Before Copernican heliocentric indoctrination any child will look up at the sky and notice that the sun, moon, and stars all revolve around a stationary Earth. All empirical evidence from our perspective clearly shows that we are fixed and everything rotates around us. We feel motionless and experience the sun, moon, stars and planets spinning around us. To suspend this common sense geocentric perspective and assume that it's actually the Earth revolving beneath us daily while rotating around the sun yearly is quite a theoretical leap.
"What strikes you as being some thoughts that people would have if - in the short space of a few weeks - the universally held conviction that the Earth rotates on an axis daily and orbits the sun annually were exposed as an unscientific deception? Keep in mind that a rotating, orbiting earth is not counted as a mere hypothesis or even a theory anywhere in the world today. Oh no. Rather, this concept is an unquestioned 'truth'; an established 'fact' in all books and other media everywhere, church media included. Copernicanism, in short, is a concept that is protected in a bunker under a 50 foot thick ceiling of solid 'scientific' concrete. It is meant to be impregnable. It is a concept that has become ensconced in men’s minds as the indestructible cornerstone of enlightened modern man’s knowledge. Virtually all people everywhere have been taught to believe - and do believe - that this concept is based on objective science and dispassionate secular reasoning." -Marshall Hall, "Exposing the Copernican Deception"
"Every experiment ever designed to detect the motion of the earth has failed to detect earth's motion and/or distinguish it from relative counter motion of the universe." -Mark Wyatt, "Is Geocentricism Possible?"Right up through the 20th century many attempts have been made to try and prove that heliocentricity is true and geocentricity is false. All such attempts have failed and only reinforced geocentricity. The most-well known of these is the Michelson-Morley experiment which attempted to measure the change in speed of light due to the assumed motion of Earth through space. They measured in every different direction in various places on the Earth's surface and failed to detect any significant change whatsoever. The Michelson-Gale experiment also failed to prove heliocentricity but was able to measure the movement of the aether/firmament around the Earth accurate to within 2%. An experiment known as "Airey's Failure" involves filling a telescope with water to slow down the speed of light inside. Usually telescopes must be slightly tilted to get the starlight down the axis of the tube supposedly due to "Earth's speed around the sun." Airey discovered that actually the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so no change was necessary. This demonstrated that the stars move relative to a stationary Earth and not the other way around; if it was the telescope moving he would have to change the angle.
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” -Cosmologist George Ellis, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally"In order to save the dying heliocentric theory from the conclusive geocentric experiments performed by Michelson, Morley, Gale, Sagnac, Kantor and others, establishment master-mind Albert Einstein created his Special Theory of Relativity which in one philosophical swoop banished the absolute aether/firmament from scientific study and replaced it with a form of relativism which allowed for heliocentricism and geocentricism to hold equal merit. If there is no universal aetheric medium within which all things exist, then philosophically one can postulate complete relativism with regard to the movement of two objects (such as the Earth and sun). Nowadays, just like the theory of heliocentricism, Einstein's theory of relativity is accepted worldwide as gospel truth, even though he himself admitted geocentricism is equally justifiable:
"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems." -Albert Einstein"We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance." -Cosmologist Fred Hoyle
If one accepts the unintuitive, but very imaginative heliocentric model, then one accepts (even though it goes against observation, experimental evidence and common sense) that the Earth is actually spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the sun at 67,000 miles per hour, while the entire solar system rotates around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way speeds through the known Universe at over 670,000,000 miles per hour!
I'd like to know if we're really being subject to all those forces/motions, then why hasn't anyone in all of history ever felt it? How is it that all the centrifugal, gravitational, inertial and kinematic forces somehow cancel each other out perfectly so that no one has ever felt the slightest bit of motion or resistance? Why aren't there world-wide perturbations of our smooth rotation after earthquakes or meteor strikes? Why can I still feel the slightest breeze on my face, but not the air displacement from all this motion? If the Earth is spinning beneath us, why can't I just hover in a helicopter, wait until my destination reaches me, and then land when it comes?
Most people answer (though they can't explain how) that this is because the Earth's atmosphere supposedly rotates precisely along with the Earth. But if that's the case then heliocentric dogmatists run into a whole other host of problems. For instance, if both the Earth and its atmosphere are spinning 1,000 miles per hour West to East, then why don't pilots need to make 1,000 mph compensation acceleration when flying East to West? If thousand mile per hour atmosphere is constantly flowing Eastward, why don't North/South bound pilots have to set diagonal courses to compensate? If thousand mile per hour atmosphere is constantly flowing Eastward, how do you explain the casual yet unpredictable movement of clouds, wind patterns and weather formations every which way? If the atmosphere is constantly being pulled along with the Earth's rotation, then why can I feel the slightest Westward breeze but not the Earth's 1,000 mile per hour Eastward spin?
"In short, the sun, moon, and stars are actually doing precisely what everyone throughout all history has seen them do. We do not believe what our eyes tell us because we have been taught a counterfeit system which demands that we believe what has never been confirmed by observation or experiment. That counterfeit system demands that the Earth rotate on an 'axis' every 24 hours at a speed of over 1000 MPH at the equator. No one has ever, ever, ever seen or felt such movement (nor seen or felt the 67,000MPH speed of the Earth's alleged orbit around the sun ... or its 500,000 MPH alleged speed around a galaxy ... or its retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!). Remember, no experiment has ever shown the earth to be moving. Add to that the fact that the alleged rotational speed we've all been taught as scientific fact MUST decrease every inch or mile one goes north or south of the equator, and it becomes readily apparent that such things as accurate aerial bombing in WWII (down a chimney from 25,000 feet with a plane going any direction at high speed) would have been impossible if calculated on an earth moving below at several hundred MPH and changing constantly with the latitude." -Marshall Hall, "A Small, Young Universe After All"
Experiments have been performed firing canons in all cardinal directions to check for Earth's rotation. If the Earth was really spinning as the heliocentric model suggests then the East-firing cannonballs should fall significantly farther than all others and the West-firing cannonballs should fall significantly closer than all others. In actual fact, however, regardless of which direction one fires a cannon, North, South, East, or West, the distance covered is always the same.
"When sitting in a rapidly-moving railway carriage, let a spring-gun be fired forward, or in the direction in which the train is moving. Again, let the same gun be fired, but in the opposite direction; and it will be found that the ball or other projectile will always go farther in the first case than in the latter. If a person leaps backwards from a horse in full gallop, he cannot jump so great a distance as he can by jumping forward. Leaping from a moving sledge, coach, or other object, backwards or forwards, the same results are experienced. Many other practical cases could be cited to show that any body projected from another body in motion, does not exhibit the same behaviour as it does when projected from a body at rest. Nor are the results the same when projected in the same direction as that in which the body moves, as when projected in the opposite direction; because, in the former case, the projected body receives its momentum from the projectile force, plus that given to it by the moving body; and in the latter case, this momentum, minus that of the moving body. Hence it would be found that if the earth is moving rapidly from west to east, a cannon fired in a due easterly direction would send a ball to a greater distance than it would if fired in a due westerly direction. But the most experienced artillerymen - many of whom have had great practice, both at home and abroad, in almost every latitude - have declared that no difference whatever is observable. That in charging and pointing their guns, no difference in the working is ever required. Gunners in war ships have noticed a considerable difference in the results of their firing from guns at the bow, when sailing rapidly towards the object fired at, and when firing from guns placed at the stern while sailing away from the object: and in both cases the results are different to those observed when firing from a ship at perfect rest. These details of practical experience are utterly incompatible with the supposition of a revolving earth." -Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy"
By removing Earth from the motionless center of the Universe, these dark philosophers (Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Galileo, Einstein) have moved us physically and metaphysically from a place of supreme importance to one of complete nihilistic indifference. If the Earth is the center of the Universe, then the ideas of God, creation, and a purpose for human existence are resplendent. But if the Earth is just one of billions of planets revolving around billions of stars in billions of galaxies, then the ideas of God, creation, and a specific purpose for Earth and human existence become highly implausible."The heliocentric theory, by putting the sun at the center of the universe ... made man appear to be just one of a possible host of wanderers drifting through a cold sky. It seemed less likely that he was born to live gloriously and to attain paradise upon his death. Less likely, too, was it that he was the object of God’s ministrations." -Morris Kline
By removing Earth from the motionless center of the Universe, the entirety of astrology, a science of consciousness coveted and used obsessively by the elite, is made null and void. If the Earth is the center of the Universe and all the planets (ancient gods) revolve around us, then birth charts, alignments, and astrology are measurable, calculable, repeatable, and thus scientifically verifiable. But if the Earth is just one of billions of planets revolving around billions of stars in billions of galaxies, then astrology disappears into the realms of pseudo-science believed by our ignorant ancestors.
"Trust your eyes and your cameras! They have no reason to deceive you about whether the stars are going around nightly! Then get it in your mind: This single fact surrounding star trails that has been photographed thousands of times and cannot be denied must be explained away by the Theoretical Science Establishment. All of the factless allegations - a rotating and orbiting Earth; billions of light year distances to the stars; a 15 billion year old universe; the whole Big Bang Paradigm; all of the alleged evolution of the universe, earth, and mankind; ...that is to say: all of modern evolution-based cosmology controlling "knowledge" today...all of it... is completely undone if the stars are doing what cameras show they are doing, namely, going around the Earth nightly ... If you can do so for a few minutes, just lay aside the Copernican indoctrination that accompanies such pictures and take a good hard look at these photographs of something that really, really happens every single night. Do you see what I see? I see all the visible stars in the northern skies going around the North Star in perfect circles. In other words, I see all the stars which these time exposures have recorded actually going around that navigational star that God put there for us in the Northern Hemisphere. Remember: the first two pictures are eight hour exposures. Again, look closely and you can see the third of a circle in the center and in the next star trail or so. This means that each star circles in one 24 hour day. The same thing is captured in circumpolar photos taken in the Southern Hemisphere." -Marshall Hall, "The Size and Structure of the Universe"
We live in a yin-yang world of duality where everything and its opposite exist together in perfect proportions like male/female, good/evil, hot/cold, knowledge/ignorance, inhale/exhale, dark/light, day/night and of course, sun and moon. Half our lives (the daytime) are ruled by the sun and half our lives (the nighttime) are ruled by the moon. When you look up at the sun and the moon they are in perfect proportion to one another as exemplified during an eclipse. But thanks to a total eclipse of the mind these nihilistic cosmologists have indoctrinated world-wide generations of people to believe Earth itself and all the planets revolve around the sun. That the sun is much larger and farther away, the moon is much smaller and closer, and it's simply our coincidental perspective here on Earth that makes them appear the same size. They have convinced us that the very Earth on which we stand is spinning beneath our feet. So next time you're wondering why it's so difficult to awaken your friends and family to the Atlantean conspiratorial matrix, consider how deep the establishment indoctrination really is, and how easy it is to convince people that up is down and down is up.
Posts
62 comments:
Very cool explanation!
If Earth were spinning, we could theoretically levitate straight up & wait and land on a different spot.
Which brings to mind what we did in my college days in the elevator--suppose you were riding on an elevator, and it was free-falling, then what if you were to jump up right before the elevator landed--you would theoretically be safe because you would be suspendedn in midair the moment the floor hit the bottom.
We "experimented"--more like for fun when we were going down on the elevators, we would jump up, and then we would be suspended for a second in mid-air. One particular college elevator descended really fast, so we were like suspended for 2 seconds in midair.
That's about all I remember about college, other than learning how to play Spades & Hearts.
"For instance, if both the Earth and its atmosphere are spinning 1,000 miles per hour West to East, then why don't pilots need to make 1,000 mph compensation acceleration when flying East to West? If thousand mile per hour atmosphere is constantly flowing Eastward, why don't North/South bound pilots have to set diagonal courses to compensate? If thousand mile per hour atmosphere is constantly flowing Eastward, how do you explain the casual yet unpredictable movement of clouds, wind patterns and weather formations every which way? If the atmosphere is constantly being pulled along with the Earth's rotation, then why can I feel the slightest Westward breeze but not the Earth's 1,000 mile per hour Eastward spin?"
You will only feel a breeze or have to fly faster if the atmosphere is moving relative to the Earth. Pilots would only have to fly faster if the Earth was moving beneath them but the atmosphere was not. As long as both the Earth's surface and the atmosphere are moving at roughly the same speed, you will neither feel an appreciable breeze nor have to fly faster.
Thanks for the comment and story Anonymous. For Ben, so you think that if the Earth and atmosphere are moving together at 1,000 mph East, that an East or West flying plane would experience equal resistance? How do you figure that? What about a cannonball fired in every cardinal direction, would you expect them to cover the same distance?
During the period of the Crimean War, the subject of gunnery, in connection with the earth's rotation, was one which occupied the attention of many philosophers, artillery officers and statesmen. During this time Prime Minister Lord Palmerston wrote the following letter to Lord Panmure, the Secretary for War:
December 20th, 1857.
My dear Panmure.
There is an investigation which it would be important and at the same time easy to make, and that is, whether the rotation of the earth on its axis has any effect on the curve of a cannon-ball in its flight. One should suppose that it has, and that while the cannon-ball is flying in the air, impelled by the gunpowder in a straight line from the cannon's mouth, the ball would not follow the rotation of the earth in the same manner which it would do if lying at rest on the earth's surface. If this be so, a ball fired in the meridional direction--that is to say, due south or due north--ought to deviate to the west of the object at which it was aimed, because during the time of flight, that object will have gone to the east somewhat faster than the cannon-ball will have done. In like manner, a ball fired due east, ought to fly less far upon the earth's surface than a ball fired due west, the charges being equal, the elevation the same, and the atmosphere perfectly still. It must be remembered, however, that the ball, even after it has left the cannon's mouth, will retain the motion from west to east which it had before received by the rotation of the earth on whose surface it was; and it is possible, therefore, that, except at very long ranges, the deviations above mentioned may in practice turn out to be very small, and not deserving the attention of an artilleryman. The trial might be easily made in any place in which a free circle of a mile or more radius could be obtained; and a cannon placed in the centre of that circle, and fired alternately north, south, east, and west, with equal charges, would afford the means of ascertaining whether each shot flew the same distance or not.
"Yours sincerely,
"PALMERSTON."
So Ben you really think that the Earth beneath your feet and the atmosphere around you is spinning by at approximately 1,000 mph, we're revolving around the sun at 67,000 mph, rotating around the galaxy at 500,000 mph, and speeding through the universe at 670,000,000 mph and nobody has ever felt a thing? What mechanism do you propose cancels out all those centrifugal, gravitational, inertial, and kinematic forces and motions so that we feel always feel absolutely still? Why has no one ever felt the spinning of the Earth/atmosphere, but we can feel the slightest breeze. And why aren't there world-wide perturbations of our smooth rotation after earthquakes or meteor strikes?
Just because the Earth does not rotate, does not guarantee that there is a loving, kind, or caring God. I agree with the assertion that the Copernican revolution is a mistake, but I do not see the need to state that there is a God who made it so.
"For Ben, so you think that if the Earth and atmosphere are moving together at 1,000 mph East, that an East or West flying plane would experience equal resistance? How do you figure that? What about a cannonball fired in every cardinal direction, would you expect them to cover the same distance?"
Of course. If both the atmosphere and the Earth are moving at the same speed, then from the perspective of an airplane, they both might as well be still. The wind might blow the plane 1000 miles in one direction, but the Earth will have moved 1000 miles in that same direction, so it makes no difference. The point is that the plane is measuring its location in relation to the Earth, a moving reference frame. If we were interested in the position of the plane relative to the Sun, then such things would become important, but we're not.
The issue of the cannonball is exactly the same with respect to wind resistance. However, once you get into the question of moving in any cardinal direction rather than simply east-west, the Coriolis Effect begins to come into play and will alter the trajectory of a cannonball fired in an North or South direction; this has nothing to do with wind, though. It's still related to the question of a rotating Earth, and is itself an interesting result of a rotating reference frame.
"And why aren't there world-wide perturbations of our smooth rotation after earthquakes or meteor strikes?"
I won't pretend to be an expert on this one, but I happened to recall from my reading about the Indian Ocean tsunami a few years ago that it actually did affect the Earth's rotation (decreased the length of the day by 2.68 microseconds).
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/jan/HQ_05011_earthquake.html
Of course that's from NASA, but if you don't trust them, I saw a few other similar sources linked to on the Wikipedia page for the tsunami, although I did not check them all for NWO ties.
Cool stuff!
For Anonymous, you're right that the two don't necessarily follow, but wouldn't you agree that a fixed Earth around which the whole Universe rotates denotes a certain specialness and purposefulness to our home here? Whereas a random big bang evolution of billions of galaxies, stars, and planets makes Earth and humanity seem like nothing special, just evolutionary coincidence and cosmic accident. Heliocentricism, besides being provably false, is a nihilistic and atheistic philosophy, while Geocentricism, besides being provably true, is life affirming and uplifting.
For Ben, if the atmosphere is somehow being pulled precisely along with the rotation of the Earth, then how is it that clouds and wind are constantly flying every which way? In fact at varying layers of the atmosphere cloud and winds directions are not uniform at all and often travel at right angles to each other simultaneously. How is this possible if the entire atmosphere is supposedly being pulled along so precisely with the rotation of the Earth?
"If the atmosphere rushes forward from west to east continually, we are again obliged to conclude that whatever floats or is suspended in it, at any altitude, must of necessity partake of its eastward motion. A piece of cork, or any other body floating in still water, will be motionless, but let the water be put in motion, in any direction whatever, and the floating bodies will move with it, in the same direction and with the same velocity. Let the experiment be tried in every possible way, and these results will invariable follow. Hence if the earth's atmosphere is in constant motion from west to east, all the different strata which are known to exist in it, and all the various kinds of clouds and vapours which float in it must of mechanical necessity move rapidly eastwards. But what is the fact? If we fix upon any star as a standard or datum outside the visible atmosphere, we may sometimes observe a stratum of clouds going for hours together in a direction the very opposite to that in which the earth is supposed to be moving.
Not only may a stratum of clouds be seen moving rapidly from east to west, but at the same moment other strata may often be seen moving from north to south, and from south to north. It is a fact well known to aeronauts, that several strata of atmospheric air are often moving in as many different directions at the same time. It is a knowledge of this fact which leads an experienced aeronaut, when desiring to rise in a balloon, and to go in a certain direction, not to regard the manner in which the wind is blowing on the immediate surface of the earth, because he knows that at a greater altitude, it may be going at right angles, or even in opposite and in various ways simultaneously. To ascertain whether and at what altitude a current is blowing in the desired direction, small, and so-called "pilot-balloons" are often sent up and carefully observed in their ascent. If during the passage of one of these through the variously moving strata, it is seen to enter a current which is going in the direction desired by the aƫronaut, the large balloon is then ballasted in such a manner that it may ascend at once to the altitude of such current, and thus to proceed on its journey.
On almost any moonlight and cloudy night, different strata may be seen not only moving in different directions but, at the same time, moving with different velocities; some floating past the face of the moon rapidly and uniformly, and others passing gently along, sometimes becoming stationary, then starting fitfully into motion, and often standing still for minutes together. Some of those who have ascended in balloons for scientific purposes have recorded that as they have rapidly passed through the atmosphere, they have gone though strata differing in temperature, in density, and in hygrometric, magnetic, electric, and other conditions. These changes have been noticed both in ascending and descending, and in going for miles together at the same altitude. -Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy"
Ben, can you explain this?
Interesting!
"How is this possible if the entire atmosphere is supposedly being pulled along so precisely with the rotation of the Earth?"
It isn't being pulled along at "precisely" the same speed. That's a simplification that you yourself introduced. There are of course eddies and individual currents, just as there are in a river. If you watch two leaves in a river, their relative position of course does not remain constant at all; sometimes they might be moving closer, sometimes farther apart, but the existence of variations does not disprove the overall pattern any more than the existence of daily temperature variations disproves the existence of winter.
Here’s an example. Imagine for a moment a luxury cruise ship that is equipped with a big pool. This cruise ship is moving at 100 mph relative to the Earth. If I get into the pool, am I going to have to swim at 100mph to keep up? Of course not; the water in the pool will be carried along by the cruise ship, and I will be carried along with it, just like the air near the ground is carried along by the motion of the Earth.
If we take the pool and introduce a few massaging jets like they have in hot tubs to introduce a few currents, would I suddenly have to swim at 100mph? Of course not.
It isn't being pulled along at "precisely" the same speed.
Really? If it's not being pulled at absolutely precisely the same speed, then surely someone at some point throughout history would feel the motion or resistance of the Earth/atmosphere, but we don't ever feel even the slightest inkling that the Earth/atmosphere are supposedly spinning around at such great speeds. That's why I say it must be "precisely" the same speed or else your argument is proven false by experience. And in fact your argument is proven false by experience regardless because as I said clouds and wind patterns have been repeatedly observed and measured to go in different velocities and different directions (often opposite directions) simultaneously! You haven't addressed this point.
There are of course eddies and individual currents, just as there are in a river.
Clouds and wind patterns often go in opposite directions simultaneously. You will never see an eddy flowing steadily up-current in a river! The flow of the river is far too powerful to allow a random eddy to flow up-current, but this is exactly what you're saying happens with our atmosphere, so your example is moot.
On the 27th November, 1839, the sky being very clear, the planet Venus was seen near the zenith, notwithstanding the brightness of the meridian sun. It enabled us to observe the higher stratum of clouds to be moving in an exactly opposite direction to that of the wind--a circumstance which is frequently recorded in our meteorological journal both in the north-east and south-east trades, and has also often been observed by former voyagers. Captain Basil Hall witnessed it from the summit of the Peak of Teneriffe; and Count Strzelechi, on ascending the volcanic mountain of Kiranea, in Owhyhee, reached at 4000 feet an elevation above that of the trade wind, and experienced the influence of an opposite current of air of a different hygrometric and thermometric condition. . . . Count Strzelechi further informed me of the following seemingly anomalous circumstance--that at the height of 6000 feet he found the current of air blowing at right angles to both the lower strata, also of a different hygrometric and thermometric condition, but warmer than the inter-stratum. Such a state of the atmosphere is compatible only with the fact which other evidence has demonstrated, that the earth is at rest." -Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy"
Funny i have been reading the flat earth stuff. Been lied to for long time
The Earth's spin does not affect the atmosphere because it is moving through a vacuum and there is no friction. We cannot feel the spin of the Earth because it is not accelerating or decelerating, just like when you are travelling in a car at a constant speed and you throw a tennis ball in to the air, it lands back in your hand. It does not fly back in to your chest.
At least in finnish artillery we had to take into account "kiertopoikkeama" rotation deflexion maybe in english. Meaning earth's rotation when the cannonball was flying in air. I think it was very little maybe 10 or 20 meters.
I was trained to calculate the data for the gun crews to direct their weapons correctly. Sorry for my bad english. Thank you for this interesting blog.
A.P.
I would like to add that I am not speaking with any certainty, just from my limited high school physics education. It just seems counter-intuitive that the entire universe revolves around this tiny planet, and I don't think that it reduces the significance or meaning of life on Earth. In fact, I find it incredibly awe-inspiring that so much life could have proliferated on our tiny little corner of the universe, and suggests to me that life elsewhere is not only very likely but inevitable.
Wonderful post, Eric. A new step on the ongoing road of uncovering the truth.
I wrote about many of the scientific aspects in my blog, but the topic of (the effects of the Heliocentric belief on man's conception of his existence)is a much richer one.
http://mando2u2003.blogspot.com/2010/11/foucault-pendulum-eclipsed-by-allais.html
http://mando2u2003.blogspot.com/2010/11/how-humans-see-themselves.html
"Really? If it's not being pulled at absolutely precisely the same speed, then surely someone at some point throughout history would feel the motion or resistance of the Earth/atmosphere"
You do, it's called wind. Exactly as if you're coasting downstream in a kayak and stuck your hand in the water, you would feel the slight perturbations caused by not all the water moving at the same velocity as you. That doesn't mean the river as a whole is not moving downstream.
"You will never see an eddy flowing steadily up-current in a river! The flow of the river is far too powerful to allow a random eddy to flow up-current, but this is exactly what you're saying happens with our atmosphere, so your example is moot."
You will see something similar, depending on your reference frame. That's my whole point. If you're watching from the riverbank, it's all moving downriver (i.e. forwards), but if you're in a kayak rowing downstream, some parts will be moving forwards and some backwards relative to your position. Watch some leaves the next time you're kayaking. You'll observe exactly this effect. Some move faster, some slower.
I guess one would have to go back to the ancients to see what they knew--is it Earth at the center of this ancient Sumerian plaque, or the sun?
http://www.sitchin.com/images/akkad3.jpg.pagespeed.ce.btlYb5eaZA.jpg
Thanks Salama, nice blog you've got going there. Keep up the good work!
It just seems counter-intuitive that the entire universe revolves around this tiny planet
It seems counter-intuitive to me to assume the Earth beneath our feet is moving when observation and all experimental evidence says it isn't. But to each his own :)
You will see something similar, depending on your reference frame. That's my whole point. If you're watching from the riverbank, it's all moving downriver (i.e. forwards), but if you're in a kayak rowing downstream, some parts will be moving forwards and some backwards relative to your position.
As Druv has pointed out many times, this relativistic philosophy and resulting pseudo-science is what we get for taking the absolute aether / firmament out of cosmology. The aether has been measured and confirmed to exist in the Sagnac, Michelson and Gale experiments, but still Einstein's relativity theory (which abandons the aether) reigns supreme in establishment thought and allows for the kind of philosophical leaps Ben's taking.
Without the absolute aether / firmament (i.e. the One non-thing within which all things exist) relativity theory makes all perspectives equally valid. Thanks to Einstein, Ben can confidently ignore his experience of a fixed Earth beneath him, ignore experiments proving what common sense tells him, and make relativistic excuses for the clouds and wind.
You do, it's called wind.
So 1,000 mph + 67,000 mph + 500,000 mph + 670,000,000 mph = the slight breeze on my face? And no feeling of motion whatsoever? I have trouble believing that.
Look at the pictures of star trails I posted. The stars all rotate around us once every 24 hours in perfect circles. Michelson-Morley and Airey's experiment proved that, just as it appears, it's the stars moving perfect circles around Earth and not the other way around. Here's another experiment that proves it:
"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." -Samuel Rowbotham, "Zetetic Astronomy"
Thats refreshing to think that the Earth is much different than just about anyone thinks. I have recently discovered a less important but still interesting conspiracy. The invention of the GUN. In our history it has been recorded that the handgun was invented around 1189 but, i noticed a persian warrior holding a pistol in a old persian painting. I forgot when but the painting was 50-150 years older than the claimed date of the invention of the gun, which lead me to the theory that dates involving inventing of technologies cannot be verified and there is no way to know when anything was created... Thanks- AG
From your analysis, anybody situated (or a machine collecting information) on any one of billions of other planets could also infer that THEY were in fact at the center of the universe. Since there are no well defined boundaries of space, you cannot find your exact position within it, and as long as there are stars on all sides, similar star trails would be observed on any rotating planet.
Given the number of stars in the universe, odds are that there HAS to be another planet with its axis situated directly under a bright "North" star.
Additionally, you can observe other planets rotating, so it is only logical to conclude that our planet is rotating as well. Your article, while well written, clearly is based on ulterior motives (proof in the existence of a god) and the theory expressed has been put to bed a LONG time ago. I would also like to note that both studies with dates to reference were conducted well over 80 years ago, long before the technological revolution.
That's refreshing to think that the Earth is much different than just about anyone thinks.
Your open mind is refreshing to me. Too many people knee-jerk defend their Copernican indoctrinations in the face of conclusive evidence and common sense.
Since there are no well defined boundaries of space, you cannot find your exact position within it, and as long as there are stars on all sides, similar star trails would be observed on any rotating planet.
This comment is yet another casualty of Einstein's relativity and dismissal of the aether. Did you see the last experiment I just posted? You can perform this yourself and prove that Earth has absolutely no orbital motion. After 6 months, based on Copernican lies, the Earth should be millions of miles away, but when you repeat the experiment, the same stars will be in the exact same place.
Additionally, you can observe other planets rotating, so it is only logical to conclude that our planet is rotating as well.
First of all, what makes you think that Earth is a planet? The ancients didn't make that assumption. The only reason you assume that planets (formerly known as "wandering stars") are Earth-like and that stars are distant suns is because of NASA propaganda. I guarantee if NASA hadn't implanted the idea in your heads, you wouldn't look up at the sky and assume that those little pin-pricks of light are all Earth-like objects.
They filmed in Arizona and told you it was the moon. They filmed in Australia and told you it was Mars. They made intricate CGI images/videos and told you it was actual footage of the planets. The lie is so big you can't believe how bold and simple it is.
"In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying." -Adolf Hitler
Take a good look at any NASA photo/video of the planets and tell me with a straight face that's not CGI. You'll notice NASA was started by Masons, every mission patch is awash with occult images, and their purpose of existence is to propagate this nihilistic cosmology of accidental big bang evolution over purposeful creation.
Your article, while well written, clearly is based on ulterior motives (proof in the existence of a god)
The only motive in all my research is finding the truth. I'd say your comment and rejection of common sense and evidence is "clearly based on ulterior motives."
I would also like to note that both studies with dates to reference were conducted well over 80 years ago, long before the technological revolution.
Contrary to popular egoistic opinion, modern man is far less intelligent than ancient man. Thanks to progressive mass indoctrination, the average man/woman 100 years ago was well smarter than us. If you don't believe me, try taking a 19th century 8th grade exam. It doesn't take a "technological revolution" to prove that the Earth is motionless. Many simple experiments can prove it in your back yard.
Magnetic wave theory:
http://sensacjenauki.manifo.com/wenus-
What philosophical leaps have I made? I have said nothing that isn't completely reproducible by anyone with either a high school physics education or a kayak.
My use of the word "relative" in no way corresponds to Einstein's theory of Relativity - please do not try to set up a straw man. In fact, this is all stuff that was well established by the time Newtonian physics came along and corresponds precisely with reality as it is observed every day by 7 billion people (unlike the theory of relativity, which I confess has never made a whole lot of sense to me personally).
Are you truly going to deny that objects may appear to move at different velocities depending on the motion of the reference frame (i.e., you)? Have you never been in a boat, or a car, or for that matter walked down the street and observed this yourself? Don't try to deflect by accusing me of holding a relativistic philosophy; are you actually going to deny this?
As regards the double-tube experiment you referenced, surely you are aware that the distance traveled by the Earth in six months pales in comparison to the distance to even the nearest star. Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light-years away; if you expect to detect an appreciable parallax on that kind of distance with two pipes in your backyard and your naked eye, you're not thinking straight.
One other thing; you do not feel motion. You have never felt motion in your whole life, and you never will. You feel acceleration, not motion; motion itself is not the result of a palpable force. Only when there is a difference in motion is it possible to feel it; therefore, we would feel exactly the same whether the Earth was standing still or moving at a million miles per hour.
My use of the word "relative" in no way corresponds to Einstein's theory of Relativity - please do not try to set up a straw man.
The Earth is fixed and motionless. The aether / firmament (containing the sun, moon, and stars) travels around us in perfect 24 hour circles. If you understood, as the ancients did, that the Earth is a fixed absolute and the firmament rotates in absolute perfect circles around us, then you would see that your use of the word "relative" in every way corresponds to Einstein's theory of relativity.
When the ancient Egyptians wrote about the sun and moon being carried in boats across the sky every day and every night, they weren't stupid and they weren't talking about a literal boat. It's a metaphor for heavenly waters, the aether / firmament which travels in perpetual absolute perfect circles carrying the sun, moon, and stars along with it.
Michelson, Morley, Gale, Sagnac and others proved that the aether exists and measured it; this isn't even debated, it's just ignored. By ignoring the aether and touting Einstein's relativity theory, the establishment cosmologists have taken all fixed absolutes away and left us with the haphazard relativistic philosophy you're so tightly clinging on to.
Are you truly going to deny that objects may appear to move at different velocities depending on the motion of the reference frame (i.e., you)? Have you never been in a boat, or a car, or for that matter walked down the street and observed this yourself? Don't try to deflect by accusing me of holding a relativistic philosophy; are you actually going to deny this?
You're using relativism to debate proven absolutes. The Earth is a fixed absolute. The firmament travels in fixed absolute circles around us. So your relativistic parallax perspective thought-experiment is irrelevant.
As regards the double-tube experiment you referenced, surely you are aware that the distance traveled by the Earth in six months pales in comparison to the distance to even the nearest star. Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light-years away; if you expect to detect an appreciable parallax on that kind of distance with two pipes in your backyard and your naked eye, you're not thinking straight.
And why do you think "Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light-years away?" Again, "light-year" is a hypothetical measurement that only exists if you reject the proven aether in favor of Einstein's relativity theory. What evidence do you have that Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light-years away? Because NASA told you so. That is all. Based on red-shifting light and relativist formulas, some establishment mathematicians cranked out the number 4.2 and you're repeating it like it means something. Ben, the stars don't move even an inch after six months of supposed orbital motion. The reason is because the Earth isn't moving. But you say the reason is because all those lights in the sky are too far away to change even an inch of parallax after hundreds of millions of miles of supposed orbit around the sun. Occam's razor anyone?
Try this experiment: Take a small battery powered fan into your car. face it toward the windshield. With the windows rolled up see how fast you have to go before the air coming from the fan no longer feels like it is moving forward.
Because the inside of the car is closed off from the outside the air will always blow forward no matter how fast you go or any acceleration or deceleration you make.
Oh and for the poster that said "we could theoretically levitate straight up & wait and land on a different spot" or anything similar, please pass that ish my way. Reminds me of the time I asked my best friend if a blade of grass would eventually grow into a tree.
very interesting... :-)
So...you're not going to answer it, then. All right. If you're not going to even think about your opinions a little bit and instead insist on setting up straw men, this conversation is clearly over.
Have a nice day; stay dry over there!
Hey, yeah 1/5 of the city is under water right now, it's pretty crazy. I'm not avoiding your questions or setting up a straw man. The examples you gave are true from a relativistic perspective, I'm not denying that. It's just that they're irrelevant because we're dealing with fixed absolutes and you want to talk about relative parallaxes. Peace
can you tell me where can I read more about static Earth besides the book "The Earth is not moving", in order to get more conclusive data?
It's pretty difficult to find material on geocentricism since it's been so carefully and systematically removed from reality. If anybody finds any good links please post them for us here. Thanks.
Hey Eric! It's once again Rob. Thanks for bringing this subject up once again, forgot it a long ago.
I've never ever felt motivated to research the subject myself, mostly because I find it quite hard to believe, but I'm open to it and want to start a complete research of the subject (vectorial calculus of body dynamics, physics laws involved, etc).
I would just like if you could transfer me the ebook please, it's quite hard to find (need the most sources of both heliocentric and geocentric appraisals and data as possible). When I'm finished, I'll give you all the information I'll gather.
Peace
I'll be curious to see what you come up with Rob. I haven't been able to find much information on this subject at all - it's been nearly suppressed out of existence. Most of the info out there on Geocentricism is religious in nature and uses verses from the Bible or Koran as "proof." Again, if anybody finds some good links, please post them here. Peace
I also watched your comment about the planets and the stars... stating that we too were decieved into believing them as spheres or something, and stars as being distant suns. Can you please explain me that more thoroughly?
I mean, I wouldn't be surprised that this to be actually and undoubtedly true, we've been lied to for so many years... and i've researched most fields of study to realize such thing, but, is the lie really that great? Well:
"The best, and probably the only way to absolutely conceal something, is by sorrounding that something in absolute ignorance. I mean, how can you question something that you absolutely ignore?"
~Adam Weishaupt
I'm not saying what those pin-points of light are in the sky either way, but simply pointing out a few observations. It has become absolutely unquestioned gospel truth that stars are suns and Earth is a planet, yet there is no proof of this anywhere, and the only "evidence" we have are images from NASA.
From my research on NASA, cosmology and the fake Moon and Mars landings, it has become apparent to me that NASA is the biggest mind-control operation in existence and their whole purpose is to propagate this massive nihilistic cosmological deception. As such, I am 100% skeptical of everything that comes from NASA, just on principle, including all Hubble images and supposed video of the planets.
I think anyone that's being really honest with themselves, when they look at any NASA footage or images of the planets, must admit that it all looks like CGI. I've never seen a convincing image of Saturn that couldn't have been made in Photoshop.
Saturn, Satan, and 666
So if you'll bare with me for a moment and assume with me that NASA is simply the Mason's latest step in propagating their heliocentric deception, the moon, Mars landings and all images they show us are fake. If that's the case, then what evidence do we have that stars are actually distant solar systems? What evidence do we have that planets are Earth-like objects? None. It's certainly an interesting and plausible idea, but there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support it.
"The stars are projectors yeah, projecting our lives down to this planet Earth" -Modest Mouse
Many ancient civilizations believed that stars are like our soul projectors, that we each have a soul and we each are a star. The stars run a fixed course around Earth along their celestial sphere, and that is like each one of our karma, directing our lives. In every ancient civilization the "planets" were always considered the gods. They are known as "wandering stars" because they don't follow fixed courses like regular stars and seem internally directed as if possessing their own consciousness.
I don't pretend to know either way, but I'll hold the right to remain 100% skeptical of everything NASA says since I've collected voluminous evidence of their other deceptions. Hope that helps. Peace
You can actually view the planets (including Saturn and its rings) with amateur telescopes. There is no need to trust NASA on that particular point.
An online images search turns up plenty of results, if you do not yourself have access to an amateur telescope.
Yes, the stars and planets appear as tiny dots of light, just like they do without a telescope. Everything else we "know" about the stars and planets has been given to us by NASA, including all images/video of Earth from space. Here's a clip of Apollo astronauts faking a shot of Earth from space:
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon 4/5
Why do you suppose they needed to fake video of the Earth from space?
That's simply not true. You can clearly see the disc of several planets as well as the rings of Saturn and several moons.
Certain "planets" are only visible from amateur telescopes as points of light, but that is not true of, for example, Mars, Jupiter, or Saturn, all of which will resolve clearly into discs with some discernable surface features if you examine them with a decently-powered amateur telescope.
Like I said, there are plenty of amateur images available on the Interwebs of planets through amateur telescopes. Obviously there are no images of the Earth from amateurs, but the statement that all our images of other planets come from NASA is incorrect.
I wonder if there are any photos of the Earth from the Soviet space program. Have you come across anything like that in your research?
Thanks so much for your insight into the geocentric universe Eric. I read through the appraisal with great intrigue and like everyone else was led to believe the earth is spinning around the sun along with all the other planets!!
What i find fascinating with some people is their complete lack of basic and fundamental reasoning in their defence of a heliocentric universe and like their pseudo scientist masters they adjust their theory to fit a preconceived fallacy which is the bedrock of western civilisation.
Its so enlightening that the truth is coming out in an ever increasing age of fiction and clammed up minds, that when it does it really offends people and this goes to show just how successful the Illuminati are at brainwashing their subjects who go along with everything thats taught them.
Somewhere in their secret meetings they must all have such a laugh at us that we are that stupid to be so indoctrinated with falsehoods. It makes the Protocols more poignant as i recall
"The intellectuals of the goyim will puff themselves up with their knowledges, and without any logical verification of them will put into affect all the information available from science, which our AGENTUR specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want.
DESTRUCTIVE EDUCATION!
Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism and Nietzsche-ism.
To us Jews at any rate it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the goyim!".
Protocol II; 2,3
Of course the Protocols were 'debunked' as a 'work of fiction' right????!!. It sure seems someone is desperate to keep the truth from the sheeple and in a world of universal lies and deceit telling the truth is indeed a revolutionary act!
Certain "planets" are only visible from amateur telescopes as points of light, but that is not true of, for example, Mars, Jupiter, or Saturn, all of which will resolve clearly into discs with some discernable surface features if you examine them with a decently-powered amateur telescope.
Right, we can see "tiny dots of light" or "discs with some discernable features" but what we don't see is evidence that they are "Earth-like habitations" as the Moon, Mars, and other planets have been presented to us as. Without a NASA indoctrination, the Moon and Mars are simply lights in the sky, but since the Apollo "Moon" landings and the Viking "Mars" rover, the world has been taught to believe that these two circular lights in the night sky are actually Earth-like places up in outer space. This has warped our ideas of cosmology and destroyed the perceived importance and uniqueness of Earth.
I wonder if there are any photos of the Earth from the Soviet space program. Have you come across anything like that in your research?
Not that I'm aware of, but I have no more reason to trust the Soviet space program than I do NASA.
What i find fascinating with some people is their complete lack of basic and fundamental reasoning in their defence of a heliocentric universe and like their pseudo scientist masters they adjust their theory to fit a preconceived fallacy which is the bedrock of western civilisation. Its so enlightening that the truth is coming out in an ever increasing age of fiction and clammed up minds, that when it does it really offends people and this goes to show just how successful the Illuminati are at brainwashing their subjects who go along with everything thats taught them. Somewhere in their secret meetings they must all have such a laugh at us that we are that stupid to be so indoctrinated with falsehoods.
Thanks for the great comment Zuma. I totally agree. Interesting how it's somehow become "accepted fact" that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a hoax even though it perfectly describes and encapsulates the Zionist agenda which has since been carried out. The winners always write history and "debunk" anyone who exposes them.
Eric I used to follow your blog frequently. In recent months I've noticed some unfounded and rather wild ramblings that has had me doubting some of your beliefs and assertions on your blog.
I would like to say that This post is absolute nonsense, it has for me put the nail in the coffin regarding your credibility.
I would like to see how you can explain the following phenomena with your geocentric model; the phases of the moon, the opposing rotation of weather systems in earth's northern and southern hemispheres, the other planets' retrograde motion in the sky, and the seasons ... just to name a few.
Seriously, I want to see if you can give a sound answer to each (or even one) of those phenomena using the geocentric model.
You may not believe there are other planets in the sky that make up the rest of our solar system, or that NASA's photographs of them are real, but if you go to any observatory with a powerful enough telescope, as I have done myself, you will see these planets - and in some cases their moons - in considerable enough detail to realize that these are large spheres of rock and dirt or gas, that are in some ways similar to our own planet, the same ones that NASA has photographed.
However, that would probably never have an effect on you because of your extreme and unbending disposition. My bet is that you'd write it off as part of the conspiracy; the eyepiece being hooked up to a screen display of a CGI Jupiter or Mars.
You can view the planets through many amateur telescopes too, which leads me to my next question;
You answered an anonymous question about photos from the soviet space program stating that you "have no more reason to trust the Soviet space program than I do NASA." But why did you completely ignore his question about images of planets from amateur telescopes?
Also, I see you asked "And why aren't there world-wide perturbations of our smooth rotation after earthquakes or meteor strikes?" -- Actually there are perturbations in the case of earthquakes, but the earth is so massive that the effect is imperceptible, and what recorded meteor strikes on earth do you have to base this question on?
Anyway, Ben debunked this crap the best, I hope he has some more to add. And again, please explain the phenomena stated in the third paragraph using the geocentric model!!!
Eric I used to follow your blog frequently. In recent months I've noticed some unfounded and rather wild ramblings that has had me doubting some of your beliefs and assertions on your blog. I would like to say that This post is absolute nonsense, it has for me put the nail in the coffin regarding your credibility.
No Eugene, your inability to question your Copernican indoctrination is absolute nonsense, and my well-researched and presented articles threaten your stubborn, closed mind.
Has anyone else noticed this trend of detractors in the comments section "taking offense" or "acting distraught" at some article and then calling my integrity and credibility into question? Couldn't be Cointel Pro trying to denounce my daring and ability to question taboo subjects could it? No, just kidding, I'm sure you're all genuine commenters and no trolls ever visit here.
I would like to see how you can explain the following phenomena with your geocentric model; the phases of the moon, the opposing rotation of weather systems in earth's northern and southern hemispheres, the other planets' retrograde motion in the sky, and the seasons
Moon Phases
Retrograde Motion of the Planets
The Seasons and Weather
Not that your narrow mind could understand such things Eugene, but here's the research you so impolitely requested. I'm not here to try and convince you of something your pea brain can't comprehend, so don't be surprised if I refuse to approve further antagonistic comments. As for your telescope comment, as I already said, you cannot confirm the moon or planets to be Earth-like habitations via telescope. Now take your trollish attitude elsewhere to less "wild," more "credible" blogs.
Rob, That is a fascinating Quote you mentioned.. do you know the source?
"...how can you question something that you absolutely ignore?" Weishaupt
So basically what you are saying is that you have changed a belief system into another and now you are defending it like any good believer would. All of your main arguments have clearly been debunked but you ignore the facts and cling on points that you can still defend.
If you close your eyes while driving a car your senses tell you you are not moving but that doesn't change the fact that you are still in a moving car. So open your eyes before you crash.
Hello Eric! Just one word pendulum. Explain that.
Two words: Allais Effect
Foucalt Pendulum Eclipsed by Allais Effect
An answer to vindicate a geocentric model of the universe against a critical objection such as Foucault’s Pendulum is found within the advent of modern geocentric models. The first one, by the German physicist Paul Gerber, showed that if the universe rotates around the earth once per day instead of the earth rotating on its axis once per day, then the usual evidences for heliocentrism, such as the Foucault pendulum would appear precisely as we see them.
Scientific Reconsideration of Geocentricity
A swinging pendulum does not in any way confirm heliocentricity. Whether the Earth spins around the Universe or the Universe spins around the Earth, the same effect would be observed. However, the Allais Effect has been repeatedly observed showing that during eclipses, the movement of pendulums slows down! This is absolutely incompatible with the idea of a steadily rotating Earth and shows that it is the Universal rotating aether / firmament which affects the pendulum and causes it to momentarily cease its circular movement.
Actually, it was me who made the quote Salama, I merely asigned it to infamous Adam Wesihaupt (creator of the contemporary Illuminati) to sound kinda knowledgeable.
Eric,
In our heliocentric model of Earth's revolution and rotation, if we are whizzing about at a constant velocity, all is good and explanatory. The only time you would "feel" these incredible speeds, is if our Earth accelerated or decelerated.
The atmosphere is moving at 1000 mph WITH us, especially at/near ground level atmospheric pressure and density. Yet, since the atmosphere is fluid, and is not a solid extension of our earth, we
DO experience the turbulent effects of our rotation in our whether. A big example would be Jet Streams. (and yes, pilots do have to account for them when applicable)
Jet streams are caused by a combination of a planet's rotation on its axis and atmospheric heating (by solar radiation and, on some planets other than Earth, internal heat).
As far as the cannonball argument..... We are on this ride with the Earth. You, Me, the atmosphere, The cannon and the cannon ball are all rotating at 1000 mph (at equator). Together.
Therefore no relative motion or forces at play, just the blast of the cannon as is.
As far as Revolving around the Sun...
Astronomers depend on our solar revolution which annually changes our visual perspective of the heavens by 2 A.U. (distance from earth to sun). By measuring the slight semi-annual position change of a star due to our changing view perspective(solar revolution), we calculate a star's distance. We can measure and observe this annual position change.
From a Geocentric perspective, It seems unlikely that the heavens and the Ether would dance left to right in this manner as the heaven revolve around us.
And.. even if the stars were much closer than we believe, they would have to revolve around us at speeds with many times over the speeds we speak of for Earth.
All that motion of an infinite amount of heavenly bodies at relatively infinite greater distances and therefore at infinitely higher speeds.....eh?Geocentric Theory is not plausible, nor does it share an aspect of divinity. IMO
in the heliocentric model (Copernicus), essentially only one object, the Earth, needs to move in any particular fashion to explain heavenly observation.
In the geocentric model, the infinite moves while Earth sits still. Statistically, the odds this theory is correct is about infinity to one.
Not simple, not efficient, probably not true, and where is the divinity in that?
I can understand a dubious position toward Science as so far that it can be used and bought to support a corrupt geo-political agenda. Yet sometimes science is just science, our best stab at truth via sensory observation and logical methodologies.
Happy 11-11-11 (i found your blog while researching the number 11 and the work of Rick Clay.)
Thanks for the comment Aztlander. Glad to hear you're looking into the important work of Rik Clay.
The only time you would "feel" these incredible speeds, is if our Earth accelerated or decelerated. The atmosphere is moving at 1000 mph WITH us, especially at/near ground level atmospheric pressure and density.
So why don't we "feel" the Allais effect then? Can you explain the Allais effect using the heliocentric theory? NASA can't, they just ignore it. None of you can explain the Michelson, Morley, Gale, Airey, or Sagnac results either, but you're all good at ignoring them, and repeating the same refuted arguments.
Astronomers depend on our solar revolution which annually changes our visual perspective of the heavens by 2 A.U. (distance from earth to sun). By measuring the slight semi-annual position change of a star due to our changing view perspective(solar revolution), we calculate a star's distance.
See Ben's "4.2 light-years" argument. "2 A.U." means nothing to me and I don't know why it does to anyone else. Has anyone taken a tape-measure and checked these? You cannot confirm the distance to those lights in the sky any better than I can measure God's fingernail.
The relativistic formulas they're using to come up with these ridiculously large distances are simply the huge numbers they need to account for our lack of change in position after hundreds of millions of miles of supposed rotation each year. You can prove in your backyard that the Earth has no orbital motion, but if you believe like Ben that the nearest star is "4.2 light-years" away, then that means we won't experience a single inch of parallax change even after hundreds of millions of miles of supposed annual orbit.
That's like me telling you the Horizon is 4.2 light-years away. You can't disprove it because no matter how far you travel, the Horizon still appears equally far away. So to convince you, I just have to come up with a sufficiently large number and it will account for your lack of change in perspective.
Hi thanks for the interesting article gave me something to think about ,i remember seeing a video called thunderbolts of the gods http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374#
there is also a website
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/
its about the electric nature of the universe they also don,t subsribe to the big bang [what a silly name]idea, been a long time since i looked at it though.thanks for your blog Al.
Hey Al, thanks for the comment and links. I've seen that electrical universe documentary before and I think it's very plausible and makes good sense. Peace
your inability to question your Copernican indoctrination is absolute nonsense, and my well-researched and presented articles threaten your stubborn, closed mind.
I hope it is clear, Eugene, why I don't think there is much more to be added to the discussion.
When everyone who disagrees with you is simply stubborn and closed-minded, it's pretty easy to maintain all sorts of nonsensical beliefs. It is an interesting perversion of the Occam's Razor principle Eric loves to cite: is it simpler that the world is more complicated than you realize, or is it simpler that everyone who says so is a liar?
I highly recommend examining those links Eric posted in response to your comment; they are entertaining, at least.
In my understanding geostationary orbit proves that earth rotates around its axis. It doesn't prove geocentric model is wrong but it definitely proves that earth is not stationary.
Wow i watched the link you sent and it never occured to me, how easy it is to make fake the universe. http://youtu.be/5_9gMn1OYPw -AG
Have a look at this supposed footage from 2011 NASA's ISS. How is it that people believe this to be real footage? Have you seen Transformers and Lord of the Rings? I'll admit this is some very well made CGI, but it's clearly CGI:
Earth in HD
I showed my girlfriend and she just started laughing, then pointing out all the problems with it. Where are the layers of dimensionality? It's supposed to be time-lapsed but compare the motion of the "satellite" with the individual "lightning" sparks constantly shown. Compare that with the distance being covered per second of time-lapse and you've got a divide by 0 error.
So here's Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins faking a shot of Earth from space in 1969:
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon 4/5
In 40 years the Masons in Hollywood and NASA have gotten much more adept at faking shots of Earth from space. People believe it more too. A survey taken just after the Apollo landings said 30% of Americans were suspicious of their authenticity, another survey taken in 1999 found only 6% of Americans didn't believe the moon landings were real. Like Hitler said about "the big lie," make it big, keep repeating it, and eventually people will believe it."
You can see the Apollo 11 astronauts faking a shot of Earth from space, and you can see this 2011 "footage" is clearly CGI, but something in you wants to believe it's all real because as Hitler said, you can't "believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
I've just read the heated polemic and I've noticed that no heliocentrism supporter has ever tackled the issue of the centrifugal force. They all choose to talk about the absence of acceleration which, in their opinion would explain why we cannot feel the movement of the earth but what about the centrifugal force? Every spinning object has one! And more so an object with a huge mass like the earth! Can anyone calculate what gravitational force would be necessary be to annihilate the immense centrifugal force's effects?
Also why is the atmosphere spinning together with the earth? If the gravitational force would be so great to be able to pull the atmosphere together with the earth then how come the little birds are able to fly?? Or the bugs for that matter??
Great questions Ralph. Supposedly the Earth is moving at 1,000 + 67,000 + 500,000 + 670,000,000 mph through space, and somehow all these centrifugal, gravitational, and inertial forces cancel out perfectly so that standing on Earth we experience none of it.
And when asked after hundreds of millions of miles of supposed orbit why the stars haven't changed their position in the sky even one inch, their answer is that they are all several "light-years" away, which is a Star Trek term that makes gullible heliocentrists adhere to an untenable position.
Can anyone calculate what gravitational force would be necessary be to annihilate the immense centrifugal force's effects? Also why is the atmosphere spinning together with the earth? If the gravitational force would be so great to be able to pull the atmosphere together with the earth then how come the little birds are able to fly?? Or the bugs for that matter??
Right, what annihilates all those forces? Why can birds and bugs still fly? Why can't we feel all this motion and these centrifugal forces, but I can feel the slightest breeze on my face? Why can clouds and wind travel in opposing directions simultaneously? Why does a pendulum slow down during an eclipse? And why can't any of you heliocentrists explain the results of Michelson, Morely, Gale, Airey, Sagnac, Kantor, and Allais' experiments?
Thanks for this. Im not one of the knee jerk deniers and your thoughts and writing have reinforced my beliefs in this.
You are not the only one who challenges the Copernican theory as of late... what if I mentioned that some people are now suggesting that the Earth isn't even round? Rather, they claim that the Earth is convex. I do not claim to know the answers to these riddles, I just bear the message. Go have a look at a group called "Projecto Portal" & their little friend "Bilu" :
Bilu's big announcement? The Earth is NOT round, says Bilu. Rather the earth is CONVEX and Bilu says we can prove it with a few unconventional tests. Although i'm not one hundred percent behind this, I still find it very intriguing. Of all the things an alien could tell us, this is what Bilu says:
My Gosh... check this out, I translated all of Bilu's words from this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy26JGKz … grec_index
B:
On earth it is not spherical, convex, not flat she and convex on the continents
mainly in South America.
Q:
What do you suggest we do ADJUSTMENTS to prove that she is not spherical, it
is not round?
Bilu:
Tests perform well testing. Bilu will spend a lot of testing for you all an optical
illusion. atmospheric layers of the electromagnetic field of the sphericity of the
plain water in the oceans and leveled agus also naviosmastros tests, cases, and
both have spoken but Bilu. Bilu Bilu has maihor will explain many things to say
Q:
then the whole edge of earth and the South as well, any other theories are
other tests that we can do to be able to prove it there?
B:
Many, take all tests, the test picks up the light, take the test of the main
telescope is pointing at the Moon, the Moon also just a non-spherical optical
illusion according to the layers of the atmosphere and may also be made with
tests electromagnetic fields on the plane on the cruise on the rivers. the most
perfect form of energy is bound up the waters by throwing a stone square,
rectangle, no matter all the waves will be circular gravity is totally wrong and
forces are varis Bilu says that these forces of earth scientists have not
explained.
So I dug around a bit more on Bilu and Convex Earth Check this out:
The first tests to see if the theory proposed by Land Convex ET Bilu, according to which the continents and oceans are convex level, surprised the researchers found that the effects of optical illusion caused by moisture, fog, sunlight reflected and possibly other unknown laws.
Urandir Fernandes de Oliveira, coordinator of testing and the other members of the research is shown in surprise with the results obtained in Santos / SP and SĆ£o LourenƧo do Sul / RS, not to expect that human perception was easily fooled by optical illusions that we do believe that everything we see is real.
Research is ongoing and has already realized that the human eye can be fooled as to what occurs in the effects of "Fata Morgana", said the mirages that are higher than those inferior mirages, the more common and that create the illusion of lakes, water in distant deserts or on roads with hot asphalt, even when using high precision equipment technology.
Sounds a lot like the argument about dinosaurs as being "here to test our faith," that most Christians use. The fact is, consciousness is behind all of this, and so what if we're not the center of the universe? We're still here aren't we? Whether the earth is on the edge or in the center doesn't change a thing.
But, realistically, the canon thing, and jumping off a moving horse... all very simply explained with relativity. Sure, you jump a further distance if you jump off the front of the horse as opposed to the back- but your relative distance to the horse would be the same either way (except for maybe the wind factor, which ties right into this). Have you ever read Relativity? It's pretty basic stuff.
I have to hand it to you for calling Einstein a "dark philosopher" though. Wow.
Here is something to seriously ponder - NASA has taken men to the moon and back, filmed the rotation of the sun, launched many space shuttle missions and placed many satellites in orbit around the earth - you can see such videos all over the Internet. One video (not pictures) that you will not find is of the earth rotating with the stars clearly in view. And I don't mean satellites rotating around the earth and then taking video from that point of view. I mean think about it, this whole debate would be over in a heart beat if NASA or any other multi-billion dollar agency could just produce one single video of the earth spinning while the stars are visible.
Post a Comment