You’re Being Lied To About Hiroshima (And Much More..)

download (3)

Japan marked the 71st anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima by renewing calls for a nuclear weapons free world and urging leaders to follow the example of President Barack Obama and visit the bomb sites.  –Washington Post

It is the anniversary of dropping an atom bomb on Hiroshima. But the Hiroshima narrative is a lie.

We’ve reported at considerable length about how the whatever was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn’t have the kind of immediate destructive impact that is portrayed.

Crawford Sams who ran the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission in Japan had this to say about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Transcript HERE.) :

When the bomb went off, about 2 thousand people out of 250 thousand got killed [in Hiroshima] – by blast, by thermal radiation, or by intense x-ray, gamma radiation … You see, it wasn’t “Bing” like the publicity here [said]: a bomb went off and a city disappeared. No such thing happened. That was the propaganda for deterrent …

 

When I came back to this country, I was appalled, from a military standpoint, to find that our major planners in the War Department were using their own propaganda, 100 thousand deaths, Bing! …

 

You don’t hear much about the effects of Nagasaki because actually it was pretty ineffective. That was a narrow corridor from the hospital … down to the port, and the effects were very limited as far as the fire spread and all that stuff. So you don’t hear much about Nagasaki.

We’ve reported that a squadron of 66 bombers were launched on August 6th (666) to bomb the municipality of Imabari, even though Imabari. had been bombed already, twice.

This bombing squadron may well have fire-bombed Hiroshima instead, as Hiroshima was not far away.  HERE is a video on the squadron and also a narrative from a book by Edwin Hoyt entitled Inferno, the Firebombing of Japan.

Here is some narrative from a PERTINENT PAGE in the actual book.

“Suddenly,  one day, I was told something unexpected,” Manabe said. “When I was looking at the train timetable, I found that no trains stopped at Imabari station … I wondered why the third largest city in the province had no train service. It  sounded ridiculous…

 

The other guy said, “Wow! No Imabari Station. But … all the trains pass by Imabari Station.”

 

A third guy stepped up … “It’s not strange at all. There’s no stop because there’s no Imabari City anymore. It got burned up last April in the air raid … No buildings, no houses, no people … The whole city burned up and the people ran away …”

 

A fellow soldier explained to Manabe. “The air raids came on the 26th of April and the 8th of May. Imabari was burned up. My father was in business there. We had a wholesale draper business. All gone. All burned up.”

The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrible and tragic. But whether they were results of “atom” bombs (certainly in the sense that people understand them today) is at least seriously questionable.

More from the Post:

Quoting part of Obama’s speech in Hiroshima in May, Mayor Kazumi Matsui urged countries with nuclear weapons to “have the courage to escape the logic of fear, and pursue a world without them …

 

“I once again urge the leaders of all nations to visit the A-bombed cities.”  Like Obama’s, he said that such visits “will surely etch the reality of the atomic bombings in each heart.”

Visiting Hiroshima and Nagasaki won’t etch anything into your heart but lies.

And the sickening falsehoods allow politicians a faux rhetorical nobility that they don’t deserve.

Whatever happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki is nothing like what is being recited today.

Bikini Atoll, where additional atomic bombs were tested following the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, was repopulated by 1968, even though radiation estimates suggested the island would be uninhabitable for a thousand years.

The actual bomb blasts seem to have been faked. Two years ago, the controversial but prolific investigator Miles Mathis – an artist and mathematician – published a debunking HERE entitled, The Bikini Atoll Nuclear Tests were Faked.”

…For more proof, we can go to Google. You can get a picture of the Bikini Atoll today from Google Earth. That’s dated 2013, not 1945. We are told the locals can’t live there now because of radioactivity, but we see at least three proofs against that.

 

…We see lots of plant life both on and offshore. Radioactivity affects plants just as it .affects animals, so the island should be barren.

 

Remember, the Bikini Atoll wasn’t said to be blasted by only Able and Baker. It was blasted 23 times, including three of the biggest blasts ever from US testing: the 4.5 megaton Navajo and the 5 megaton Tewa, in 1956; and the 15 megaton Bravo in 1954.

Why would Bikini Island tests have been faked if the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were real?

Did the US suddenly run out of bombs?

And what about Russia? How did the USSR make nuclear bombs while the Pentagon was faking theirs?

Mathis writes some photographs of USSR nuclear explosions appear fake.

When did the USSR get the “bomb?” And even more importantly, when did the US finally create the weapons of mass destruction that so frighten us today?

When did the Cold War really start? Did both sides know that nuclear weapons were not as powerful as advertised? Or maybe that they didn’t exist at all as described?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki themselves are thriving small cities and there is no appreciable difference in radiation between these two municipalities and other cities in Japan.

Additional issues (See sources at the end of this article.):

  • Death rates at Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not higher than elsewhere.
  • Three days after the Hiroshima bombing, a trolley was running again.
  • The bank at “ground zero” remains standing to this day.
  • Eight Jesuits hiding in their church survived the blast at ground zero to tell the tale – spared only by the intervention of the Virgin Mary.
  • Outside of the Jesuits, and one communist reporter who hated the US, there was no significant reporting from either Hiroshima or Nagasaki for at least a month.
  • For years in both Japan and the US, it was a crime punishable by death to speak or write about the bombings.
  • The entire atom bomb narrative created by the Pentagon was delivered to the public via a single writer from the New York Times who later turned out to be on the Pentagon payroll.

The narrative of the bombings was surely shaped just as the Pentagon and its controllers wished for it to be. It was acquiesced to by the Japanese government that had its own reasons for promoting nuclear untruths.

Whatever happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki has not been accurately reported. In fact, it is probably not too strong to say that what has been reported may constitute (in aggregate) one of the most profound lies of the 20th century.

It calls into question further “truths” about Western society that we live with to this day.

Nuclear weapons are a perfect propaganda for the state.

-Their tests cannot be ascertained at close range because they are too powerful.

 

-Their inner workings cannot be disseminated because they are “top secret.”

 

-Their programmatic elements cannot be observed by the normal media because too much information available to the public can stimulate adversarial or even terrorist activity.

Modern Western society is a virtual tissue of lies designed to make you believe you are living in a “civil society” (no, it’s not civil) faced by life-threatening challenges that only Western governments and the shadowy powers behind them can overcome.

The world is not running out of food, nor water. It’s not going to burn to a cinder because the air is clogged with “carbon.”

The economic disasters we face are purely man-made. Absent monopoly central banking, they would not exist.

Now we are facing “radical Islam” – another false narrative put in place by the same banking elite that has tortured the West for centuries.

This follows on the heels of numerous, serial US wars and the obscene, manufactured Hell of World Wars One and Two.

Thank goodness for the Internet and what we have called the Internet Reformation.

Thanks to information that has emerged from secret recesses (and the patterns they portray), we know more about the Way the World Really Works  than any single group of individuals in recorded history.

Conclusion: It has been a great privilege to live in these unusual times. However, please take note: The reality of the world has revealed a titanic struggle between good and evil. Which side are you on? And just as importantly, what are you going to do about it?

*  *  *

Some Nuclear Anomalies and Sources Pertaining to Questionable Hiroshima and Nagasaki Events

  • The dreaded mushroom cloud presented by the Hiroshima memorial is actually a photo of Hiroshima on fire. HERE.
  • A squadron of 66 bombers was directed to Imabari. in the early morning of August 6 (666) – the morning of the A-bomb – but Imabari. had been bombed already, twice. This bombing squadron might have fire-bombed Hiroshima instead. HERE.
  • Initial reports in Japan were that Hiroshima was firebombed. AP filed the same report. HERE.
  • In the aftermath of the explosion, Hiroshima (and Nagasaki) look no different than Tokyo after it was firebombed. HERE and HERE.
  • In Hiroshima numerous buildings are standing along with erect tree stumps. HERE.
  • Limited trolley service was revived in Hiroshima after only three days. HERE.
  • The Hiroshima bank at the epicenter of the bomb is fully functional and can be seen HERE.
  • Predictions of endless radiation poisoning for thousands of years proved untrue. Today, Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s radiation levels are normal.  HERE.
  • Outdoor shadows and other dramatic evidences of the Hiroshima bombing seem to be faked. HERE.
  • The initial American reporting on Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs  came from Wilfred Burchett and William L. Laurence. One was a communist (Burchett) who hated America and reportedly ended up on the Kremlin’s payroll. HERE.
  • The other was secretly a paid employee of US armed forces. He was the man who rode with the crew to witness the nuke dropped on Nagasaki. His report on the attack is painful to read for all the wrong reasons. HERE.
  • Laurence was also the only reported to cover the development of the atomic bomc, see the initial bomb testing (from 20 miles away) and to report from Nagasaki. In other words, only one reporter, paid by the US war dept, provided the entirety of the initial civilian narrative for the testing of nuclear devices and then bombing of Nagasaki. Just one. It was roughly the same at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Reporters were not allowed to visit. HERE.
  • Military officers were asked to exaggerate the injury count.
  • Hiroshima and Nagasaki were apparently shut down for months. There was no influx of Western reporters. The nuclear narrative was developed by the Pentagon from what we can tell. HERE.
  • It was immediately made a crime punishable by death in both the US and Japan to discuss nuclear attacks and the technology  that created them. (“The restricted dataclauses of the US Atomic Energy Act specifies that all nuclear weapons-related information is to be considered classified unless explicitly declassified, and makes no distinction about whether said information was created in a laboratory by a government scientist or anywhere else in the world by private citizens.”) HERE.
  • As for Little Boy, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, photos show it seems to lack the necessary antennas to function. HERE.
  • There were apparently several Little Boys of various sizes, not just one. HERE.
  • The narrative surrounding the dropping of the Hiroshima bombing is reportedly inaccurate. “Levers” were “pulled” to drop the bomb, but the automatic system did the job. HERE.
  • The automatic targeting system itself was an inaccurate device that reportedly might drop bombs miles from where the pilot hoped to deliver them. The odds that both bombs ended up delivering effective blasts are surprisingly low.
  • The Nagasaki bombing narrative was confused for decades. The story kept changing. Even the pilot was misidentified. The crews were switched. HERE.
  • The photos of the Nagasaki mushroom cloud are suspicious. They appear to be composite images with cloud cover inserted to ensure that identification of Nagasaki is impossible. HERE.  Other Nagasaki photos appear fake.
  • One of the two famous and supposedly identical photos of the Nagasaki mushroom cloud includes part of a plane. One of the photos is thus fake, or at least retouched. HERE.
  • For events of such magnitude, there are surprisingly few eyewitness accounts of the actual blast. Many eyewitness accounts start the day after the blast or during the firestorm. Only a few Japanese survivors have stepped forward to become regular “faces” of the blast.
  • There don’t seem to be any civilian photos of either mushroom cloud taken by Japanese civilians or even military facilities. This one HERE looks evidently faked.
  • Much of the Western Hiroshima narrative regarding the blast was developed by a single Jesuit priest who, along with other Jesuits, had survive at the epicenter of the blast through the intervention of the Virgin Mary. HERE.
  • The eyewitness accounts of the blast itself have a repetitive and artificial quality to them, at least the ones we read. One doctor claims to have treated 2000-3000 injured on the first day. HERE.

There are other disturbing elements to the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings, and if you are interested, you can see more documents calling many elements of the attacks into question HERE.

See information on an alternative theory regarding nuclear weapons HERE:

Additional DB Nuclear Articles to Share (With Links)

North Korea Nuclear Hoax Heightens Alternative Media Skepticism March 10

The Trillion Dollar Nuclear Weapons Fraud April 15

NASA and Nuclear Activities: More Scrutiny Needed May 25

NY Times Uses Hiroshima to Justify Gun Control, Even as More Evidence Questions A-Bomb Scenario June 15

NY Times: Hiroshima Mushroom Cloud Actually ‘Smoke from Raging Firestorm’ June 20

Brexit’s Modern Manipulation and Its A-Bomb Beginnings June 29

Pentagon’s Not Properly Funding Its Trillion-Dollar Nuclear Costs July 1

More Nuke Questions: Lies About Trident, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Now Bikini, Too July 25

North Korea Nuclear Tensions Said to Increase – But How Do We Know It’s True?
 
July 28 

North Korea Has Missiles, but Does It Have Nuclear Weapons? August 3

How Dangerous, Really? Trump Now Denies Asking Why US Does Not Use Nuclear Weapons August 3

Welcome to the era of transhumanism

In a compelling webseries from 2012 entitled H+, we were introduced to a future world where much of the population has a hi-tech implant, allowing individuals a direct neural interface with the internet. As often is the case in science fiction, things don’t turn out well for those technological pioneers. A virus infects the implant and chaos quickly descends on a human race that has become biologically fused with technology.

The series was an overt examination of a transhumanist future, with the title H+ being an appropriation of the common transhuman abbreviation. Five years after the series’ birth, we live in a present even more entrenched on a path towards the realization of transhumanist ideals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZedLgAF9aEg

Early in February 2017, innovative billionaire Elon Musk reiterated an idea he had floated several times over the past year: Humans need to merge with machines. Musk sees a direct brain/computer interface as an absolute necessity, not only in order for us to evolve as a species, but as a way of keeping up with the machines we are creating. According to Musk, if we don’t merge with the machines, we will become useless and irrelevant.

While Elon Musk does not self-identify as a “transhumanist,” the idea of fusing man with machine is fundamental to this movement that arose over the course of the 20th century. And as we move into a tumultuous 21st century, transhumanism is quickly shifting from its sci-fi influenced philosophical and cultural niche into a more mainstream, and increasingly popular, movement.

Zoltan Istvan, a prominent futurist and transhumanist, is currently making a bold political run for the position of Governor of California. “We need leadership that is willing to use radical science, technology, and innovation – what California is famous for –to benefit us all,” Istvan declared in a recent editorial published by Newsweek. “We need someone with the nerve to risk the tremendous possibilities to save the environment through bioengineering, to end cancer by seeking a vaccine or a gene-editing solution for it.”

What is transhumanism?

Simply put, transhumanism is a broad intellectual movement that advocates for the transformation of humanity through embracing technology. Thinkers in the field opine that our intellectual, physical and psychological capabilities can, and should, be enhanced by any and all available emerging technologies. From genetic modification to make us smarter and live longer, to enhancing our physical capabilities through bioengineering and mechanical implants, transhumanists see our future as one where we transcend our physical bodies with the aid of technology.

The term “transhuman” can be traced back several hundred years, but in terms of our current use we can look to 20th century biologist and eugenicist, Julian Huxley. Across a series of lectures and articles in the 1950s, Huxley advocated for a type of utopian futurism where humanity would evolve and transcend its present limitations.

“We need a name for this new belief,” Huxley wrote in 1957. “Perhaps transhumanism will serve; man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing the new possibilities of and for his human nature.”

Huxley’s ideas were arguably inspired by influential speculative fiction of the mid-20th century from the likes of Arthur C. Clarke and Robert Heinlein, and consequently his more specific transhumanist philosophies went on to influence a generation of cyberpunk authors in the 1980s. It was in this era that the first self-described transhumanists began appearing, having formal meetings around the University of California.

With the pace of technological advancement dramatically accelerating into the 21st century, transhumanist thinking began to manifest in more specific futurist visions. Cryonics and life extension technology was one focus of transhumanists, while others looked to body modification, gender transitioning and general biohacking as a way of transcending the limits of our physical bodies.

What could go wrong?

Plenty of criticisms have been lobbed at transhumanists over the years, with their extreme views of the technological future of humanity causing many to question whether this is a direct pathway to losing touch with what makes us essentially human. The fear that we will merge into some kind of inhuman, god-like, robot civilization quite fairly frightens and disturbs those with more traditional perspectives on humanity.

Science fiction classically reflects many fears of transhumanist futures, from Skynet taking over the world to a Gattaca-like future where genetic modification creates dystopian class separation. But prominent transhumanist critic Francis Fukuyama has soberly outlined the dangers of this modern movement in his book, Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution.

Fukuyama comprehensively argues that the complexity of human beings cannot be so easily reduced into good and bad traits. If we were to try to eliminate traits we considered to be negative, be it through genetic modification or otherwise, we would be dangerously misunderstanding how we fundamentally function. “If we weren’t violent and aggressive we wouldn’t be able to defend ourselves; if we didn’t have feelings of exclusivity, we wouldn’t be loyal to those close to us; if we never felt jealousy, we would also never feel love,” he writes.

Some of the more valid concerns about the dawning transhumanist future are the socioeconomic repercussions of such a speedy technological evolution. As the chasm between rich and poor grows in our current culture, one can’t help but be concerned that future advancements could become disproportionately limited to those with the financial resources to afford them. If life extension technologies start to become feasible, and they are only available to the billionaire class, then we enter a scenario where the rich get richer and live longer, while the poor get poorer and die sooner.

Without exceptionally strong political reform maintaining democratic access to human enhancement technologies, it’s easy to foresee the rise of a disturbing genetic class divide. As environmentalist and activist Bill McKibben writes: “If we can’t afford the fifty cents a person it would take to buy bed nets to protect most of Africa from malaria, it is unlikely we will extend to anyone but the top tax bracket these latest forms of genetic technology.”

Remember eugenics …

The looming specter of eugenics hovers over a great deal of transhumanist thought. In the first half of the 20th century the term became disturbingly, but not unreasonably, associated with Nazi Germany. Sterilizing or euthanizing those who displayed characteristics that were deemed to be imperfect was ultimately outlawed as a form of genocide. But as the genome revolution struck later in the century a resurgence in the philosophical ideals of eugenics began to arise.

Transhumanist thought often parallels the ideals of eugenics, although most self-identifying transhumanists separate themselves from that stigmatized field, preferring terms like reprogenetics and germinal choice. The difference between the negative outcomes of eugenics and the more positive, transhumanist notion of reprogenetics seems to be one of consent. In a 21st century world of selective genetic modification, all is good as long as all parents equally have the choice to genetically modify their child, and are not forced by governments who are trying to forcefully manage the genetic pool.

Prominent transhumanist advocate Nick Bostrom, labeled by The New Yorker as the leading transhumanist philosopher of today, argues that critics of the movement always focus on the potential risks or negative outcomes without balancing the possible positive futures. He advocates that the mere potential of a negative future outcome is not enough to stifle technological momentum.

Bostrom lucidly makes his point in an essayexamining the transhumanist perspectives on human genetic modifications. “Good consequences no less than bad ones are possible,” he writes. “In the absence of sound arguments for the view that the negative consequences would predominate, such speculations provide no reason against moving forward with the technology.”

But what about God?

At first glance it would seem like the transhumanism movement would be synonymous with atheism. In 2002 the Vatican released an expansive statement exploring the intersection of technology and religion. The statement warned that changing a human’s genetic identity was a “radically immoral” action. The old adage of the scientist playing God certainly raises its head frequently in criticisms of transhumanism. Zoltan Istvan even penned an op-ed entitled “I’m an Atheist, Therefore I’m a Transhumanist” in which he, rather weakly, attempted to blend the two movements.

But there are some compelling intersections between religion and transhumanism that point to the possibility that the two sides are not as mutually exclusive as one would think. A poll by the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, founded by Nick Bostrom, discovered that only half of the transhumanists it surveyed identified as either atheist or agnostic.

Lincoln Cannon, founder of both the Mormon Transhumanist Association and the Christian Transhumanist Association (the very existence of these entities says something), has been advocating for a modern form of post secular religion based on both scientific belief and religious faith. Cannon sees transhumanism as a movement that allows for humanity to evolve into what he labels “superhumans.”

In his treatise titled, “The New God Argument,” Cannon envisions a creator God akin to our superhuman future potential. He posits an evolutionary cycle where we were created by a superhuman God, before then evolving into becoming our own superhuman Gods, from which we will create new life that will worship us as Gods and continue the cycle anew.

The New God Argument presents a fascinating case for aan evolution of religious thought, but it also pushes transhumanism into the realms of spirituality in ways that are bound to make many of the movement’s advocates uncomfortable. Another more extreme religious offshoot of transhumanism is Terasem, a self-described “transreligion.”

Terasem recalls a 1990s-styled new-age sentiment with its four core beliefs: life is purposeful, death is optional, God is technological, and love is essential. Founded by millionaire entrepreneur Martine Rothblatt, Terasem functions as both a spiritual transhumanist movement and a charitable organization that invests into technological research. The movement is especially focused on cryonic technology and researching ways to preserve human consciousness through downloading one’s thoughts and memories into either a mainframe or an independent social robot.

The rise of the biohackers

At the turn of the century, a transhumanist community began to form that fused the ethos of computer hacking with a body modification movement determined to create do-it-yourself cybernetic devices. These “Grinders” embraced cyborg technologies that could be directly integrated into their organic bodies.

Biohacking can take the form of pharmaceutical enhancements that hack one’s body chemistry, to implanting electronics into the body such as magnets or RFID and NFC tags. These transhumanist grinders sit at the furthermost borders of the movement, experimenting on their own bodies with occasionally quite extreme DIY surgical procedures.

Lepht Anonym is a Berlin-based biohacker who advocates cybernetics for the masses. Lepht (who identifies as genderless) has performed numerous body modifications over the past decade, including implanting neodymium metal discs under fingertips to enable the physical sensing of electromagnetic fields, and several internal compass implants designed to give a physical awareness of north and south magnetic poles.

But the biohacking movement is moving in from the fringe, with several tech start-ups arising over the past few years with an interest in developing a commercial body modification economy. Grindhouse Wetware, based on Pittsburgh, has been prominent in creating technology that augments the human body.

The company’s most prominent device is called the Northstar, which is an implant that it is hoped will have Bluetooth capabilities allowing the user to control their devices with simple hand movements. The first iteration of the device simply had an aesthetic function with LED lights under the user’s skin that mimic a form of bioluminescence. Future uses for the Northstar could see it interfacing with your smartphone, tracking biometric data, such as blood sugar, or acting as a controller for a variety of devices connected to the internet of things.

Hitting the big time

Transhumanism is moving inexorably into the mainstream as technological advances accelerate. Proponents advocate we dive head first into this brave new cybernetic world, while traditionalists grow increasingly nervous.

Regardless of one’s personal view there is undoubtedly an enormous number of people lining up to have that first brain/computer interface implanted into their head, or to genetically cue a set of specific characteristics for their baby. We live in exciting times that’s for sure … now excuse me while I re-watch Gattaca and hope it doesn’t turn into a documentary-like premonition of our future.

http://newatlas.com/transhumanism-mainstream-era-popular/47941/

All The Planets Fit Between Earth And The Moon As Per NASA…

Some quoted diameters sum to around 390,000 km, which is larger than the 384,000 km or so usually quoted as the Earth-Moon distance. But if you neglect the odd 6,000 km, then yes, all the planets can more-or-less fit between the Earth and the Moon. Jupiter has a volume of 1.43 x 10^15 cubic kilometers.

If this is correct, then…

Picture from Epic Satellite at 1,000,000 miles away

Picture from The Mars Rover…

Picture from Cassini Satélite orbiting Saturn.

Picture of the Moon from Earth of course

Obviously, something it’s not right…

Think for yourself!

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/

Heliocentric theory is wrong

hqdefault
There are four pieces of solid evidence that heliocentric theory is wrong (that I know of). The first one requires a bit of visualization but is very difficult to explain otherwise. Three others are 99.99% certain bordering on the ridiculous. You would literally have to make stuff up to try and counter them (and they have!). So without further ado, let’s begin.
+++
Exhibit A – Where is the constant wind?
Exhibit B – Hovering, flying and falling
Exhibit C – Hardly any stellar parallax
Exhibit D – Scientific experiments
Conclusion
+++

Exhibit A – Where is the constant wind?

The density of the Earth has been calculated at 5,515 kg/m3 (whether accurate or not is unknown). The density of air is 1.204 kg/m3 at room temperature, 4580 times less dense than the Earth.

A denser solid object does not carry a less dense gas along with it when it moves. This is self-evident as it is the basis of aerodynamics as shown in the video below.

dog out window
A moving solid object (100km/h car) leaves a gas (air) behind, creating a 100km/h wind in the perceived opposite direction of the moving car.

When the solid planes are more perpendicular, it will push gas (such as air) away from the solid object, such as a fan. The Earth, although a spinning squashed globe, would push a little air out into space due to its slight undulations but by and large it would be very aerodynamic, as this man spinning a basketball shows.

spinning ball
A very aerodynamic globe.

Heliocentric theory states that the Earth rotates at 1675km/h at the equator, 1049km/h in London, and 231km/h in Alert, northern Canada. This rotation would cause winds of almost equal speeds on the Earth’s surface… constantly.

The fastest wind speed known to man is a F5 Incredible tornado with wind speeds of 420-511 km/h. The tornado in Oklamohma in 1999 which killed 38 people and destroyed 8000 homes traveled at 486km/h; the devastation of which we can see below.

Tornado- Oklahoma
If 486km/h winds did this, what would 1675km/h do?

There is nowhere on Earth that has a constant wind speed of between 1675km/h and 231km/h. If there were, nobody living below Greenland could venture outside. We would be all living underground in caves.

Sometimes there are days of no wind, sometimes a mild breeze. The wind travels in all kinds of directions, sometimes changing by the second. Clouds move with the wind and can travel in any direction, but mostly go from West to East. This contradicts heliocentric theory as the Earth is supposed to rotate West to East, which would create winds going in the opposite direction East to West. Oops!

Another piece of self-evident incredulity. There’s more.
+++

Exhibit B – Hovering, flying and falling

Even more obvious is the fact that the Earth does not rotate under hovering objects. A helicopter which hovers above the ground at ANY height from 1 meter all the way to its upper limit of around 8000 meters NEVER experiences the ground traveling 231km/h to 1675km/h West to East, or in any direction in fact.

hovering1
Nope, the Earth is not moving.
hovering2
Still not moving. Who’d a thunk it.

The same applies to those machines which traverse the sky, such as airplanes. The only differential between a one-way and return flight is changes in wind speed and direction.

+++

the rotation of the Earth has no effect on the travel time of an aircraft… it is the headwinds and tailwinds that cause the change in travel times… a mere 65 mph wind is more than enough to cause a difference in travel time of five hours when you are traveling long distances!

+++

Let’s check a flight along the equator just to be sure. Maldives to Singapore and back fits the bill. Singapore Airlines has two flights come up. Maldives to Singapore (West to East) takes 4 hours 45 minutes for both flights and Singapore to Maldives (East to West) takes 4 hours 30 minutes and 4 hours 25 minutes respectively.

The Earth is supposed to rotate at 1675km/h West to East at these locations which are 3388km apart. A Boeing 777 travels at 885km/h at 10,675m. Do I really need to do the math?

Flying from Singapore to the Maldives would take about an hour (including take off and landing) if the Earth were rotating under the plane. Going the other way, it is worse as the plane can only fly half as fast as a rotating 1675km/h Earth and so you would have to continue flying all the way around the globe East to West just to get back to Singapore. This is an obvious fallacy.

asia_ref_2000
Singapore to Maldives is a one-way trip with a rotating Earth.

So, we have gone from 8000m to 10,675m altitude and still the Earth does not move under our feet. If we go any higher there won’t be many air molecules left to be magically Velcroed to the solid Earth’s surface by a mystical and yet unknown force which there must be for heliocentric theory to exist. But let’s go higher anyway.

As mentioned in my first post on the mysterious disappearing stars at high altitude, amateurs can now send weather balloons up into the stratosphere as high as 36,000m. At these heights only about 1% of the air is left, but these few air molecules must also magically stick to the solid surface of the Earth. All these different densities and all somehow staying with the Earth.

Look at the time these balloons are in the air and the difference in distance between landing and take-off. Here’s the first one: Launched at 13:07:38, hit the ground at 16:04:40, highest altitude 29.78Km, distance from launch 108.4 Km! Launched in Maine, USA would give a rotating Earth speed of 1181km/h (45° latitude). That means the Earth should have moved 3500km under the balloon making it land in the middle of USA, but it did not. (The second example on that website page is even worse!)

Let’s go higher. Felix Baumgartner on his world record free-fall jump reached 38,969m altitude and spent 2 and a half hours ascending, 4:19 minutes falling to the ground, and 7 minutes parachuting the rest of the way down. His distance from launch:

Felix-Baumgartner-Landing
70.5km!

So, the 1% of surface air density and all the other air densities on the way to the ground and Felix himself being obviously heavier than air all moved with the rotating Earth in tandem, by some magical mystical force unknown to man. At what height would Felix have experienced the Earth rotating below him? 50km? 70km? 100km? The heliocentric advocates will have to make up a magic number. Why not, it is all fantasy after all.

Let’s continue.
+++

Exhibit C – Hardly any stellar parallax

The stars revolve 360° in 24 hours in an anti-clockwise fashion around the north polar star in the northern hemisphere, and clockwise around the southern star in the southern hemisphere. Photographers take photos with very long shutter speeds to show this effect.

startrails
Rotating stars in the sky at night.

This, you may think, is a good case for a rotating Earth; but on it’s own it is also a good case for a geocentric one, as it demonstrates that either the Earth is moving or the heavens.

However, after 6 months, those EXACT same stars are at the EXACT same location, as can be seen with the naked eye, at which they had been 6 months previously. The annual change in the position of stars in the sky is called stellar parallax. You can demonstrate this lack of parallax by following this experiment devised by Samuel Rowbotham of Zetetic Astronomy.

+++

Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube and the moment the star appears in the first tube let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the second tube when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the second tube towards the first tube would be required for the star to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results–the star will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the Earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube which the difference in position of one yard had previously required. But as no such difference in the direction of the tube is required, the conclusion is unavoidable, that in six months a given meridian upon the Earth’s surface does not move a single yard, and therefore, that the Earth has not the slightest degree of orbital motion.

+++

Traditionally, stellar parallax has been notoriously difficult to measure with even the best of modern equipment.
+++

The angles involved in these calculations are very small and thus difficult to measure. The nearest star to the Sun (and thus the star with the largest parallax), Proxima Centauri, has a parallax of 0.7687 ± 0.0003 arcsec.

+++

There are 3,600 arcseconds in 1 degree, 180 of which cover the sky at night. No wonder we can’t see any movement with the naked eye. Even so, movement for only a tiny fraction of the stars can be measured at all even by modern equipment!
+++

In 1989, the satellite Hipparcos was launched primarily for obtaining parallaxes and proper motions of nearby stars, increasing the reach of the method tenfold. Even so, Hipparcos is only able to measure parallax angles for stars up to about 1,600 light-years away, a little more than one percent of the diameter of the Milky Way Galaxy. The European Space Agency’s Gaia mission, due to launch in 2013, will be able to measure parallax angles to an accuracy of 10 microarcseconds, thus mapping nearby stars (and potentially planets) up to a distance of tens of thousands of light-years from Earth.

+++
There are an estimated 100 to 200 billion galaxies in the universe (which is bunk, as there are no galaxies) each with up to 100 trillion stars! So being able to detect movement in 1% of the stars of our own galaxy is a miniscule amount. We also know about our space agencies’ weird and wonderful orbiting machines, so even this 1% is unlikely to be true.

This is a big problem for heliocentric theory which states that every 24 hours the Earth rotates on its axis at 1675km/h, revolving around the Sun at 107,000km/h, which in turn moves around the center of the galaxy at 900,000km/h, which moves in the universe at 2,160,000km/h!

Apart from the atmosphere disappearing at these speeds, how is there no stellar parallax, especially considering that all the other stars and galaxies are revolving around each other and the Earth as well. The sky must be a right mess! Each new day must bring a brand new unique constellation in the sky at night with some new stars getting nearer so they can be seen with the naked eye and some traveling further away and disappearing never to return for thousands or millions of years.

Before we move on, this lack of stellar parallax is the reason why advocates of heliocentric theory give the unbelievably enormous distances the heavenly bodies must be from Earth. They can’t measure it! The stars must be thousands and millions of light years away (with the Milky Way 100,000 light years across, 1 light year being 9.46 trillion kilometers!) because there is no (or little) detectable stellar parallax; otherwise heliocentric theory would be definitely wrong.

+++

It is clear from Euclid’s geometry that the effect would be undetectable if the stars were far enough away, but for various reasons such gigantic distances involved seemed entirely implausible: it was one of Tycho Brahe’s principal objections to Copernican heliocentrism that in order for it to be compatible with the lack of observable stellar parallax, there would have to be an enormous and unlikely void between the orbit of Saturn and the eighth sphere (the fixed stars).

+++

Not only is there no evidence for such astronomical distances, but we have now proven that the stars are approximately 4000 miles away!

Does making stuff up to support a theory lacking any observational or experimental evidence sound like science to you?

Speaking of which…
+++

Exhibit D – Scientific experiments

How do we know it is not the heavens or “space” which moves above us, instead of the Earth, which causes both the rotation of the stars and any of their hard-to-detect parallax. We now know it is the former, thanks to an experiment in 1871 by Astronomer Royal, George Airy; which is this:

If stellar parallax is too small to see with the naked eye, then why not artificially increase it. If the Earth rotates at the same speed constantly, then by slowing the light down (by filling the telescope with water), the angle of star movement would increase. If stellar parallax increased then the telescope would have to be tilted more to see the same star and prove a rotating Earth once and for all.

And guess what? As confirmed by others, the most careful measurements gave the same angle for a telescope with water as for one filled with air. This is called “Airy’s failure”. It proved the rotation of the heavens, not Earth, which moves stars.

airy1
The angle stayed the same, proving that the Earth does not rotate.

The heliocentric advocates were now desperate. What was needed was another observable experiment to still offer the possibility of a rotating Earth. Enter Foucault’s pendulum in 1885. This pendulum swings back and forth, each swing moving slightly to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern hemisphere until, at the poles, one full circle is achieved in 24 hours. It doesn’t move left or right at all at the equator.

California_Academy_of_Sciences_Foucault_Pendulum_Clock
Foucault Pendulum in California
Foucault
Not to scale, but illustrating the movement.

As you have noticed, this is the same phenomenon as the stars rotating every 24 hours around the polar star, which was proved not to be caused by a rotating Earth thanks to George Airy. Unfortunately for the heliocentric supporters, Foucault’s pendulum also had a problem. In 1954 and 1959, Maurice Allais noticed that during a solar eclipse, which lasted 2 and a half hours, the angle of the pendulum changed dramatically by 13.5°. This has been repeatedly observed with positive results on most of the subsequent eclipses, which obviously means that the pendulum isn’t registering the Earth’s rotation, but the motion of something else instead.

With Airy’s failure proving that the Earth does not rotate, the heliocentric theorists needed to quickly show with no further doubt that the Earth rotated. Enter two staunch supporters of heliocentricity, Albert Michelson and Edward Morley, who in 1887 set up a device which split up light: one beam in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, and one at right angles. The two light beams then recombined and hit a photographic plate. The difference is speed of the two beams would create an interference pattern. They expected to measure a speed of 30 km/s as that was the speed of the Earth’s supposed rotation, but instead registered a variable difference of between 1 and 10 km/s each time the experiment was repeated. They called this a “null” result. This proves that the Earth is not rotating and at the same time proved the existence of the ether.

M-M experiment
Gosh, the traveling light wasn’t rotating with the Earth. Who’d a thunk it?

It didn’t stop there, Georges Sagnac, and Henry Gale conducted similar experiments, but on a rotating platform, which again demonstrated the existence of the ether, already proved by default in 1871 and 1885 by combining the results from George Airy and Foucault’s pendulum, and also in 1887 by the Michelson-Morley experiment.

How do you think the advocates of heliocentric theory responded? Why, they made something up of course! What else could they do but invent another wild theory to play down these experimental results and lead us further into the cesspit of fallacy. Enter showbiz academic of the 20th century, Einstein and the special theory of relativity.

albert-einstein-colorized
Enter the clowns.

Special relativity was invented to make sure all these experiments still gave heliocentric theory a chance of being correct. It needed objects to shrink to a specific size in direct proportion to its speed. These objects weren’t measured! The concept had never been observed at all. It was metaphysical only. But it had to be correct, otherwise the unthinkable would be true.
+++

The rescue operation was performed by means of a purely metaphysical concept lifted directly from Professors Fitzgerald and Lorentz, who had also been trying to explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and renamed by him the Special Theory of Relativity. What was suggested was that if the dimensions of an object in motion were assumed to shrink exactly in proportion to the speed at which it was traveling by exactly the necessary amount, mathematical calculations could be made to show that the Earth was in motion after all. No one has ever seen an object shrink as a result of being in motion, and indeed one of the world’s leading authorities on relativity, Dr. Herbert Dingle, was later to dismiss the theory of relativity as metaphysical nonsense with no basis on what could be observed.

+++

Making up a new branch of mathematics to explain the results of experiments that disagrees with your worldview does not a proof make! As a J.J. Thomson once said:

+++

We have Einstein’s space, de Sitter’s space, expanding universes, contracting universes, vibrating universes, mysterious universes. In fact the pure mathematician may create universes just by writing down an equation, and indeed if he is an individualist he can have a universe of his own.

+++

However, when you make stuff up not based on anything in the real world, it is bound to run into trouble.

+++

Ironically, when Special Relativity failed due to its internal contradictions, Einstein had to invent General Relativity to shore up the façade, and in the process he had to take back the very two foundations he had discarded in Special Relativity, namely, (a) that nothing can exceed the speed of light and (b) the existence of ether. In the end, Einstein’s theories were a mass of contradictions which are covered over by obtuse mathematical equations.

+++

Despite this nonsense, the heliocentric “authorities” pushed it through with all their media power and academic might so that once this new mathematics was firmly established, they had carte blanche to sneak in other bad “science” when experimental observations went against them, like black holes, dark matter, wormholes and other such unobservable and unverifiable nonsense. The worst offence though was trying to tie in the Coriolis effect of a rotating Earth with observable atmospheric phenomena. The Coriolis effect is an optical illusion whereby an object traveling in a straight line is seen to be moving in a curved one instead because the observer is on a rotating platform.

wikipedia_coriolis_effect
The Coriolis optical illusion. You are the red dot. Below is what you observe. Above is what actually happens.
the-coriolis-effect
This is the complete pattern and scale of ANY Coriolis effect on the Earth. If something in the real world doesn’t match this, it can NOT be the Coriolis effect!

They say it is this effect which causes moving objects to be deflected in a clockwise direction in the northern hemisphere and anti-clockwise in the southern hemisphere; an example of which are large cyclones. This is obviously false. The Coriolis effect is NOT a force, it is an optical illusion. It cannot cause objects to be deflected; their trajectories remain the same, which is straight. Cyclones do not “travel in straight lines, but just appear to be curved because we are on the surface of a rotating sphere”. Their size ranges from under 222km to over 888km making their curves far too tight and localized. Plus there are very high altitude images looking down on cyclones from above. Is the camera rotating with the Earth to get this curved perspective?

cyclone from above
Is the camera rotating with the Earth? How can a cyclone twisting on itself be a straight line? Is this image even real?
cyclone - Australia
A tropical cyclone in Australia twisting down to Earth is not a straight line.

And what about smaller vortex phenomena like Tornadoes which average only 150m across. Where is the Coriolis effect now?

tornado1
A 150m wide tornado is really a straight line!

If you wish to study further the fallacy of linking the Coriolis effect with atmospheric phenomena then Miles Mathis‘ work is a must. Otherwise, those inclined to understand cyclones and tornadoes would do well to study the relationship between gravity and electromagnetism, and vortex dynamics instead, as even physicists admit that the Coriolis “effect” and electromagnetism is eerily similar. (What a surprise!)
+++

Conclusion

So far we have proved that:

  • The Earth does not tilt.
  • The Earth does not rotate.
  • The Sun moves, not the Earth.
  • The heavens move, not the Earth, which means that:
  • “Space” or the ether moves and not the Earth.
  • “Space” moves in a circular motion (and is probably a vortex).

 

http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/