Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt2)

By Wild Hedetic

There are two good essays against geocentricism by Alec MacAndrew, and Steven Dutch of the University of Wisconsin. Since we have proven beyond any doubt that heliocentric theory is false, the below arguments against geocentricism may prove useful in eliminating certain geocentric models and allow us to get a bit closer to the truth; so let’s begin.

Alec MacAndrew

Steven Dutch

Conclusion

Alec MacAndrew

1. Satellites are launched to the east because the earth’s rotation boosts the velocity of the satellite and helps it to achieve orbital velocity – the earth is used as a sling shot.

Satellites don’t exist. They are a dog and pony show by our illustrious space agencies to help shore up heliocentricity. How do we know this? One word: Thermosphere.

2. Satellite launch sites are as close to the equator as nationally possible for the same reason as 1.
Points at rest or in uniform motion in inertial frames of reference (which in Galilean relativity are frames of reference in which a point not under the influence of applied force continues in rectilinear and uniform motion), have no unresolved forces.

See reply to 1.

3. The earth has obvious unresolved forces. (Items 3 and 4 have relevance in Riemannian geometry too).

Yes, it does. Since we have shown that the Earth does not rotate, where does this movement come from? The ether of course, as George Airy, Foucault, and Sagnac amongst others have shown us. Read “Scientific experiments” in part 1.

4. Foucault’s pendulum demonstrates the existence of unresolved forces at the surface of the earth.

And these unresolved forces come from… the movement of the ether. It is “space” that moves, not the Earth as proven by George Airy. Maurice Allais has also shown us that Foucault’s pendulum does NOT demonstrate the rotation of the Earth.

5. Weather systems always rotate counter clockwise in the northern hemisphere and vice versa in the southern hemisphere owing to the coriolis force of rotation.

Firstly, the Coriolis effect is NOT a force. Secondly, it can NOT cause atmospheric phenomena for a variety of reasons. Read the bottom of part 1 to see why. It has been proven that it is the heavens which move in a circular motion, not Earth; and Foucault’s pendulum shows unresolved forces, which can only come from the movement of the ether as proved by Sagnac and Gale, which therefore gives us the shape of the weather systems, leading to the probable conclusion that the ether also moves in a vortex fashion (at least whilst in a downward direction towards the Earth).

6. Oblate earth – the earth has a greater girth at the equator than across the poles owing to the centrifugal force of the earth’s diurnal rotation.

I haven’t found any evidence for a pulling centrifugal force at all. (Or centripetal force. Either way, the terms aren’t relevant in this discussion). See part 1. The oblate Earth must be that shape for another reason… the ether? Perhaps.

7. Parallax in the star fields as a consequence of earth’s rotation round the centre of gravity of the solar system.

Nearly all the stars in the sky have no detectable parallax, even by modern equipment; and those that do, show such a tiny movement that the only way for heliocentric theory to work is to use astronomical distances for the stars in the millions of light years where 1 light year is equal to 9.46 trillion km! It has also been proven through both the path of the Sun and George Airy that heliocentricity is 100% false and so there is no “solar system” or “Earth’s rotation” to discuss. See part 1.

8. Red shift in the star field as a result of ditto.

I had forgotten about “red shift”. Let’s add that to black holes, wormholes, dark matter etc. that they keep having to invent to try and keep their worldview together. Astronomy has now been proven bunk period. See part 1.

9. A star field with a radius of 14 billion light years and a mass 3×10^27 times that of the earth rotating around the earth once a day and wobbling with a amplitude of 186 million miles at an angle of 23.5 degrees annually is an untenable dynamical system in Newtonian mechanics.

14 billion light years! I stand corrected. And there was me thinking the “universe” was only millions of light years across. The Earth has been proven NOT to tilt at 23.5 degrees annually. Again, the path of Sun amongst other evidence proves heliocentric theory is false; AND it IS untenable that the star field IS 14 billion light years across if orbiting the Earth. This proves that stars are not that far away after all, or in fact orbit anything, as Foucault’s pendulum has shown that “space” moves; and since George Airy proved that it is the heavens and not the planet that is moving, then it logically follows that the stars do not orbit at all.

10. Systematic forces which explain the dynamics of retrograde planetary motion are not available in a Newtonian gravitational system.

Heliocentricity has been proven 100% incorrect. If retrograde planetary motion is impossible to fit into any geocentric model then retrograde planetary motion is false; or the Newtonian gravitational system is wrong; or both. There is also strong evidence that planets are not even spheres, let alone orbit anything! Yes, you read that correctly. This is due to chiaroscuro which we will look into much more in my next post; and also concerns the moon (even more so). This mean that the only likely true bodies to consider are the Sun and the Earth.

So to summarize, point 10 could show that planets (at least the retrograde Venus and Uranus) do not rotate or orbit anything and are probably something else.

11. Geocentrism is meaningless in General Relativity.

General Relativity is meaningless. Period. as described in part 1. The man below gives more detail:

Steven Dutch

1. Earth’s Equatorial Bulge

It was Newton who realized that if the earth rotated and was not perfectly rigid, it should bulge at the equator due to “centrifugal force.”

We don’t know the true composition of the Earth. We haven’t dug down very far. It is all theory and guesswork.

(Purists in physics don’t like the term for reasons too complex to go into here) Centrifugal force at the equator amounts to about 1/2 of one per cent of gravity, which is why things don’t fly off. Gravity is far stronger than centrifugal force. If the earth were a fluid, the equatorial bulge should be about 1/2 of one per cent of its diameter, or about 1/200. The earth does have some internal strength, so the bulge is less, about 1/298.

There is no evidence for the theoretical 1/2 of one per cent less gravity coming from the centrifugal force of the proposed rotating Earth. In fact, as well as the lack of evidence stated in part 1, the Eötvös effect only shows longitudinal weight differential, not latitudinal.

“In the early 1900s (decade), a German team from the Institute of Geodesy in Potsdam carried out gravity measurements on moving ships in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans. While studying their results the Hungarian nobleman and physicist Baron Roland von Eötvös (see Loránd Eötvös) (1848–1919) noticed that the readings were lower when the boat moved eastwards, higher when it moved westward. 

This effect was put down to the Earth’s rotation, but thanks to the already-mentioned experiments amongst others, we now know it is “space” which rotates in an anti-clockwise direction. This means that the ether not only has frictional properties, but also affects gravity. This is an important discovery. The fact that gravity is reduced when traveling against the direction of the ether wind makes it very likely to have the same properties as fluids and gases in relation to lift, including differences in pressure, density, compressibility and obeying Newton’s 3rd law (for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction). The higher the opposing wind speed, the greater the drag and lift.

“The faster the blade moves, the more drag it experiences. As the blades move faster, lift also increases. The faster that the air passes over the blade, the more lift can be generated.

“Soaring birds that wish to stay aloft without flapping in normal wind usually fly INTO the wind for lift.”

It may even follow the Bernoulli equation or the Kutta-Joukowski theorem to calculate lift of an airfoil (e.g. wing of a plane). Interesting, the latter uses vortexes, but this would be a subject of further discussion.

This figure is known to quite high precision and a precise knowledge of earth’s shape and gravity is essential for satellite navigation. But the bulge is what counts here.

Satellites are marketing bunk from your favorite space agency.

Moving around the sun also creates centrifugal force. It’s about 1/1600 as strong as earth’s gravity.

Again, there is no evidence for centrifugal forces from a rotating Earth, only mathematical models. The Earth does not rotate around the Sun as observing the path of the Sundemonstrates, amongst others.

2. Coriolis Effect

This is the effect that causes weather systems and ocean currents to rotate.

This is definitely not the case as weather systems are far too localized, small, and do not follow the very broad and distinct pattern of an object observed moving across a rotating Earth as has already been demonstrated in part 1.

Basically, if you move over the spinning earth, the earth rotates under you.

There is no evidence of the Earth spinning under us as high as 40km. At what magical height are we supposed to see the beginning of this rotation happen?

The force is quite weak and doesn’t detectably affect driving a car or water draining out of a toilet (contrary to The Simpsons).

The force is non-existent. It is not a “force”. It is an optical illusion.

In theory, it affects planes in flight but normal measures to keep planes on course more than take care of it.

In theory, it affects nothing. It is not a force. Trajectories and courses remain the same.

It does affect satellites, missiles, and long range artillery shells. When the Germans bombarded Paris from 75 miles away in World War I, they took the Coriolis Effect into account.

No they did not. The Coriolis Effect does not alter trajectories. If the shell were visible to the naked eye flying through the sky, then on a rotating Earth, the shell would seem to be in a slightly different position than it actually was.

We say Coriolis Effect, rather than “Force” for the same reason we put “centrifugal force” in quotes above. They are what physicists call fictitious.

Correct. Finally. This contradicts everything said so far.

They exist to us only because we are on a rotating earth. Someone outside the earth would see objects tending to move in straight lines but being forced into curving paths by the earth’s gravity.

“Someone outside the earth would see objects tending to move in straight lines” – correct, but only if the Earth were actually rotating; which it is not.

“forced into curving paths by the earth’s gravity” – true if watching a projectile moving across the Earth slowly falling back down again.

3. Aberration of Starlight

If the earth moves, the stars should appear to shift in position.

Either the Earth moves, or the heavens move.

When British astronomer James Bradley tried to detect the shift in 1729, he made the surprising discovery that all stars appeared to shift by the same amount, some 20.5 seconds of arc (about the apparent diameter of a quarter seen from three football fields away) either side of their average position. Either Ptolemy was right, and the stars are all attached to a sphere, or there was some other explanation. There was.

Indeed. There was.

Just as a person walking into the rain sees raindrops hitting at a slant, moving with respect to starlight causes the starlight to appear to come at an angle to its true path.

Movement of what? The Earth or the heavens?

If light starts from 300,000 kilometers away, it will take one second to reach the earth. In one second, the earth moves 30 km in its orbit. So the starlight will hit 30 kilometers from its original aiming point. The angle of shift is 30/300,000 = 1/10,000 radian = 20.5 seconds of arc.

What about the the solar system’s movement through the galaxy at 250km a second and in turn through the universe at 600 km a second? What about those same stars going through all these exact same movements themselves? It is impossible to take one of these movements in isolation. All three of Earth’s own movements will have a huge impact on the change of perspective.

Also, the fact that EVERY star moves at a maximum 20.5 seconds despite each star having its own unique and varied movements in the universe either means heliocentric theory is bogus or the stars are so far away (up to 14 billion light years!) that their own movement is undetectable. Which option do you think our “clever” academics chose? This is the same “scientific” dead-end created by the undetectable stellar parallax as explained in part 1. Unfortunately for the academics, George Airy showed there was no difference in the angle of starlight between that which was slowed down and that which wasn’t, proving that it was the heavens which moved, both hourly, daily, and yearly.

We’ve already proved the Earth doesn’t go around the Sun in part 1, so what could cause the slight displacement each day of the stars in the night sky? What do you think? The ether winds of course. This proves that the ether winds not only have a 24-hour rotational cycle (at least where the Sun and stars are located), but also a 365-day one as well. This is a vital clue as to the true geocentric model as we will discuss later.

4. Stellar Parallax

What Bradley was looking for was finally observed in 1838. Three different observers discovered it nearly simultaneously. Friedrich Bessel chose an inconspicuous star, 61 Cygni, but one whose motion across the sky was rapid as stars go, reasoning that it it appears to move swiftly, it must be nearby.

Maybe… maybe not. Not relevant to the argument.

Bessel is generally given credit for the first successful measurement. Two other observers picked bright stars with measurable motion, figuring that the combination of brightness plus motion implied nearness. Thomas Henderson determined the parallax of Alpha Centauri (thereby winning the nearest star sweepstakes) and Wilhelm Struve measured the parallax of Vega.

Great.

If the star’s position is observed twice, six months apart, then we triangulate its position from opposite sides of the earth’s orbit. The angle at the apex of the triangle is tiny. Of course, we don’t measure that angle – we measure the angle of the star’s parallax as seen from earth, which is the same thing. And the angles are tiny. One of the pre-Copernican proofs that the earth does not move was the failure to observe parallax, and the reason it was not observed is that the change in position is far too tiny to measure without good instruments.

You don’t say.

For the nearest star, Alpha Centauri (4.3 light years away), the total shift is 1.5 seconds of arc, or the apparent width of a quarter at a distance of over two miles. Astronomy books usually tabulate the shift either side of the star’s average position, which is half the total shift, so the parallax of Alpha Centauri is about 3/4 second of arc.

There is no evidence that the stars are 4.3 light years away for reasons already stated; in fact, they are located only about 4000 miles away.

Up until 1997, we had fairly good direct measurements of stellar distances out to 70 light years or so. In that year the data from the European Space Agency satellite HIPPARCOS came on line and rendered everything before then obsolete.

I bet it did. Those good old white hot satellites.

We now have accurate distances (within 10 per cent) for tens of thousands of stars up to a couple of hundred light years away.

A couple of hundred from 14 billion light years, which is said to be the width of the star field, is 0.000000014% of the total number. Virtually nothing. Not that any of this matters. Lack of stellar parallax is just another reason for the 14-billion-light-year-width-of-the-universe theory. Remember, nothing is beyond outlandish to heliocentric advocates. As long as it can be conceived in the mind to protect their theory from the observable truth, it will be stated as fact.

5. Geocentrism Violates The Laws of Physics

First of all, there are no known cases anywhere else in the universe of large massive objects circling around small light objects.

The actual structure of the “universe” is completely unknown. It is mere theory built on previous assumptions invented to uphold a fallacy that the Earth must revolve around the Sun.

Conservation of momentum requires that when one object circles another, the center of mass of the system must remain fixed. The two objects actually revolve around their common centers of mass.

Sure.

For double stars with comparable masses, the center of mass is between the stars.

We have no idea what stars are. We do know that they are fixed in their position and that they reside at or very near the center of a concave (bowl) Earth.

For cases where one object is far bigger than the other, like the earth and moon, or the sun and earth, the center of mass is within the larger object. But it is never at the center of the larger object. So if anything revolves around the earth, the earth also has to move.

A fantastic argument that there is nothing rotating around the Earth as all observable evidence and experiments show that the Earth does not move. The plot thickens… finally.

Unless you want to postulate that, of all objects in the universe, the earth is not subject to the laws of motion. But individual pieces of earth obey the laws of motion.

Of course.

Tie two rocks to opposite ends of a string and throw them, and they’ll revolve around their center of mass. So why would the earth as a whole be different? Where’s the evidence that it is?

It wouldn’t. There isn’t. Heliocentric theory is false, therefore there are no bodies revolving around the Earth. It also demonstrates that the theory of gravity concerning rotating spheres in space is pure speculation; and tying two rocks together demonstrates centrifugal force of which the Earth/Sun relationship has nothing in common. The truth finally beckons.

Second, if you picture the earth as not rotating, then everything else is whipping around the earth every 24 hours.

Nope. That is the standard geocentric model. There are others.

Anything more than about 4.1 billion kilometers away would be moving faster than the speed of light. The Sun would be moving at 3.6% of the speed of light and should show measurable relativistic length contraction. Uranus and Neptune should be squashed flat as seen through a telescope, as well as their rings.

The theory of relativity is bunk. See the video above.

Believers in weird physics tend to dismiss relativity, but the changes in space and time due to motion were actually worked out by Joseph Larmor, Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincar before Einstein ever came on the scene.

I’m sure they were. They were all at it trying to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Even if we could somehow get around the relativistic problem of exceeding the speed of light there would be some very weird causality problems once we got beyond the Solar System. The Voyager and Pioneer spacecraft should long ago have accelerated to beyond the speed of light. Why didn’t we see any evidence of it?

Forget accelerating beyond the speed of light; they would have been either molten metal or vaporized long ago. But I get your point. This means that the heavenly bodies must be a lot closer than previously “speculated”, or not revolving at all, the latter of which has been shown to be true.

6. Geocentrism Violates Its Own Rules

Remember their definition of “proof:”

By “proof” we mean that your explanations must be direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive. We don’t want hearsay, popular opinion, “expert” testimony, majority vote, personal conviction, organizational rulings, superficial analogies, appeals to “simplicity,” “apologies” to Galileo, or any other indirect means of persuasion which do not qualify as scientific proof.

Absolutely.

Okay, so where’s the direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive evidence that the earth is fixed?

Exhibit A – The path of the Sun

Exhibit B – Where is the constant wind?

Exhibit C – Hovering, flying and falling

Exhibit D – Hardly any stellar parallax

Exhibit E – Scientific experiments

Exhibit A proves heliocentric theory wrong rather than geocentrism right, but the rest overwhelmingly show that the Earth is not rotating.

However, where’s the direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive evidence that the Earth is rotating around the Sun? There is the Eötvös effect, Foucault’s pendulum, and the stars rotating around the sky; the last two of which it has been proven to be “space” that is moving and not the Earth.

Where’s the evidence that distant objects are moving faster than the speed of light as they whip around the earth?

There isn’t any.

Where’s the evidence that some mysterious force carries everything in the universe around the earth?

We don’t know the size of the universe or what bodies truly lie in it. The stars are lights in the sky which we now know are fixed, the distance of which is unknown; although there is no evidence of them being further than 20km away. There is also evidence of the planets not being spheres and the moon not even being solid which we will look at in the next post.

However, the evidence for this “mysterious” force or ether has been demonstrated by default by the George Airy/Foucault’s pendulum combo, and later proved explicitly by Sagnac and then Michelson-Gale amongst others.

In 1913, Sagnac split light and shone the two beams at mirrors which reflected them back and forth in opposite directions around a platform and then recombined them on to the receiving photographic plate. There were interference patterns which meant that the light in one of the directions had been slowed down slightly changing the time at which the light beams recombined. The platform was then rotated at 2 revolutions per second changing the pattern of interference at the same amount as Sagnac had calculated it should, further proving the existence of the ether, and a frictional one at that!

sagnac1
A beam of light leaves the light source and is split into two different beams (tagged red and blue). They travel around the circuit in opposite directions until they reach the splitter which recombines them where they go on to the photographic plate producing interference patterns because the ether has slowed one beam down more than the other.
sagnac simplified
A simplified version: The light is split and going in opposite directions. The distance between the mirrors and splitter is always the same, as everything, including the splitter is moving on the platform together. No matter what the speed of rotation, there should be no interference pattern, but there is, proving the existence of the ether.

Where’s the evidence that the earth is immune to the laws of motion?

There isn’t any.

Instead we have references to Catholic doctrine, to the Bible, to the alleged degenerative effects of heliocentrism, and to attempts to show that heliocentrism can be reinterpreted in geocentric terms, all nice examples of “indirect means of persuasion which do not qualify as scientific proof.”

Using a book as an authority, whether it is the bible or a textbook, leads us down the road of never-ending assumptions. Only unimaginative fundamentalist Christians reverse the heliocentric model into its directly opposite geocentric one. As we have now seen, both models are false. There are other models of geocentrisim; ones which we will be later exploring to determine the correct Sun/Earth relationship.

Conclusion

  • The ether is a frictional force which can be compressed, has various pressures and densities and obeys Newton’s 3rd law.
  • The ether has a 24 hour cycle as well as a 365 one.
  • Neither the Sun, planets, or moon can rotate around a completely 100% stationary Earth due to Newton’s gravitational laws and the center of mass which has been clearly demonstrated in the real world. Together with the fact that the Earth has been proven not to rotate, this means that:
  • The standard geocentric model (the inverted heliocentric) one is false.

It looks like both the academics and fundamentalist Christians have proven very useful in finding the truth of our situation. Neither of their models is correct, and it is no wonder as both the church and academia have so much in common

http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt2/

Advertisements