filled telescope in order to test Bradleys heliocentric aberration theory about a century after it was first proposed. He discovered that there was no change in the aberration through the refracting water in a supposedly "moving" earth. Airy didn't observe a larger eclipse and subsequently the experiment was declared a "failure". So that's why it is now commonly called Airy's Failure. Funny that - it was of course a failure in terms of failing to prove heliocentrism. So what did it show then? It showed that only one side was moving and since that was the star side, it means the earth was stationary all along! In 1887, was one of the most important experiments in the history of physics and was performed by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University. This interferometer experiment is usually referred to as the Michelson–Morley experiment.

Since the Earth is in motion, it was expected that the flow of aether across the Earth should produce a detectable aether drift, which the specially built interferometer would measure. Although it would be possible for the earth's motion to match that of the ether at one moment in time, it was not possible for the earth to remain at rest with respect to the aether at all times, because of the variation in both the direction and the speed of the earth's motion. The so-called null result of the experiment could not be reconciled with the assumption that the earth was moving. Similar other experiments were subsequently carried out (eg. the Trouton–Noble experiment). After 17 years of crisis (the only and dreaded alternative being admitting that the earth is at rest) an obscure office clerk from Basel, Switzerland offered a third way "final solution" to the sun-warped Victorian world at the dawn of a new century: the end of physical reality in physics!

But contrary to many superficial assumptions the geostatic and geocentric view never died out. For example, right up until after World War I (1920) there were organizations out there which openly refused to accept the Copernican/Galilean perspective. The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod was one of those to whom the sun-centered-universe idea didn't held sway.

In other words it took a civilization-devastating world war in order to finally push Geocentric cosmology out of mainstream view in the developed world. But that was only a prelude to the resurgence of it during the postwar period by many distinguished professionals: Walter van de Kamp (The Heart of the Matter), Gerardus D. Bouw (With Every Wind of Doctrine & De Labore Solis ), Marshall and Sandra Hall, Malcolm Bowden, James Hanson (A New Interest in Geocentricity), Paul Ellwanger, Richard G. Elmendorf (Heliocentric Humbug! A critical investigation of the Foucault Pendulum), Edward F. Hills (Space Age Science), Robert Bennett, Robert Sungenis... and so on. The following is a description on the recent history of the systems of the cosmos by a woman author, Paula Haigh:

"To begin with, there are presently at least five good sources for obtaining the truth on this important matter of geocentricity. The first of these is included in the extensive scientific work of the French Catholic scholar, Fernand Crombette (d.1970). His works have not yet been translated but some of them have been expounded in English, and all may be obtained from the Cercle Scientifique et Historique [CESHE]. 'The Bible does not make mistakes' was the watchword of this gifted Catholic scientist.

Secondly, there is the first-rate paper by Solange Hertz entitled Recanting Galileo. Mrs. Hertz's work always possesses a spiritual dimension not to be found anywhere else. It is her unique gift. Thirdly, there is the work of the Dutch [-Canadian] Protestant scholar, Walter van der Kamp (d 1998), founder of the Tychonian Society (Canada) and its quarterly journal, The Biblical Astronomer, formerly known as The Bulletin of the Tychonian Society. Mr. Van der Kamp has published a book entitled De Labore Solis: Airy's Failure Reconsidered [1988]... Fourthly, a disciple of Mr. Van Der Kamp, Dr. Gerardus Bouw, professional astronomer, computer scientist and current editor of The Biblical Astronomer, has authored a book entitled With Every Wind of Doctrine: Biblical, Historical, and Scientific Perspectives of Geocentricity. One must beware, however, of Dr. Bouw's very anti-Catholic prejudices, which sometimes cause him to distort history.

Lastly, there has recently appeared The Earth is Not Moving by Marshall Hall. His is a quintessentially popular treatment of this difficult subject, and he must be given much credit for bringing the arena of modern mathematical physics down to the level of us scientifically illiterate mortals. Whatever may be the shortcomings of Hall's book, it is impossible not to enjoy his literary panache.

Needless to say, none of these works is known beyond a very limited circle of interested people because, contrary to the generally-held media-imposed assessment of things, there is very little real science these days. Instead, we labor beneath a scientific imperialism which, having usurped the place of theology and of metaphysics in the true hierarchy of sciences, puts upon unwitting school children and witless TV addicts, its own preferred heliocentric-evolutionary ideology into which it bends every empirical fact. This monstrous establishment of academic sophistry lords it over every aspect of intellectual life today and has succeeded in convincing almost everyone that this science falsely so called is the sole possessor and distributor of all truth and rationality.

But the truth is irrepressible and will break forth from under the dead weight of error willy-nilly, sometimes here, sometimes there, as in a footnote in Bernard Cohen's The Birth of a New Physics. Artfully hidden among some details of Galileo's life, we find this gem of an admission: 'There is no planetary observation by which we on earth can prove that the earth is moving in an orbit around the sun.' Sir Fred Hoyle is quoted by Walter van der Kamp in his book as admitting that the geocentric model of the universe is no worse and no better than the heliocentric one. The works listed above cite many other similar admissions of like nature by scientists of our time."

Dr. Robert Sungenis highlights the sophistry that is required in order to maintain the current absurd belief in Heliocentrism:

"The 'quasars' are what led people like [Stephen] Hawking to notice that the Earth was in the center of the universe. [James Clerk] Maxwell said there was absolute space, the basis of Geocentrism, and his equations prove it. Einstein said no. You argue with them. As for Einstein, if you want to believe that lengths shrink when an object moves, time changes in the process, and its mass increases, just so you can explain the anomalies of Michelson's experiment, that's your privilege, but I'd just assume to answer it by saying that mass, time and length stay the same and the Earth isn't moving, and I'm just as "scientific" as you for saying so." ....

The truth is... stranger than fiction. --Lord Byron

Readers are encouraged to read the entire article: http://sites.google.com/site/abafte/geo

An end to Black Holes

The "Rotating" Earth..

Theory, Fact or Fiction?

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive! --Sir Walter Scott



Throughout ancient times it was obvious that the moon went around the earth. This is still accepted today. But in the past it was just as obvious that the sun went around the earth as well. This was not because men in those days lacked fantasy and forgot to imagine non-existent movements of themselves and their surroundings. It is because they did their homework and examined all the evidence before them, that they came to the understanding that the earth was a firm, motionless sphere, neither in rotation around itself nor wandering through space around another body.



This geostatic and geocentric nature of the earth was repeatedly tested and verified as being factual for a quite some time (going back thousands of years) by knowledgeable, civilized, free people of all stripes, i.e. those who were supposed to know, like astronomers, natural philosophers (a.k.a. scientists), explorers, teachers, traders, seamen, navigators and various other free and educated men (as opposed to schooled, wage enslaved, homogenized, "experts" of modern times who wouldn't dare bite the hand that feeds them).



Then, all of a sudden, just 400 plus years ago, a band of court astrologers started pushing this idea that the earth was orbiting the sun this time, and that the sun was standing still at the center (hence the claim of the system being a 'solar' system). Nevertheless this new claim was not accompanied by any new proof. It was simply invoked and declarations were made that the fixed nature of earth needed to be disapproved.



Then, various kinds of earth movements were claimed to have existence and, subsequently abstract calculations were made of the speed and other attributes of these imaginary movements - presenting the results as if they have measured an actual motion. The major and in fact the only reason that was brought up for advancing this whole idea was that the then mainstream Ptolemaic model of the universe was deemed inconvenient in explaining and predicting the movements of the planets as they appear in the sky (especially one particular kind of movement: the retrograde motion of the planets in the sky).



But all along it was (and still is) a fact that a stationary earth, situated at the center of the universe also accounts for those retrograde motions, as shown by astronomer Tycho Brahe for example. And, although Ptolemy's epicyclical system was the long established one, it did not have exclusive monopoly. There were many ideas and models in circulation - like those of Pythagoras, Philolaus, Jean Buridan, Martianus Capella, Nicholas of Cusa and René Descartes to name a few.



After all, even Copernicus' own system was by his own admission (read his original, i.e. the first edition of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium) nothing more than a synoptic rehash of the already-existing diverse (part geocentric, part heliocentric, fire centric, animal centric...) ideas of men like Hicetas, Ecphantus, Heraclides and Aristarchus. So then, all those years - and right up to now - nobody has ever succeeded in showing or even detecting any movement of the earth in space.


However this complete lack of scientific evidence is not admitted. Instead a smokescreen of hearsays, popular opinions, organizational rulings, majority votes, superficial analogies, "expert" testimonies, personal convictions and such other means of persuasion (none of which qualify as scientific proof) are proposed and presented in order to support the heliocentric theory.




Heliocentricity is not a logically plausible (let alone irrefutable) theory that is based on scientific data but is actually, purely based on a series of assumptions that were built-up over the last 200 years. For example many (but not all) of the assertions regarding astronomical distances between celestial bodies are based on the necessary assumption that the earth must be revolving around the sun.



But at the same time, these assumed distances have another function whereby they are deployed as some sort of supportive argument for the "trueness" of the heliocentric hypothesis. For example we are told that sun is too big to revolve around the earth, despite the fact that the sun's size was determined in the first place by assuming how big it must have to be in order to allow a heliocentric premise! Go figure. Other needed assumptions include:




■ the bendover earth (alleged 'tilt' of the earth's axis - a desperately needed heliocentric variable that has no basis in the physical world where the sun simply spirals from the Tropic of Cancer to the Tropic of Capricorn annually. Both of these tropic latitude lines are not tilted - they are at a 0° angle (= parallel) to the equator. The word "tropic" itself comes from the Greek term tropos, meaning turn, referring to the fact that the sun "turns back" at these lines that aren't tilted in any way,

■ the earth supposedly jittering around the sun at various speed levels (it orbits at a faster speed at one time, and then it goes relatively slower at another - then back faster again) but somehow, all this alleged speed-change remains unnoticeable),

■ the moon also being dragged along exactly at those same speed levels (100% complete synchronization with the wobbly earth despite being hundreds of thousands of miles away from it(!) Now how about that?,

■ even atmospheric gas (the air) being attached to the earth's surface (again completely synchronized but somehow (simultaneously) free-flowing enough to blow in every direction). These are just samples of the never shown, never detected, never scientifically observed absurdities that are required to save the appearances of the heliocentric model.



Facts are facts


Heliocentrists have been known to point to certain geophysical and astronomical features as arguments which they claim supports their sun-centered view. For example they claim that the Cape Canaveral area in Florida is chosen as a site for NASA's rocket launch center because it is one of the more southern points on the U.S. mainland and therefore closest to the equator. The same argument comes up regarding the reason why Europe's rocket launch center is located in French Guyana (in South America). There is supposed to be an advantage to being close to the equator when the goal is to get a vehicle into orbit: the "rotating" earth supposedly creates a centrifugal force that supposedly "lifts" the missiles. Well, the truth is that there is no real advantage: China's Jiuquan space center is found all the way up in the far north of the country (Inner Mongolia province). Why did the Chinese choose this site, when they have vast territory much further south which is closer to the equator? In fact, portions of southern China are closer to the equator than to the northern cosmodrome, from where they toss their taikonauts into orbit. The Russians are also reported to be developing a new space launch facility, which will be located much north of the current Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. This all means that a rocket launched tangentially from the Earth's equator doesn't really provide a more advantageous escape-velocity!



Getting closer to the supposed existence of an "equatorial centrifugal force" on the surface of the "rotating" earth (and other bogus heliocentric claims) is like getting closer and closer to an apparent pool of water in the desert: it dissolves and disappears right before your eyes in a spectacular fashion! Another bogus argument that some solar system advocates bring up from time to time is inertia and momentum. What is it that the moving-earth theorists believe is the substance (or the vector field) that supposedly exerts a huge gravitational force on air molecules which prevents the atmosphere around the earth from trailing behind the allegedly speeding earth (as is the case for comets)? Their answer?: Nothing. Instead, heliocentrists usually propose a fraudulent analogy of how the earth's motion is comparable with some person walking inside a moving train. They claim that since the walker inside the train feels more or less the same as he or she feels when walking on the ground that somehow is supposed to reassure us that the earth could also be moving without we feeling it.


The problem with this analogy is of course the fact that once the person inside the train opens a window and faces the elements, he or she will feel it soon enough what the real speed is that the train is traveling at! Therefore the only correct analogy for someone walking on the ground of earth is someone walking in an open train or better yet - on the roof of a moving train. What will happens then?



Well, the person will instantly encounter a force that is proportional and in opposite direction to the moving train. But why? Isn't the surrounding air supposed to be following the train, just as we are told the atmosphere is allegedly doing so by keeping-up with the supposedly faster-than-bullet rotating earth? Looks like heliocentrists have decided to suspend the laws of physics (aerodynamics) just for this case of a badly needed moving earth theory!



But still somehow, this law of motion is supposed to apply in all other cases of moving things in the universe?! This contradiction is quietly adopted in order to hide the fact that there is a force that is causing an air drag or friction that wasn't there before the train arrived. The friction with the earth's surface wasn't there because, unlike the train, the earth didn't move!



Getting to the top (and bottom) of it


The star whose location is closest to the point vertically above north pole (= celestial pole) is Polaris, a.k.a. the North Star, around which all the other stars appear to rotate (as visible during the night). Now, why is it that only one single star is a pole star throughout the whole year? All kinds of other stars should have taken turn to become pole stars if the earth was slinging around the sun. But since that is not the case and Polaris remains the most northerly of the stars all year round, as seen on photographs of star-trails (see below), it can only mean that the earth is not orbiting the sun. Moreover, a moving and orbiting earth would have caused the paths of stars to appear as (spiral) lines instead of fully circular tracks that we observe night after night, and consequently the shapes of the constellations would have changed considerably over the course of a single year. So what we're looking at is what is real - WYSIWYG: stars orbiting the Earth once a sidereal day, i.e. the time it takes for a celestial object to rotate 360°. For the stars around the Earth this is: 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.091 seconds.





Truth has a way of being indestructible. It may or may not be popular at any given time, it m ay even be barely noticeable, but it is always there. And it turns out that the truth actually gets in the way of "science"! Modern theoretical (non-applied a.k.a 'pure') physi cs is not really science-driven but agenda-driven. It is populated with heavily politicized academia. It has become nothing much more than a sham propaganda-exercise of empty eloquence with false authority. The inventor of the electric world we live in, Nikola Tesla was spot-on when he remarked that modern non-applied science has become nothing more than manipulative indulgence in fancy "thought experiments" and abstract, fuzzy math which have no relation to reality. Instead of the theories being made to fit reality, what we have is the opposite: reality being adjusted or in fact completely overthrown, in order to fit agenda-driven theories and models.



A case in point is the time when an astronomer called James Bradley (1693-1762) used his colleague/boss Samuel Molyneux's telescope and had proposed that during one year a star that was right over where he was based in London (called Gamma Draconis) traced out a small ellipse. This was used to support the heliocentric argument that the earth had an elliptical orbit around the sun. The physicist, astronomer and mathematician Ruggero Giuseppe Boscovich (1711-1781) wanted to find out if Bradley's hypothesis was correct and proposed that a telescope filled with water (where light will travels slower in the water) and directed at the star should result in the observed ellipses becoming larger at the same rate of times if the Earth was moving. (consequently if it would make no difference then the earth would be stationary). This scientific experiment wasn't carried out though. Another scientist, François Dominique Arago (1786-1853) put a sheet of glass under his telescope and observed that when he moved the glass, the starlight image that he was looking through refracted and moved along with it. Arago expected that there would be a range of different angles of refraction since the earth is supposedly on the move, i.e. there should be a variety of different movements because of the positions and velocities of the earth at different times of the day and year.



The result however contradicted the expectation: there were no variations at different times of the year. Then sometime later one George Biddle Airy (1801-1892) decided to try out Boscovich's idea of a water filled telescope in order to test Bradleys heliocentric aberration theory a about a century after it was first proposed. He discovered that there was no change in the aberration through the refracting water in a supposedly "moving" earth. Airy didn't observe a larger eclipse and subsequently the experiment was declared a "failure". So that's why it is now commonly called Airy's Failure. Funny that - it was of course a failure in terms of failing to prove heliocentrism. So what did it show then? It showed that only one side was moving and since that was the star side, it means the earth was stationary all along! In 1887, was one of the most important experiments in the history of physics and was performed by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University. This interferometer experiment is usually referred to as the Michelson–Morley experiment.



Since the Earth is in motion, it was expected that the flow of aether across the Earth should produce a detectable aether drift, which the specially built interferometer would measure. Although it would be possible for the earth's motion to match that of the ether at one moment in time, it was not possible for the earth to remain at rest with respect to the aether at all times, because of the variation in both the direction and the speed of the earth 's motion. The so-called null result of the experiment could not be reconciled with the assumption that the earth was moving. Similar other experiments were subsequently carried out (eg. the Trouton–Noble experiment). After 17 years of crisis (the only and dreaded alternative being admitting that the earth is at rest) an obscure office clerk from Basel, Switzerland offered a third way "final solution" to the sun-warped Victorian world at the dawn of a new century: the end of physical reality in physics!



Bet contrary to many superficial assumptions the geostatic and geocentric view never died out. For example, right up until after World War I (1920) there were organizations out there which openly refused to accept the Copernican/Galilean perspective. The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod was one of those to whom the sun-centered-universe idea didn't held sway. In other words it took a civilization-devastating world war in order to finally push Geocentric cosmology out of mainstream view in the developed world. But that was only a prelude to the resurgence of it during the postwar period by many distinguished professionals: Walter van de Kamp (The Heart of the Matter), Gerardus D. Bouw (With Every Wind of Doctrine & De Labore Solis ), Marshall and Sandra Hall, Malcolm Bowden, James Hanson (A New Interest in Geocentricity), Paul Ellwanger, Richard G. Elmendorf (Heliocentric Humbug! A critical investigation of the Foucault Pendulum), Edward F. Hills (Space Age Science), Robert Bennett, Robert Sungenis... and so on. The following is a description on the recent history of the systems of the cosmos by a woman author, Paula Haigh:
"To begin with, there are presently at least five good sources for obtaining the truth on this important matter of geocentricity. The first of these is included in the extensive scientific work of the French Catholic scholar, Fernand Crombette (d.1970). His works have not yet been translated but some of them have been expounded in English, and all may be obtained from the Cercle Scientifique et Historique [CESHE]. 'The Bible does not make mistakes' was the watchword of this gifted Catholic scientist. Secondly, there is the first-rate paper by Solange Hertz entitled Recanting Galileo. Mrs. Hertz's work always possesses a spiritual dimension not to be found anywhere else. It is her unique gift. Thirdly, there is the work of the Dutch [-Canadian] Protestant scholar, Walter van der Kamp (d 1998), founder of the Tychonian Society (Canada) and its quarterly journal, The Biblical Astronomer, formerly known as The Bulletin of the Tychonian Society. Mr. Van der Kamp has published a book entitled De Labore Solis: Airy's Failure Reconsidered [1988]... Fourthly, a disciple of Mr. Van Der Kamp, Dr. Gerardus Bouw, professional astronomer, computer scientist and current editor of The Biblical Astronomer, has authored a book entitled With Every Wind of Doctrine: Biblical, Historical, and Scientific Perspectives of Geocentricity.



One must beware, however, of Dr. Bouw's very anti-Catholic prejudices, which sometimes cause him to distort history. Lastly, there has recently appeared The Earth is Not Moving by Marshall Hall. His is a quintessentially popular treatment of this difficult subject, and he must be given much credit for bringing the arena of modern mathematical physics down to the level of us scientifically illiterate mortals. Whatever may be the shortcomings of Hall's book, it is impossible not to enjoy his literary panache. Needless to say, none of these works is known beyond a very limited circle of interested people because, contrary to the generally-held media-imposed assessment of things, there is very little real science these days. Instead, we labor beneath a scientific imperialism which, having usurped the place of theology and of metaphysics in the true hierarchy of sciences, puts upon unwitting school children and witless TV addicts, its own preferred heliocentric-evolutionary ideology into which it bends every empirical fact. This monstrous establishment of academic sophistry lords it over every aspect of intellectual life today and has succeeded in convincing almost everyone that this science falsely so called is the sole possessor and distributor of all truth and rationality. But the truth is irrepressible and will break forth from under the dead weight of error willy-nilly, sometimes here, sometimes there, as in a footnote in Bernard Cohen's The Birth of a New Physics. Artfully hidden among some details of Galileo's life, we find this gem of an admission: 'There is no planetary observation by which we on earth can prove that the earth is moving in an orbit around the sun.' Sir Fred Hoyle is quoted by Walter van der Kamp in his book as admitting that the geocentric model of the universe is no worse and no better than the heliocentric one. The works listed above cite many other similar admissions of like nature by scientists of our time."


Dr. Robert Sungenis highlights the sophistry that is required in order to maintain the current absurd belief in Heliocentrism:
"The 'quasars' are what led people like [Stephen] Hawking to notice that the Earth was in the center of the universe. [James Clerk] Maxwell said there was absolute space, the basis of Geocentrism, and his equations prove it. Einstein said no. You argue with them. As for Einstein, if you want to believe that lengths shrink when an object moves, time changes in the process, and its mass increases, just so you can explain the anomalies of Michelson's experiment, that's your privilege, but I'd just assume to answer it by saying that mass, time and length stay the same and the Earth isn't moving, and I'm just as "scientific" as you for saying so."


The following excerpt is by Jewish columnist Amnon Goldberg:
"Bertrand Russell admitted that 'whether the earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west, as his predecessors held, the observed phenomena will be the same; a metaphysical assumption has to be made'. Yet today everybody 'just knows' that the Earth goes around the sun (heliocentrism).
We cannot feel our motion through space, nor has any experiment ever proved that the Earth is actually in motion', admit Einstein's leading disciples. Invoked 'proofs' such as the phenomenon of the earth's oblateness (slight flattening at the poles), the Doppler Effect (the apparent change in frequency of light as it moves towards or away from the observer), the Sagnac Effect, stellar aberration and [stellar] parallax, nutation, Herschel's star streaming, the Coriolis forces (the cause of water tending to drain clockwise in the northern hemisphere, anticlockwise in the southern), and Fouccault's Pendulum (which can be seen in the entrance of the Science Museum, S. Kensington), are more easily and comprehensively explained by the entire universe rotating about the Earth every 24 hours. No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth. Yet they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the Earth of exactly ZERO mph (...)

Hundreds of experiments have failed to detect even a smidgen of the purported 67,000 mph translational and 1000 mph rotational velocity of the Earth. Not only can it not be disproved that "the Earth stands forever" (Ecc. 1:4) and has no velocity; it cannot be disproved that the Earth is the center of the universe. And the toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre's induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jaseja's lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley interferometry, Lord Rayleigh's polarimetry, Troughton-Noble torque, and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever."


Here is an excerpt from Recanting Galileo by Catholic writer Solange Hertz:
"Speaking of the limitations of the experimental method in arriving at certainty, Pierre Duhem, the eminent French physicist, wrote back in 1908:
"Suppose the hypothesis of Copernicus were able to explain all known appearances. What can be concluded is that they may be true, not that they are necessarily true, for in order to legitimate this last conclusion, it would have to be proved that no other system of hypotheses could possibly be imagined which could explain the appearances just as well."


Long ago Alexander von Humboldt admitted:
"I have already known for a long time that we have no proof for the system of Copernicus. . . but I do not dare to be the first one to attack it."


In other words, the notion that the earth revolves around the sun having become dogma, its denial spells automatic excommunication from the scientific establishment. As for the unthinking masses, a lie need only be systematized in textbooks to pass for truth. When confronted with demands for substantiation of their claims, heliocentricity’s adepts are not above taking refuge in ad hominem arguments, relegating the geocentrist to the fundamentalist snake-handling contingent, the lunatic fringe or gratuitous membership in the Flat Earth Society. The fact remains that the well-known Michelson-Morley experiment, mounted in 1887 to prove the theory, backfired and actually seemed to support geocentricity, or at least an earthly inertia which cannot be overcome.



No significant progress has been made in that direction since. Heliocentricity not only remains unproven, but the Newtonian physics which were its main support are being openly questioned, if not discredited, ever since Maurice Allais and others have shown experimentally that Newton’s theory of gravity can no longer account for proven facts. Creationist scientists worldwide like those organized by CESHE 1 in Belgium and France, are making serious headway against the old myths, which even atheists are beginning to abandon."


Here are some details on that from The Heliocentric Hoax by James V. Forsee:
"One wishing to explore man’s efforts to prove God wrong should investigate the following: the supposed revolution of the earth around the sun can be studied by Bradley' experiment, the parallax of stars, the annual loop of Pluto, the intensification of meteors after midnight, annual Doppler shifts of stars, and so on. The supposed rotation (spinning) can be studied by reviewing the earth’s oblateness, the wind patterns, the force of projectiles and spacecraft, force of air falling bodies, the direct observation from the moon, the Coriolis effect, and so on.



The Foucault pendulum has been proven to be a fabrication, which proves nothing. Is the earth actually moving or are the heavenly bodies doing the moving? Or to use the nebulous phrase of science: 'Is there some unexplained phenomenon to consider?' Study them all. Cold reason should cause you to acknowledge that no conclusive proofs exist to prove Galileo’s theory. Even our most powerful instruments conclusively prove movement only - but movement of what? Perhaps the most notable experiments are "Airy’s failure" and the Michelson-Morley experiment. These two are a ‘must’ for any serious study of this intriguing subject. The Astronomer Royal of England, George Biddel Airy (1801-1892), in 1871 performed a star-gazing experiment which came to be known as "Airy’s failure". The simple solution to all the problems raised in this experiment was that the earth is at rest, immobile, in absolute space (...) But the crushing blow to heliocentrism was the Michelson-Morley experiment, and all those who tried to imitate or perfect it.



Their classical experiment of 1887 was [ironically] another effort designed to vindicate Galileo. But it also backfired. They bounced a beam of light off two mirrors in perpendicular directions and reflected the light back to their source. The lights returned simultaneously, regardless of location, season, elevation or orientation of instruments. The expected result was that the beam of light running parallel to the "supposed" path of the orbiting earth would return more quickly. For those desiring detailed, scientific information on experiments that favor geocentrism, research the Fresnell drag experiments and Arago’s experiment (Livingston). Study the Trouton-Noble experiment, the [self-]induction effect (Des Coudres), the test for rotation of polarized light (Strutt), the Ahranov-Bohm effect (Erlichson), and the phase shift of electrons in a superconductor (Jacklevic)... In De Labore Solis Walter van der Kamp exposes Einstein’s fallacies quite handily.



For those wanting to explore this more thoroughly, you are referred to pp39-51 of that remarkable work. Einstein’s theories do not disprove geocentrism. At the end of a letter in the Bulletin of the Tychonian Society, No. 54, Charles Long, Ph.D. of Minnesota, cogently explains the lack of definitives: 'Einstein is the fellow who went on to compose the General Theory of Relativity. The basis of this theory is that all motion is relative! Einstein wrote his equations describing how the Universe works. If the Earth spins and the stars are at rest – the equations explain all observations. But if the Earth is at rest and stars whirl – the equations still explain all observations. They must, for the theory begins with the assumption that all motion is relative. You can’t say positively that anything is at rest. Take your choice – the equations of General Relativity come out the same. Einstein put Mach’s (Principle) into mathematical form and what emerged is surely one of the ultimate creations of the human mind. Like Galileo, Newton the alchemist, and many others who support godless science, Einstein proved nothing. Even the atheistic philosopher, Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), correctly asserts:
Whether the earth rotates once a day from West to East as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from East to West, as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. That shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption which can never be proved or disproved by observation.
These occult-influenced scientists have trespassed into the sacred realm of metaphysics, that lofty philosophy which seeks to methodically explain ultimate realities. And this crime, in the 16th century, immediately set off alarms heard in the Church, especially by those scholastically sensitive and educated. Having no competence to function in a metaphysical consideration, science’s failure could be predicted from the start; its effort to prove geocentrism wrong failed. But to continue - the very name ‘Einstein’ (savior of heliocentrism) is ‘sacred’ and synonymous with ‘genius’, thanks to the conspiratorial propaganda so thoroughly disseminated.



And in addition to his fallacies as detailed in De Labore Solis, not to mention the common fallacy among writers who confuse Newton’s relativity with Einstein’s, the latter’s fantasy cannot be reconciled with the Sagnac effect. This experiment reveals that the speed of light is not the same in every direction, while the theory of relativity relates that it is the same in every direction. (...) And there is the "quasar distribution problem." In 1976 a heliocentrist of sorts, Y. P. Varshni, analyzed the spectra of three hundred eighty-five quasars (the farthest known stars from earth). One hundred fifty-two of them fell into fifty-seven groupings, all of which had the same red shift. This red-shift hypothesis is not debated among astronomers. To quote Varshni, who arrives at the paradoxical conclusions:
"The Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes."


Exit, Einstein.



In short, modern textbooks lie when they claim proof for heliocentrism. After four hundred years it ‘appears’ that God is right. Have we not now ‘evolved’ full circle to the pre-16th century world view? St. Robert Bellarmine saw no proof nor does Van der Kamp, who said: "Numerous experiments have confirmed its (geocentrism’s) stability; none have dislodged it." Before concluding the scientific section of this study, consider for a moment the supposed antiquity of the earth, ranging into the billions of years, the evolution and descent of man from lower life forms, the abstract theory of relativity, the expanding universe, ‘black holes’, life on other planets -- the entire panoply of organized myth. Each of these theories, masquerading as truth, has its origin in the Father of Lies. The supposed implied existence of life forms on far-away planets are a natural offshoot of heliocentrism. This myth, too, is heretical and dates to at least the time of St. Boniface in the 8th century. These supposed beings (precursors of homo sapiens) in an expanding, vast (nay, limitless) universe, according to the contemporary view in astronomy (which is "acentric" -- no center), would not be descendants of Adam and hence could not be ransomed by the suffering and death of Christ on the Cross. The entire incarnation is in jeopardy."


Malcolm Bowden summerised all the body of evidence as such:

(A) The Sagnac experiment [a.k.a. the Sagnac Interference] proved that there was the ether which could be used as a reference frame for movements. This demolished Einstein's theories of Relativity;

(B) Using the aether as a frame of reference, the Michelson-Morley experiment showed that we were NOT going round the sun;

(C) Airey's experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether;

(D) The Michelson-Gale experiment [also called the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment] showed that the aether was going round the stationary earth 1 rotation per day. (The alternative that the earth was spinning 1 rotation per day inside a stationary aether is disproven by Airey's experiment. Note - to be pedantic, Airey's experiment involved measurments of a small angle due to the high 30 km/s "speed of the earth around the sun". The rotation of the earth at the equator is only 0.45 km/s and is too slow to register any angle change.)




In their own words


Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz (of the Lorentz translation equations, foundation of the General Theory of Relativity) noted that:
"Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest..."
His great contemporary Henri Poincaré confessed:
"A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth's movement. The results were always negative (...) We do not have any means of discovering whether or not we are carried along in a uniform motion of translation..."


Arthur Eddington dared to contemplate that:
"There was just one alternative; the earth's true velocity through space might happen to have been nil."


Wolfgang Pauli admitted:
"The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the earth's motion on physical phenomena allows us to...[Pauli gives up looking for experimental evidence and moves on to the abstract 'escape hatch' theories of Einstein]"


Lincoln Barnett agrees:
"No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion."


And one of the chief participants in the experiment that bears his name (Albert A. Michelson), stunned by the results that went counter to his own heliocentric reflex:
"This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation... which presupposes that the Earth moves."


Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle says:

"Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is "right" and the Ptolemaic theory is "wrong" in any meaningful sense (...) Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published in a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors will turn you down."



Conclusion


The geostatic, geocentric system of the universes is a proven, demonstrable and predictable reality - which makes the heliocentric view nothing but a surreal flight of fancy. Or as Friedrich Nietzsche put it:
"...While Copernicus has persuaded us to believe, contrary to all the senses, that the earth does NOT stand fast, Boscovich has taught us to abjure the belief in the last thing that "stood fast" of the earth: the belief in "substance", in "matter", in the earth-residum and particle-atom - it is the greatest triumph over the senses that has hitherto been gained on earth."


Aha! Somebody is finally honest. So what it all comes down to is this: when mankind succumbs to his urges and rebels against his creator, he becomes a runaway - a drifter ("God is dead", "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law"...) and that [inevitably] brings about "liberation" from sense itself! So then this natural science theory of a 'moving earth' is neither scientific, nor theory, just nonsense.




The truth is... stranger than fiction. --Lord Byron


…



Taken from: http://sites.google.com/site/abafte/geo