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
No comments:
Post a Comment