Monday, December 5, 2011

Geocentricity vs. Heliocentricity

Heliocentricity, besides being proven false by experience and multiple experiments, is full of the most fantastical improbabilities and theoretical leaps that most people are willing to make simply because the pseudo-scientific establishment told them so. Here are some questions and answers to help clear up the Geocentric vs. Heliocentric world-views:

Why does the Earth seem motionless?

GC: Because it is motionless.

HC: It only seems motionless because it's spinning at a perfectly uniform speed with no acceleration or deceleration ever and the atmosphere is magically velcroed to it. Actually the Earth is spinning on it's axis at 1,000 mph, rotating around the Sun at 67,000 mph, which is orbiting the Milky Way at 500,000 mph and shooting through the known Universe at 67,000,000 mph. We don't feel even the slightest bit of this motion because all the centrifugal, gravitational, and inertial forces somehow perfectly cancel out.

"Most people who accept that the Earth is in motion believe it is a proven fact. They do not realize that not only has the motion of the Earth never been proven, but by the constructs of modern physics and cosmology cannot be proven. Again, even modern cosmology does not claim to be able to prove that the Earth is in motion. In fact the very best argument for Earth’s motion is based on pure ‘modesty’ not logic, observation and experience. If anyone could prove the Earth’s motion, that someone would become more famous than Einstein, Hawking and others. They may all be fools but even they would not make such an ignorant claim to proof of Earth’s motions, and those who do so don’t realize just how ignorant of physics they really are! Before folks go demonstrating how ignorant they are, they should consider: 1. The relationship between Mach’s principle and relativity. 2. The relationship between Gravity and Inertia, and Gravity and Acceleration (and the paradoxes that exist). 3. Relativity does not claim to prove Earth’s motions, in fact it ‘dictates’ the ridiculous idea that motion cannot be proven period. 4. Relativity proposes motion, it does not nor can it claim to disprove that the Earth is the center of the universe! 5. Only those who are ignorant of physics attempt to make arguments based on weather patterns, ballistic trajectories, geosynchronous satellites, and Foucault’s pendulums for evidence of Earth’s motions! For all those ‘geniuses’ out there, not even Einstein would claim such stupidity." -Allen Daves

Why do the Sun and Moon appear to be the same size?

GC: Because they are the same size.

HC: They only appear to be the same size because of an incredibly perfect parallax perspective from Earth. Actually the Sun is 1.392x10^6 km in diameter and 1.496x10^8 km from Earth. The Moon is 3474 km in diameter and 384,403 km from the Earth. And these just happen to be the EXACT diameters and distances necessary for a viewer from Earth to falsely perceive them as being the same size.

Why do the Sun, Moon, and Stars all appear to revolve around a stationary Earth?

GC: Because they do.

HC: The Moon does revolve around the Earth, but the Earth actually revolves around the Sun, and all the stars only seem to revolve around the Earth because the Earth itself is spinning beneath your feet!

"Whilst we sit drinking our cup of tea or coffee the world is supposedly rotating at 1,039 mph at the equator, whizzing around the Sun at 66,500 mph, hurtling towards Lyra at 20,000 mph, revolving around the centre of the 'Milky Way' at 500,000 mph and merrily moving at God knows what velocity as a consequence of the 'Big Bong.' And not even a hint of a ripple on the surface of our tea, yet tap the table lightly with your finger and ... !" -Neville T. Jones

"If the Government or NASA had said to you that the Earth is stationary, imagine that. And then imagine we are trying to convince people that 'no, no it's not stationary, it's moving forward at 32 times rifle bullet speed and spinning at 1,000 miles per hour.' We would be laughed at! We would have so many people telling us 'you are crazy, the Earth is not moving!' We would be ridiculed for having no scientific backing for this convoluted moving Earth theory. And not only that but then people would say, 'oh then how do you explain a fixed, calm atmosphere and the Sun's observable movement, how do you explain that?' Imagine saying to people, 'no, no, the atmosphere is moving also but is somehow magically velcroed to the moving-Earth. The reason is not simply because the Earth is stationary.' So what we are actually doing is what makes sense. We are saying that the moving-Earth theory is nonsense. The stationary-Earth theory makes sense and we are being ridiculed. You've got to picture it being the other way around to realize just how RIDICULOUS this situation is. This theory from the Government and NASA that the Earth is rotating and orbiting and leaning over and wobbling is absolute nonsense and yet people are clinging to it, tightly, like a teddy bear. They just can't bring themselves to face the possibility that the Earth is stationary though ALL the evidence shows it: we feel no movement, the atmosphere hasn't been blown away, we see the Sun move from East-to-West, everything can be explained by a motionless Earth without bringing in all these assumptions to cover up previous assumptions gone bad." -Allen Daves

Why do we never see the rotation of the Moon?

GC: Because it doesn't rotate.

HC: Both the Moon and the Earth are actually rotating but they are doing so in such a way that from our perspective it seems that neither are. The Earth is spinning East to West at 1,000 mph while orbiting the Sun at 67,000 mph. The Moon is spinning West to East at 10.3 mph while orbiting the Earth at 2,288 mph. These motions/speeds perfectly cancel out so that the Moon always only shows us one side.

"They want you to believe that the Moon's rotation is perfectly synchronized with its orbit so that's why we only ever see one side of the Moon, rather than conclude the obvious - that the Moon is simply NOT rotating. Moreover, they had to slow down the Moon's speed by 58,870 mph AND reverse its direction to West-East to successfully sell their phony heliocentricity system to a gullible public. I don't think there is one person in many, many thousands - regardless of education - who knows that the Copernican Model had to turn the Moon's observable direction around and give it a new speed to accommodate the phases and eclipses." -Marshall Hall

The Moon presented a special math problem for the construction of the heliocentricity model. The only way to make the Moon fit in with the other assumptions was to reverse its direction from that of what everyone who has ever lived has seen it go. The math model couldn’t just stop the Moon like it did the Sun, that wouldn’t work. And it couldn’t let it continue to go East to West as we see it go, either at the same speed or at a different speed. The only option was to reverse its observed East to West direction and change its speed from about 64,000 miles an hour to about 2,200 miles an hour. This reversal along with the change in speed were unavoidable assumptions that needed to be adopted if the model was to have a chance of mimicking reality." -Bernard Brauer

Why do the stars appear to be fixed along a celestial sphere?

GC: Because they are.

HC: The stars only appear to be fixed along a celestial sphere because they are so incredibly far away. Even after hundreds of millions of miles of our (supposed) orbit around the Sun, the stars appear in the exact same positions at the exact same meridian times because they are many "light-years" away. A light-year is approximately 6 TRILLION miles away and that is why they falsely seem fixed from our faulty perspective.

"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"

Why can't I simply hover in a helicopter and wait for the Earth's rotation to bring my destination to me?

GC: Because the Earth doesn't rotate.

HC: Because the Earth's atmosphere is magically velcroed to the Earth and rotates along with it.

If the atmosphere is magically velcroed to the Earth and constantly rotates from West to East along with it, 1) how is it that clouds, wind and weather patterns often travel in opposing directions simultaneously? 2) why don't East to West traveling planes or projectiles encounter increased resistance? 3) why can I feel the slightest Westward breeze but not the Earth's supposed 1,000 mph Eastward spin? 4) If gravitational force is so great to pull the atmosphere together with the Earth then how come little birds and bugs are able to fly?

GC: All these questions are moot and irrelevant in the geocentric view.

HC: All of these questions are difficult and my pseudo-scientific heliocentric answers will be implausible and like grasping at straws.

"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 ... 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"

How do Heliocentricist's account for the Allais effect, and the results of Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale, Airy's Failure, Sagnac and Kantors experiments proving the aether and a fixed Earth?

GC: Yeah, good question.

HC: (silence)

"I don’t argue or enter into debates, because the issue here is exactly what you would bring to the debate, which is the wealth of erroneous information that allowed our situation to become as dire as it is in the first place. Your argument would consist of phony statistics, historical fables, the newspaper’s latest lies, and profit-driven 'science.' My argument is simple. Discover who controls everything you’ve been told, only believe what you can verify for yourself through original documentation, science and logic, and then look for a political connection between the sources of all the erroneous information. Find the motives behind the lies. If you did that, there would be no debate, and we would all agree on whose head should roll, as the saying goes." -Jolly Roger


Eric Dubay said...

Here are a few more interesting quotes from Geocentricists:

"Centrifugal Force (CF): the apparent force that is felt by an object moving in a curved path that acts outwardly away from the center of rotation. If the Earth were rotating the CF would cause people, objects and valuable commodities to weigh less at the equator than at more northern or southern lines of latitude. The equation for Centrifugal Force is: CF = (mass x velocity squared) over radius. That means that one could transport cargo ships full of valuable commodities from the equator where it would weigh less and then proceed to sell them up north or south for a higher price. Opponents admit that there is a weight difference but only 0.9%. That means that multimillion dollar commodity shipments would be missing thousands of tons... but they are NOT!!" -Pawel Kolasa

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

"Ignorant folk think that such minority opinions as Geocentrism are the 'conspiracy theories'... There is a real conspiracy for sure but the sad thing is it is mostly a conspiracy of willful and apathetic ignorance (for numerous reasons). The very people who would call Geocentrists 'quack conspiracy theorists' are either themselves completely ignorant of even modern cosmological axioms and principles of gravitation and mechanics or they are just 'playing stupid,' hoping that no one will notice or call their bluff. Most of those who pretend to be intelligent and/or knowledgeable about physics are just plain stupid, and a few are just ignorant but once you show them, if they are honest and will continue the dialogue, they say something to the effect of, 'Wow! I even got a PhD in physics X number of years ago and even taught it for X number of years... I did not think about it that way... but you can't ignore those facts.' You can go to any mental hospital and the population of wackos and inmates will outnumber the doctors and the sane folk, and moreover call them crazies. What’s even more hilarious is the fact that even folk like Steven Hawking and a few intellectually honest physicists and cosmologists who would read what we are saying and are capable of understanding it, know that what we have been saying is absolutely true (it is a philosophical not a logic and observational choice). Not only do they admit that but even 'snicker' about it to each other but they won't dare to address that too openly with the dumb, ignorant masses... best not to confuse the common folk with unnecessary information and facts. Even more sad are all the others out there who don’t have a clue what I’m saying here and shake their heads thinking they know something about physics that tells them that the Earth moves. If only they studied the text books and peer-reviewed papers a little closer, they would realize just how absolutely ignorant with a capital 'I' that argument really is." -Allen Daves

Anonymous said...

I thought of this great example last time i saw your post on geocentricism. Here is why the Earth is not spinning... If the current accepted theory that the Earth spins is true, than the area of Earth's equator would spin around the speed of 1000 m/ph west to east to complete a 24 hour day. Where i am located, it would spin around 850 m/ph. Now if the Earth is spinning 850 m/ph, then you simply have to to divide that speed by 60(minutes in an hour) to find out how fast you have to move to beat the Earth's motion like a huge treadmeel. One would have to be moving more than 850 m/ph to even go in the direction of west. That would mean that its physically impossible to walk west, bike west, drive west!!! Yet we can, with no resistance in that direction. CASE CLOSED, the EARTH DOES NOT SPIN...HC(0),GC(1)...Some good topics for your site are Education Sytems(look up the term sudbury school, its very cool), you could talk about the new bill being passed(s.1867)Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial, you could talk about DMT(dimenthentrypnol), Shamanism…Peace-AG

nvra75 said...

the still photos make me think we are in a "worm hole".

what is in the center of the concentric circle of stars from the cameras viewpoint?

Anonymous said...

Good post Eric.what do you think of the corlois effect and it being " evidence" of earth rotating? What would it's place be in relation to a geocentric model?

Corlois effect is the direction water will form into a vortex when you flush a stoilet, sink, etc..counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere, clockwise in the southern hemisphere WITHOUT intentionally influencing the direction of the flow.


Eric Dubay said...

Hey Anonymous, the Coriolis effect just like Foucault's pendulum can be equally explained by the rotating firmament or a rotating Earth. Regardless whether it is the Earth that is rotating or the aether that is rotating, the same effect would be noticed. No experiment however has ever shown the Earth to be moving, but the Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale, Airy, Sagnac, and Kantor experiments all proved the existence and motion of the aether.

For more on this I came across a great PDF today I've been reading:

Galileo vs. The Geocentric Theory of the Universe

Baron Munse said...

Interesting, I'm not expert in this. But there are some social implications worth mentioning.

The accepted theories of space seem to support the idea of human insagnifigance. In the material sense.

An occult perspective might suggest that, each person is the static center of their own universe, because there needs to be a mind to perceive it. He or she is at the center of perception always.

The middle may be here or it may be there, but if a fellow is denied the knowledge that he is also undeniably a and the "center". That is a way of consciously or unconsciously claiming power over them.

If we look at the "evolution" or concept of the evolution of the sun, there are always people who undeniably know what it is, usually it coincides with the latest science, in ancient times it was god, in the 1800s, it was burning gas, the the 1900s, it was nuclear, I believe, now I belive it works by fusion. What shall it be next? Always it is the most powerful thing man can conceive of. Many will always be certain of that.

There are even those dumb enough to say when it will burn out, based on their "measurements".

The sun will always be what it is, and that is likely beyond our terrestrial perception at this time. We don't have great tools to measure it.

As to the workings of the rotation or non rotation of the earth, it's the same presumptuous certanty. Subject to the same "evolution" as the sun.

My take.

Good stuff, thanks for the read.

Eric Dubay said...

Here's another quote confirming the irrelevance of Foucault's pendulum and the Coriolis effect to determining geo or heliocentricity:

"Since Foucault’s pendulum and the Coriolis effect are closely related, they can be considered together. Foucault’s pendulum, which was constructed in Paris in 1851, was a pendulum consisting of a 200 foot long flexible wire on which a heavy iron weight was suspended so as to be free to oscillate in any direction. It was found that the oscillating pendulum never retraced its path but at each swing apparently deviated: if the experiment is conducted in the northern hemisphere it deviates to the right, and in the southern hemisphere it will deviate to the left. The so-called “Coriolis effect” is similar: a shell from a long range gun, aimed at a target to the south of it, will land to the right of the target in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern hemisphere. Although the apparently obvious conclusion to be drawn from these two experiments is that the earth is rotating anticlockwise when observed from a fixed point above the North Pole, on further examination the obviousness is seen to be an illusion. It is at first not easy to grasp the fact that Foucault’s pendulum and the Coriolis effect only demonstrate relative motion and do not demonstrate which, if either, of the two objects is at rest, but careful thought will show it to be true. All that the experiments show is that there are forces which act on bodies in motion relative to each other, and that either the earth is rotating, or the inertial field of the “rest of the universe” is rotating round the earth, or some combination of these movements is occurring. Certainly a rotating earth would account for the phenomenon equally well (in this case the fixed stars would be preventing the ether from going round the earth at the same speed as the latter rotated), but it does not account for it better. The phenomenon cannot therefore logically be used to prove any one of the alternatives." -N. Martin Gwynne

Trying to use Foucault's pendulum as proof for heliocentricity really backfired when Maurice Allais repeatedly observed pendulums slowing their motion during eclipses! This implies that either the "rotating Earth" decelerates during eclipses or the firmament does. NASA doesn't want to concede the implications so they continue to remain silent on the issue:

Foucault Pendulum Eclipsed by Allais Effect

Anonymous said...

So what's the purpose of this lie they tell us?

Anthony said...

For what its worth, I know several physicists that believe in an aether, i.e., that empty space is not empty. This idea of an aether was in Cauchy's work, and Lord Kelvin's. Why do you think Einstein won a Nobel prize? Because he was able to come up with a logical explaination against such a concept.

What I am struggling with the most is how can it be that such a vast and immortal conspiracy can be envisioned and implemented by ordinary men.

Eric Dubay said...

So what's the purpose of this lie they tell us?

To make you believe in the Big Bang, Evolution, and Aliens, and to make you not believe in God, purposeful creation, and astrology:

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.

Eric Dubay said...

For what its worth, I know several physicists that believe in an aether, i.e., that empty space is not empty.

Yes, all knowledgeable & honest physicists know this. The aether has been proven to exist in multiple experiments, and true vacuums don't exist anywhere in outerspace or laboratories. The aetheric medium is always everywhere.

This idea of an aether was in Cauchy's work, and Lord Kelvin's. Why do you think Einstein won a Nobel prize? Because he was able to come up with a logical explaination against such a concept.

Exactly. I wouldn't go so far as to call the Special Theory of Relativity "logical" though. LOL. As the Robert Sungenis quote stated: "As for Einstein, if you want to believe that lengths shrink when an object moves, time changes in the process, and its mass increases, just so you can explain the anomalies of Michelson's experiments, that's your privilege, but I'd just as soon answer it by saying that mass, time and length stay the same and the Earth isn't moving, and I'm just as 'scientific' as you for saying so."

What I am struggling with the most is how can it be that such a vast and immortal conspiracy can be envisioned and implemented by ordinary men.

I know what you mean, but throughout recorded history, rich, powerful men conspiring in secret to advanced shared agendas is the rule, not the exception. Have a look at the plethora of other intricate and vast conspiracies I've exposed here on and I think you'll agree that big lies and conspiracies are the norm; truth, honesty and accountability are not. Peace

krcummings said...


سلامة - Salama said...

And beside convincing Man of his Insignificance, we can add another reason for the Deceive. Putting "the Sun at the Center" is a (Sun-Worship,Druids,Kabbalah)belief!

(Thomas Paine’s Origin of Free-Masonry)

Anonymous said...

Umm, Planes traveling East to West DO counter resistance...take any round trip and the Westbound leg is almost always longer than the Eastbound return flight....

Eric Dubay said...

"Almost always?" That doesn't sound like consistent, scientifically verifiable resistance. How much more resistance are you claiming West bound planes encounter than East bound?

Anonymous said...

The Moonwalker's album, Blood on the Dance Floor, does the Moontalker on 9/11:

Anonymous said...

Antikytheria Mechanism ~ Ancient Clockwork Computer to Predict...

Eric Dubay said...

For all the geocentric deniers, research George Airy. He was convinced of Heliocentricism too and designed an experiment to prove it! Instead, however, he proved Geocentricism and the establishment deemed it "Airy's Failure." Let's hear you NASA-indoctrinated heliocentrists explain the results of Airy's experiment using the moving Earth model:

Airy's Experiment

Airy's Failure Reconsidered

Anonymous said...

If the moon and sun are the same physical size, then from our perspective they would only look the same size in the sky if they are equal distance from us.

So if they are the same size and equally distant from the earth -- how can an eclipse happen? Why don't the moon and sun collide with each other instead?

ibn Salama said...

Not Equal Distances.
The Moon is in the First Orbit. The Sun is in the Fourth.
But they aren't as far as NASA wants us to believe.

Eric Dubay said...

There are quite a few theories about the size of the Sun and the Moon all with their points of evidence and points of contention. The least plausible theory I've heard is the reigning heliocentric theory that the Sun is 400 times larger and 400 times further away than the Moon so that's why they serendipitously appear the same size. Other models like Salama referenced have the Moon slightly in front of the Sun, and others still suggest that the Sun and Moon aren't densely physical, just luminous discs that can pass through one another.

This universe was intelligently created with purpose and order, and NASA/Copernican nihilistic Big Bang cosmology attempts to hide this obvious fact. There are two huge lights that circle around us in perfectly synchronized opposing cycles. They appear exactly the same size and stay in the sky for exactly the same length of time. Human sleep and reproduction cycles are intimately connected to one, and all growth and physical life depends on the other. We live in a ying yang universe of perfect order and balance between good and evil, male and female, inhale and exhale, birth and death, sleep and awake, night and day, and Sun and Moon.

NASA claims with no experimentally verifiable evidence that both the Earth and Moon spin in opposite directions at just the right speed so we only see one side of the Moon and never feel any of the movement. They say the Sun is 400 times larger and 400 times further away than the Moon, and just coincidentally appear the same size from our faulty perspective. Not only that but they regularly cross one another showing us their balanced orbits, but that's just coincidence too. It appears that all the celestial bodies revolve around us and multiple experiments have proven just that, but people would still rather believe NASA because they can't/don't want to believe how badly they've been lied to.

Anonymous said...

I’m not trying to argue one way or the other, but have rudimentary knowledge of physics and astronomy and have been taught the earth is in motion. I am not adverse to changing my opinion. The wormhole idea is intriguing, for example. But for now, if the earth is NOT in motion, how to answer these questions. And my assumption here is it’s admitted the Earth isn’t moving, but the rest of the objects in the universe, and therefore our solar system, are:

Question 1--If the Earth isn't moving in an orbit around the sun, why does Mars appear to have a retrograde orbit some of the time? I believe this should be a well-known phenomenon to not have to further explain. Are we to believe that Mars speeds up and slows down?
Question 2--If a moving Earth would pull people right off the surface due to the speed scientists claim it is travelling at through the universe, why then would the Martian Landers through the decades, Viking's 1 & 2, and the Spirit & Opportunity rovers, not fly off the surface of Mars?
Question 3—If an atmosphere can only be explained to exist on a body in motion as being “magically velcroed,” how do we explain atmosphere’s on other planets and moons. Venus has a very thick atmosphere and Mars has a thin atmosphere. Saturn’s moon Titan has an atmosphere. All these bodies are in motion.
Comment 1—From a previous comment left on 126 by Anonymous: “Here is why the Earth is not spinning... If the current accepted theory that the Earth spins is true, than the area of Earth's equator would spin around the speed of 1000 m/ph west to east to complete a 24 hour day. Where i am located, it would spin around 850 m/ph. Now if the Earth is spinning 850 m/ph, then you simply have to to divide that speed by 60(minutes in an hour) to find out how fast you have to move to beat the Earth's motion like a huge treadmeel. One would have to be moving more than 850 m/ph to even go in the direction of west. That would mean that its physically impossible to walk west, bike west, drive west!!! Yet we can, with no resistance in that direction. CASE CLOSED, the EARTH DOES NOT SPIN”
Ok, well, have you noticed on an airplane you are able to get up and walk to the aft of the plane to go to the bathroom? Yet the plane’s thrust is in the opposite direction. Shouldn’t this be impossible? The same is true of any moving object—a boat, a train, a bus.

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks for the questions Anonymous.

1) The motion of other celestial bodies, retrograde or not, does not and cannot prove the motion or lack of motion of Earth. Ptolemy's epicycles account for retrograde motion just as well as Kepler's ellipses. The planets have long been known as "wandering stars" due to their motion across the celestial sphere, going in all directions at varying velocities, unlike all the other "fixed stars" which follow perfect fixed circular orbits:

Retrograde Epicyclic Motion

2) Because the Viking missions were faked on Earth and we've never actually been to Mars:

Mars Faker

3) We have never been to the Moon or Mars and all NASA images/video of the planets is CGI computer-graphic imaging. NASA is the biggest and most successful propaganda machine in the world.

The Moon Landing Hoax

As for the "magic velcro," it is quite magical as it is apparently able to make the entire atmosphere spin perfectly along with Earth so no one in all of history has ever felt the slightest bit of motion, disturbance, or air resistance. Not only that but the magic also allows for clouds, wind and weather patterns to casually flow in every direction at varying velocities, often in opposite directions at different altitudes simultaneously! The magic velcro, which heliocentrists claim is some perfect amalgamation of gravity and centrifugal force, is strong enough to drag miles of Earth's atmosphere along with it, but too weak to prevent little bugs, birds, clouds and planes from easily traveling in any direction without a smidgen of added resistance. Also the world is supposedly spinning at 1,038 mph at the equator, about 900-700 mph at the mid-latitudes of USA and Europe, decreasing gradually all the way down to 0 mph at the North and South poles, where apparently the stagnant atmosphere never moves and completely escapes the grips of the magic velcro. This means that at all latitudes, the atmosphere manages to perfectly coincide with the speed of the Earth compensating from 0 mph at the poles all the way up to 1,038 mph at the equator, and every speed in between. These are quite lofty assumptions that heliocentrists make without any experimental evidence to back them up. Hence why it is very "magical thinking" they're using to bolster this implausible moving Earth/atmosphere theory.

Susumu said...

Why when I fly to Okinawa from Phoenix it takes 16 hours to get there and 18 hours to get back. Because in the plane going there the earth is rotating towards me and when I am going back my direction of flight is the same as the Earth rotation

Eric Dubay said...

In the other post Ben said the reason why you can't hover in a helicopter waiting for your destination to arrive, the reason we feel no constant wind or motion, and the reason there is no difference in resistence/acceleration for East-West flying planes and proectiles is because the atmosphere moves precisely along with the Earth.

In this post Susumu and Anonymous are claiming that East-West flying planes DO encounter resistance. So, heliocentrists, which is it? You can't have it both ways. And if there is measurable resistance please show me proof of this.

Susumu said...

Not sure, all I know is the difference in the passage of time and also flying the same route. All though time is relative right? LOL! Wonder if SR71 Pilots saw a preception diffrence in round trips

Anonymous said...

I would venture to say that the fact that it's 2012 and it's still an issue whether the Earth is moving/rotating or not clearly proves that the Geocentric Model is correct.
Think about all the missions, manned and unmanned, all the satellites, and all the spacecrafts that NASA and other space agencies have but into space and even outer space and yet you will not find one decent experiment from space proving that the Earth moves. Not even one single video either. The pathetic animation from Galileo supposedly showing the Earth rotating is a joke. Satellites and Space stations shooting video don't count because they are themselves rotating around the Earth. Search in vain, you will find nothing, nada, zilch, a big fat zero.

Ben said...

Anon: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

It is doubtful that NASA would waste budget attempting to prove something that mainstream science has considered proven for decades. You don't have to prove what's already been proven.

Of course, that's not to say they aren't incorrect, but their actions in this case are nonetheless perfectly in line with what you would expect.

Strangelove said...

Great blog friend!

More on our geocentric universe here:

Anonymous said...

Maybe this has already been explained but I missed it.
What accounts for the seasons, and the shortened/lengthened days?

Eric Dubay said...

Hey there, it's the same thing that accounts for them now. The sun. The seasons and length of days are exactly the same whether it's the Earth rotating around the sun or the sun rotating around the Earth.

Renee' said...

I've been studying geocentricity a lot, substituting my favorite subject -Jesse James- to search out proof. I believe geocentricity is true, but in order to share this with my friends, I also decided to study a little bit of heliocentricity. I went to a heliocentric website and found that many of them believe that not only is the sun the center, but in the center of the sun walks around the other part of each of us, and we must learn to "connect with them". I thought that would be interesting to share.

ibn Salama said...

I don't think those are Heliocentrists per se, but more likely "spiritualists" who believe in the existence of "other self".. which in my opinion is a false interpretation of the real Djinn(s) in Islam (i.e. evil fiery creatures that help Satan\Shaitan to seduce\temp humans, and every one of us has a one of them.)

btw, those are the real power behind most of the "weird ET\non-human phenomena"

Al said...

"NASA claims with no experimentally verifiable evidence that both the Earth and Moon spin in opposite directions at just the right speed so we only see one side of the Moon and never feel any of the movement."

I don't even think this excuse makes sense. If you visualize it, you still should be able to see that although you from your vantage point would see the same side or perspective of the moon, the person 1000km (for example) to your left and right wouldn't. They would consistently see a completely different side.

Correct me if I am wrong here. As I am doing a back of the envelope visualization.

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Al, you're right, I was coincidentally just talking with my fiance about this last night. Even if they were spinning in perfect opposition, different people at different times and different places on Earth should all be seeing different parts of the moon, but no matter where or when, we all always only see the same side. Excuse disproven! :)

Anonymous said...

I'm confused. If you hover in a helicopter you spin with the earth. But if you shoot a bullet a real long distance, it moves to the side of the target. I'm lost

Life Tinkerer said...

Wow you just really opened my mind to some crazy new theory that is beginning to make sense. As an inventor, I have a strong imagination capable of picturing motion of objects and with each new paragraph I attempted to piece together a mental working model of the information I was presented with. I could imagine most and had a fairly working model inside my head, however I did come upon some anomalies I could not fit into my mental model. A Google search of the Geocentric visual model cleared up some of my confusion, except one.

If the earth does not rotate nor orbits the sun, how do we account for the seasons and the meridian location of the sun in the sky?

This would make it seem like the weather would be consistently the same no matter which day of the year in any given point on earth, minus the variation of local weather and atmosphere movement, right?

The only answer would be that the entire universe has this 23deg wobble that is associated with Earths axis-tilt, to account for the seasons?

Thank you so much for this enlightening article. I was initially captured by researching that the Moon landings were fake and filmed in a studio - the visible puppet wires were a dead give away. Then the simple fact (though completely oblivious to it previously, even as simple as it really seems) that the top atmosphere is over 2500 degrees (it makes sense if you really understand solar radiation), then it would seem impossible to leave earths atmosphere, period. I just simply never entertained the presented facts intellectually and assumed empty space was cold and this was how the temperatures were balanced. I continued reading about Geocentricism and fell DEEP into the rabbit hole you presented.

Life Tinkerer said...

Eric Dubay I also had that quick idea but it cannot be. What accounts for the seasons is the fact that the earth is tilted 23 degrees facing one direction, and as it rotates on its axis, it wobbles. You can imagine this as when you spin a spindle on a table, when it starts slowing down, the top center starts to wobble until it completely loses speed and falls on its side. You will also notice this on a standing globe, where it is off center.

Anyway, the earth wobbles along this path around the sun, changing the position of the sun in the sky (direct exposure to sun in same region), thus we get seasons.

Hopefully my College Geology class did not fail me here...heh

Life Tinkerer said...

4 questions Eric...

1. Could "Foucault’s pendulum and the Coriolis effect" be explained with earths magnetic field?

2.Is the Magnetic Field real and is it present do to possible Earth's rotation, the inner Core's rotation or it is just there?

3. They teach that earth's magnetic field protects us from solar radiation, is it true? or is it the atmosphere that protects? or both since the magnetic field keeps the atmosphere glued to earth?

4. According to Heliocentric model, the Sun is NOT the center of the universe, but the center of our solar system, correct? Apparently the largest black hole is the center of the Universe?
Your quote ""The heliocentric theory, by putting the sun at the center of the universe" threw up some flags for me.

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Life Tinkerer, thanks for the great questions and comments. Whether it's the sun moving around us or us around the sun, seasons are explained the same way, namely the sun's travel from tropic to tropic each 6 month solstice cycle. I'm not familiar with the magnetic field so I can't really say much about those questions. As for the 4th question, yes, the name is quite deceiving because even people who believe in heliocentricism say the sun is not the center of anything, rather that everything is relative and the sun is only "relatively" central, but it revolves around the galaxy and the galaxy revolves around some mysterious blackhole, but they've never found the edges of the universe so they couldn't say where the "center" is. This differs greatly from Geocentrisism which says the Earth is the unmoving center of the universe and everything else in existence revolves around Earth. Heliocentricism should be called Acentricism.

Life Tinkerer said...

I think I found some holes that we need to work out. I would like if we both could do some research on the Magnetic field and how it could possibly fit into the Geocentric model of the Universe. You seem like an individual who strives on 100% facts and I think the Magnetic Field either needs to be refuted or found a home within the Geocentric model. I will try to do some research and lets continue this great conversation!

I will have to disagree with you on the notion that it is simply the Sun's rotation around the Earth that would account for the Seasons. As I thought and this websites says -, the seasons are due to the angle the sun hits the earth as it wobbles across the sky according to the Heliocentric model. In the Geocentric model the earth must tilt or the sun must move via the Meridian to account for the sun appearing lower and higher in the sky according to the season. If neither moved at all, the Sun would ALWAYS appear at the same height during the peak time of each day. That is, it would ALWAYS hit the equator all year long, and we would have no seasons.

It then must be that the Earth does in fact rotate/spin in one place, and wobbles, or the entire Universe also wobbles accordingly. I hope I've explained it effectively. Thank you and I look forward to learning more!

Life Tinkerer said...

It could also be that the entire Universe as a cohesive unit does not wobble, but parts of it do and not wobble along this path. It could even be that the entire Universe is completely flat with no wobble, except the Sun. The point is that the earth or the Sun must change their angle in order to account for the different lengths in day and the position of the Sun in the sky during the peak hour of the day.

Just imagine, if earth did not move and the Sun went perfectly around the equator - the Sun would ALWAYS hit the earth in the same point (center/equator), with the same amount of energy. Thus the weather would always be the hottest at the equator, cooling as you moved to the poles.

Lol you can tell I'm really into this... 8)

Eric Dubay said...

I will have to disagree with you on the notion that it is simply the Sun's rotation around the Earth that would account for the Seasons. Just imagine, if earth did not move and the Sun went perfectly around the equator - the Sun would ALWAYS hit the earth in the same point

Seasons are accounted for exactly the same way regardless of helio or geocentric... the sun doesn't stay perfectly along the equator all 12 months of the year, it cycles from the Tropic of Cancer at the Summer Solstice in June, slowly down to the Tropic of Capricorn at the Winter Solstice in December. This fact doesn't change regardless of whether it's the Sun revolving around us or us around the Sun. Glad to hear you're interested in this fascinating topic... keep me updated with your developments! Peace

Life Tinkerer said...

Eric it seems with what you are describing, we would have 2 seasons, summer and winter. Would you say only the Sun or the entire Universe travels at this orbit (according to you)?

Eric Dubay said...

There aren't 4 seasons everywhere, but I just mentioned the solstices, and of course there are the Vernal and Autumnal equinoxes too. The weather corresponding to these astronomical positions has to factor in wind/tidal patterns and topology too. Where I was born in Maine there are 4 clearly different "seasons." Where I live now in Thailand it's just hot and sunny all year-round; there are no seasons. Tropical/equatorial "seasons" are nothing like non-tropical/equatorial seasons.

Ivan said...

Hi , Eric I wonder how do you explain retrograde motion and parallax with geocentrism? Also the phases of venus that Galileo observed?

ibn Salama said...

Regarding the Retro-grade motion & Parallax, the Answer is in something called The Tusi Couple & the effect of temperature (through the seasons) on our observations of the stars!

The planet in its orbit moves around a center of a "little circle".. I recommend the work of 15th century Astronomer Ibn Al-Shater.

The difference of temperature affects the angle of light that comes from the stars, so we see the star in a different position.

Anonymous said...

Hi. I have just started looking into this and one thing that sticks with me is this little experiment:
Take 2 balls, one earth and the other sun.

O -o
Sun Earth

The dash on the left of 'earth' is where you are on our planet in relation to the sun at time stamp 12 o'clock noon let us say. So, the earth spins once in @ 24 hour period correct? And it also revolves around the sun @365 days for one year.
Okay, now let's move earth 6 months into the future at the same 24 hour time stamp of our location and here is what it ends up being, give or take a small fraction due to what we know the earth does through the seasons:

-o O
Earth Sun

You will now notice that the 12 noon is facing completely away from the sun!!! This is what is taught today folks and does not work if you simply use your clock and move earth around the sun.

Again, I am new in looking into this, so anything I may be missing please feel free to reply. Thanks!

Tony said...

Hi Guys have a look at this site!

Jayson Lafe DuVal said...

love your article, very thought provoking. here's my question. Don't satellites like Voyager show us that the Earth is moving around the sun and not the other way around?

Sceptic said...

Einstien was not born into a rich or privileged background, and leant his trade whilst working, what part of the 'league of rich and powerful men' planned this? What of his countless other scientific discoveries which have proved useful in hundreds of fields - are they false as well? The theory of relativity was applied to the universe and theoretically explains, and predicts the behaviour of celestial bodies. There were shortcomings, but they have been subsequently built on and extended. The idea that mathematics, studied by thousands of dedicated individuals is in fact a complex trick played on the masses is laughable - do you think that this group of men really plan way beyond their lifetimes on a plot so ridiculously high profile and risky for the sake of monetary gain?

Matthew Phin said...

Eric question, I'm sure your more then familiar with the celestial battle between "marduk" and "Tiamat" so how after such a force would we be at rest? since we are this significant fraction but yet so small how is it that all of this energy would be centered around us or focused on us. I completely agree its an eye opening and hopeful way to look at life saying "yup I'm at the center
of it all, we are the most important things here we are that unique" but with that still so many unanswered questions please get back to me I'm really curious what you think

Eric Dubay said...

Hey Matthew, to me stories of Marduk and Tiamat are just that, stories of supposed celestial events that happened thousands of years ago. Unfortunately such things have no scientific bearing on the helio/geocentric debate. Check out these videos, they may help:

Geocentric Truth Part 1

Geocentric Truth Part 2

Richard Paulson said...

Foucault's Pendulum: don't even look at it. It is not a proof, just an effort at mind control, to cast one into a trance - hypnosis. "Believe, believe, just believe" because we have no proof.

Eric Dubay said...

You're right about Foucalt's Pendulum Richard, and Jason, NASA admits using Geocentric calculations when launching rockets/satellites. Check out this footage, it's not proof either way (because it could be moving at perfect constant velocity), but it sure doesn't appear to be moving:

The Earth From Space

Bio said...

Hi Eric,

How about this guy saying Aether exists. Please kindly help

Eric Dubay said...

Great clip, see, Greg Braden knows what's up! :) The aether actually exists while relativity is just a theory.

Richard Paulson said...

Hi Eric. It has been months since I last glanced at this blog. I don't accept however anything as evidence from outer space, because there is no proof that man has been in outer space. The proof that people accept is photos and films and statements. And if such proof is numerous, then it seems to hold weight in peoples minds and means that it must be so. But such proof is as solid evidence as a Star Trek film. For also there are photos and films and statements in the Star Trek "universe". Accordingly then, there is solid evidence that everything in Star Trek is real; if that is, you think of these things as evidence.

Space travel is really absurd. For admittedly, a rocket must go at least 7.9 kilometres per second to enter into space. If you really think about how fast that is, how can it be believed?

Well then, what about satellite technology? All alleged satellite technology is ground based or can be more easily produced on Earth without the need to go into space. It is thus only reasonable to believe that man or anything man made, has been to about 62 miles above Earth's surface (the Karman Line) or thereabouts. For it is admitted that aeroplanes cannot fly above that height without falling back to Earth. For the atmosphere is too thin to keep an aeroplane up. True space must be only a few miles higher than that. The idea of rockets in space is really a joke. The simple reasoning is that a fish needs water to propel itself, a bird needs atmosphere to beat its wings against, and solid matter is needed for us to have locomotion on Earth. So a rocket cannot act upon nothing, and cannot move in space. And without atmosphere everything man makes falls back to Earth.

Images, films, theories, and statements prove nothing, and have no merit in a world of liars. Supposed scientific statements are meaningless. My basic observation of the sky can prove that all the lights we see in the sky above (Sun, Moon and stars) are only thousands of miles high. The Sun and Moon are a great deal smaller than Earth, and the stars are so much smaller. The stars can be deduced to be only a few miles in diameter at most. The 8 planets are also stars with the exception that they wander beneath the fixed stars.

Telescopes cannot even resolve images of the stars as more than points of light (although so-called scientists tell us they can see into infinity), and yet they are only thousands of miles high. And there is no evidence that a telescope is able to "see" anything further than a few thousand miles away. Lights that cannot be seen without being magnified are deemed as further away, rather than as obviously only smaller lights. For the fixed stars are evidently all at the same height.

There is also no solid evidence in fact, that there are more than 20,000 stars! I'd like someone to count them and see, without referring to alleged images of stars/galaxies and supposed scientific numbers. What is called astronomy thus, is all a joke. All that people argue so much about can be easily disproved with the most basic observations and simple logical deductions. You don't even need to be a mathematician - it is that easy and obvious. It is only the abundance of lies (if not unwillingness) that prevents one from seeing this. The key to overcoming them is to not believe man, but to seek God. But this attitude of seeking only for God, seems to be an increasingly rare thing.

Eric Dubay said...

Awesome comment Richard, I totally agree with every point you made. Very few people are able to see through this deception, I'm glad to hear from folks like yourself who can see the forest for the trees. Please keep posted in the coming few months I'm about to finish and release my 4th book which will be all about these subjects we're discussing here. I think you're gonna love it :) Peace