Geocentricity - Ordered Quotes

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Geocentricity - Ordered Quotes

Post by Strangelove on Thu Dec 12, 2013 1:23 pm

I've gone through the Stationary Earth thread and ordered the quotes into easily searchable categories here. Just click on the links below and it will take you straight to the category.

Theological Quotes

Covariance Quotes

Experimental Stationary Earth Quotes

Kinematical (Observational) Quotes

Aether Quotes

Copernican Principle Quotes

Speed of Light Quotes

Newtonian Mechanics and Centre of Mass Quotes

Last edited by Strangelove on Fri Dec 13, 2013 1:16 am; edited 3 times in total

"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"


Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Posts : 3138
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Theological Quotes

Post by Strangelove on Thu Dec 12, 2013 1:26 pm

Psa 93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Jos 10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. Jos 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.



19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. 19:2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. 19:3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. 19:4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, 19:5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. 19:6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.  19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.  19:8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. 19:9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. 19:10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. 19:11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them  there is great reward. 19:12 Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults. 19:13 Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.19:14 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.


(Isaiah 38:8) Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.


(Malachi 4:2) But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.

Do we REALLY want to apply phenomenological language when the bible talks of the sun rising or setting or running around on its circuit?

This is clear prophecy of the Messiah Jesus Christ and talking of his rising LIKE THE SUN.

If the rising of the sun that we witness every morning is merely an ILLUSION, what does it say about this prophecy?


(Genesis 1:16) And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

(Genesis 1:17) And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

He SET them. Strongs concordance offers Set (FORTH) as one possible translation of:



So, we know the moon orbits the earth. God SET it forth in its course.

He uses the same word for the SUN TOO!

(Psalms 19:4) Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set atabernacle for the sun,

(Psalms 19:5) Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.

(Psalms 19:6) His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

Tell ANYTHING in all the heavens hidden from the heat of the sun?


I have no doubt....from the established alternations of days and nights, that the course and revolutions of the sun, and moon, and stars, are regulated by the marvellous wisdom of God.

- ohn Calvin's Commentaries On The Psalms 1 - 35 

"A simple survey of the world should of itself suffice to attest a Divine Providence. The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion — no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wanderings, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God’s hand? By what means could it maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? Accordingly the particle, aph, denoting emphasis, is introduced — Yea, he hath established it."

—John Calvin, Commentary on the Psalms: Volume IV, Ps 93:1, published 1559, 15 years after Copernicus' major work was published.

"The truth is that God states in many places in His Word that the sun is in motion, her circuit resulting in both day and night, and that the world remains both motionless and stationary. Nowhere does God speak to the contrary, ... Since God states it to be so, it is truth and we are to embrace it as truth. Is not God the Creator, maintainer, and gover­nor of all things, who is much better acquainted with His own work than is man with his limited and darkened understanding? Should men not subject their judgment to the very sayings of God? Or should one attempt to bend and twist the clear declarations of God in such a way that they agree with our erroneous thinking? Whatever God declares, also concerning things in the realm of nature, is true. God says that the world is motionless and stationary, being circled by the sun, and thus it is a certain and incontrovertible truth."

“Objection #3: “Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, moon, in the valley of Ajalon” (Josh 10:12). The fact is that the sun was neither in Gibeon, nor the moon in the valley of Ajalon; rather, it merely appeared to be so. Thus, a statement is made which is congruent with erroneous opinion. This is also true for that which follows, that is, that the sun and moon stood still.

Answer: Were people at that time so naive to be of the opinion that the sun and moon were actually upon earth? Far be it from us to suggest such a thing! Therefore this is neither an example of an erroneous opinion nor of an erroneous statement. It merely indicates that to their perception the sun then appeared to be near Gibeon and the moon to be near Ajalon, and that they remained in those apparent locations. A miracle occurred here. This miracle did not occur in reference to the earth as if her circuit were interrupted, but it occurred in reference to the sun and the moon whose circuits were interrupted. All this clearly proves that sun and moon revolved around the earth.[130] There is neither the least indication of error, nor do we have a falsehood here.”

Wilhelmus a'Brakel, The Christian's Reasonable Service. pp. 64-66

"There was mention of a certain astrologer [the sun worshipper Copernicus] who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a  ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving. So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that  fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy  Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the  earth [Jos. 10].”

- Martin Luther, Luther’s Works. Vol 54. Table Talk, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 358–9.

"Copernicus studied in Bologna under the Platonist Novara; and Copernicus’ idea of placing the sun rather than the Earth in the center of the universe was not the result of new observations but of a new interpretation of old and well-known facts in the light of semi-religious Platonic and Neo-Platonic ideas. The crucial idea can be traced back to the sixth book of Plato’s Republic, where we can read that the sun plays the same role in the realm of visible things as does the idea of the good in the realm of ideas. Now the idea of the good is the highest in the hierarchy of Platonic ideas. Accordingly the sun, which endows visible things with their visibility, vitality, growth and progress, is the highest in the hierarchy of the visible things in nature.…Now if the sun was to be given pride of place, if the sun merited a divine status…then it was hardly possible for it to revolve about the Earth. The only fitting place for so exalted a star was the center of the universe. So the Earth was bound to revolve about the sun. This Platonic idea, then, forms the historical background of the Copernican revolution. It does not start with observations, but with a religious or mythological idea."

- Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, p. 187. Karl Popper.

"The work, published in 1543, was called On the Revolution of the Celestial Spheres. It stated that the center of the universe was a spot somewhere near the sun...The scheme met the requirements of philosophical and theological belief in circular motion. In every other respect, however, Copernicus struck at the heart of Aristotelian and Christian belief. He removed the Earth from the center of the universe and so from the focus of God’s purpose. In the new scheme man was no longer the creature for whose use and elucidation the cosmos had been created. His system also placed the Earth in the heavens, and in doing so removed the barrier separating the incorruptible from the corruptible."

- James Burke, The Day the Universe Changed, p. 135

Galileo's recantation...

"The falsity of the Copernican system should not in any way be called into question, above all, not by Catholics, since we have the unshakeable authority of the Sacred Scripture, interpreted by the most erudite theologians, whose consensus gives us certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth. The conjectures employed by Copernicus and his followers in maintaining the contrary thesis are all sufficiently rebutted by that most solid argument deriving from the omnipotence of God. He is able to bring about in different ways, indeed, in an infinite number of ways, things that, according to our opinion and observation, appear to happen in one particular way. We should not seek to shorten the hand of God and boldly insist on something beyond the limits of our competence.”

- Le Opere Di Galileo Galilei, p. 316, footnote #2.

Last edited by Strangelove on Fri Mar 24, 2017 8:43 am; edited 14 times in total

"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"


Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Posts : 3138
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Covariance Quotes

Post by Strangelove on Thu Dec 12, 2013 1:29 pm

A June 25, 1913 letter from Einstein to Ernst Mach concerning forces from a relativistic point of view:

"[Y]our happy investigations on the foundations of mechanics, Planck's unjustified criticism notwithstanding, will receive brilliant confirmation. For it necessarily turns out that inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies, quite in the sense of your considerations on Newton's pail experiment. The first consequence is on p. 6 of my paper. The following additional points emerge: (1) If one accelerates a heavy shell of matter S, then a mass enclosed by that shell experiences an accelerative force. (2) If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around."


"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."

"Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is "right" and the Ptolemaic theory is "wrong" in any meaningful sense (...) Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published in a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors will turn you down."

- Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus (London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973), p. 78.

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS 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 CS."

- Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system

"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."

- Max Born said in his famous book,"Einstein's Theory of Relativity", Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345

…we have seen, Leibniz and Mach emphasized that the Ptolemaic geocentric system and the Copernican heliocentric system are equally valid and correct….the Copernican world view, which is usually seen as being proved to be true by Galileo and Newton….the gravitational attraction between the sun and the planets, the earth and other planets do not fall into the sun because they have an acceleration relative to the fixed stars. The distant matter in the universe exerts a force, –mgamf, on accelerated planets, keeping them in their annual orbits.

In the Ptolemaic system, the earth is considered to be at rest and without rotation in the center of the universe, while the sun, other planets and fixed stars rotate around the earth. In relational mechanics this rotation of distant matter yields the force ..... Now the gravitational attraction of the sun is balanced by a real gravitational centrifugal force due to the annual rotation of distant masses around the earth (with a component having a period of one year). In this way the earth can remain at rest and at an essentially constant distance from the sun. The diurnal rotation of distant masses around the earth (with a period of one day) yields a real gravitational centrifugal force flattening the earth at the poles. Foucault’s pendulum is explained by a real Coriolis force acting on moving masses over the earth’s surface .....The effect of this force will be to keep the plane of oscillation of the pendulum rotating together with the fixed stars.

- Andre K. T. Assis, (professor of physics at the University of Campinas - UNICAMP, in Brazil) Relational Mechanics, pp. 190-191

“The bulge of the Earth’s equator may be attributed indifferently to the Earth’s rotation or to the outward pull of the centrifugal force introduced when the Earth is regarded as non-rotating

- Arthur Eddington, "Space, Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the General Relativity Theory", 1923, pp. 24, 41

“We might hope therefore that the Einstein theory, which is well suited to such problems, would throw more light on the matter. But instead of adding further support to the heliocentric picture of the planetary motions, the Einstein theory goes in the opposite direction, giving increased respectability to the geocentric picture”

- Sir Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus: An Essay on His Life and Work, p. 87

"Let K [the universe] be a Galilean-Newtonian coordinate system [a system of three dimensions extending to the edge of the universe], and let K’ [the Earth] be a coordinate system rotating uniformly relative to K [the universe]. Then centrifugal forces would be in effect for masses at rest in the K’ coordinate system [the Earth], while no such forces would be present for objects at rest in K [the universe]. Already Newton viewed this as proof that the rotation of K’ [the Earth] had to be considered as “absolute,” and that K’ [the Earth] could not then be treated as the “resting” frame of K [the universe]. Yet, as E. Mach has shown, this argument is not sound. One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K’ [the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K’ [the Earth], whereby K’ [the Earth] is treated as being at rest. If Newtonian mechanics disallow such a view, then this could very well be the foundation for the defects of that theory… "

- Hans Thirring, “Über die Wirkung rotierender ferner Massen in der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie,” Physikalische Zeitschrift 19, 33, 1918, translated: “On the Effect of Rotating Distant Masses in Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation.”)

"Let the earth be a coordinate system rotating uniformly relative to the universe. Then centrifugal forces would be in effect for masses at rest in the universe’s coordinate system, while no such forces would be present for objects at rest with respect to the earth.

Already Newton viewed this as proof that the rotation of the earth had to be considered as “absolute,” and that the earth could not then be treated as the “resting frame” of the universe. Yet, as E. Mach has shown, this argument is not sound. One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of the earth; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of the earth, where the earth is treated as being at rest."

- Albert Einstein, 1914

"The rotational inertial dragging effect, which was discovered by Lense and Thirring, was later investigated by Cohen and Brill and by Orwig. It was found that in the limit of a spherical shell with a radius equal to its Schwarzchild radius, the interior inertial frames are dragged around rigidly with the same angular velocity as that of the shell. In this case of ‘perfect dragging,’ the motion of the inertial frames is completely determined by the shell."

“…with reference to Newtonian mechanics we talk of inertial force fields in accelerated reference frames. However, according to the general principle of relativity, we may consider the laboratory as at rest. We then talk of gravitational dragging fields. The concept of ‘inertial forces,’ which may be regarded as a sort of trick in Newtonian mechanics, is thereby made superfluous."

"Einstein advocated a new interpretation of the fictitious forces in accelerated systems of reference. The “fictitious” forces were treated as real forces on the same footing as any other force of nature. The reason for the occurrence in accelerated systems of reference of such peculiar forces should, according to this new idea, be sought in the circumstance that the distant masses of the fixed stars are accelerated relative to these systems of reference. The “fictitious forces” are thus treated as a kind of gravitational force, the acceleration of the distant masses causing a “field of gravitation” in the system of reference considered. Only when we work in special systems of reference, viz., systems of inertia, it is not necessary to include the distant masses in our considerations, and this is the only point which distinguishes the systems of inertia from other systems of reference. It can, however, be assumed that all systems of reference are equivalent with respect to the formulation of the fundamental laws of physics. This is the so-called general principle of relativity."

"As an illustration of the role of inertial dragging for the validity of the strong principle of relativity, we consider the Moon orbiting the Earth. As seen by an observer on the Moon, both the Moon and the Earth are at rest. If the observer solves Einstein’s field equations for the vacuum space-time outside the Earth, he might come up with the Schwarzchild solution and conclude that the Moon should fall toward the Earth, which it does not. So it seems impossible to consider the Moon at rest, which would imply that the strong principle of relativity is not valid. This problem has the following solution. As observed from the Moon the cosmic mass rotates. The rotating cosmic mass has to be included when the Moon observer solves Einstein’s field equations. Doing this he finds that the rotating cosmic mass induces the rotational non-tidal gravitational field which is interpreted as the centrifugal field in Newtonian theory. This field explains to him why the Moon does not fall toward the Earth."

- Gron and Erickson "General Relativity and Gravitation"

"...all masses, all motion, indeed all forces are relative. There is no way to discern relative from absolute motion when we encounter them...Whenever modern writers infer an imaginary distinction between relative and absolute motion from a Newtonian framework, they do not stop to think that the Ptolemaic and Copernican are both equally true."

- Ernst Mach, Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung historisch-kritisch dargestellt, eighth ed, Leipzig, p. 222, 1921.

"Einstein advocated a new interpretation of the fictitious forces in accelerated systems of reference. The 'fictitious' forces were treated as real forces on the same footing as any other force of nature. The reason for the occurrence in accelerated systems of reference of such peculiar forces should, according to this new idea, be sought in the circumstance that the distant masses of the fixed stars are accelerated relative to these systems of reference. The 'fictitious forces' are thus treated as a kind of gravitational force, the acceleration of the distant masses causing a 'field of gravitation' in the system of reference considered. Only when we work in special systems of reference, viz. systems of inertia, it is not necessary to include the distant masses in our considerations, and this is the only point which distinguishes the systems of inertia from other systems of reference. It can, however, be assumed that all systems of reference are equivalent with respect to the formulation of the fundamental laws of physics. This is the so-called general principle of relativity."

- C. Møller "The theory of relativity", page 113, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1972.

"Frame dragging also answers the famous question: If the Earth stood still and the rest of the universe rotated around it instead, would its equator still bulge? According to general relativity and Gravity Probe B, the answer is YES. It doesn’t matter if you are spinning or if the universe is revolving around you. Both situations are equivalent."


"For the purpose of this paper, we will only focus on the one of the consequences of Mach’s principle: that the inertial forces can be seen as resulting from real interactions with distant matter in the Universe, as was for example shown by A. Zylbersztajn [15].

The only question remains: are these forces by themselves enough to explain all translational motions that we observe from Earth, and can they reproduce the Tycho Brahe’s model? The discussion in this paper will show that the answer to this question is positive."


"But what is less known is that Tycho Brahe, Kepler’s tutor, developed a geostatic system that was just as accurate and elegant as Kepler’s: the Sun orbits around the Earth, and all the other planets orbit around the Sun. The trajectories are ellipses, and all the Kepler’s laws are satisfied."


"We can therefore conclude that the Sun’s orbit in the Earth’s pseudo-potential is equivalent to that observed from the Earth in the heliocentric system."


"The analysis of planetary motions has been performed in the Newtonian framework with the assumption of Mach’s principle. The kinematical equivalence of the Copernican (heliocentric) and the Neo-tychonian (geocentric) systems is shown to be a consequence of the presence of pseudo-potential (4.4) in the geocentric system, which, according to Mach, must be regarded as the real potential originating from the fact of the simultaneous acceleration of the Universe."


"If one could put the whole Universe in accelerated motion around the Earth, the pseudo-potential corresponding to pseudo-force (4.2) will immediately be generated. That same pseudo- potential then causes the Universe to stay in that very state of motion, without any need of exterior forces acting on it."

- 'Newton-Machian analysis of Neo-tychonian model of planetary motions' : Luka Popov, University of Zagreb, Department of Physics, Bijeniˇcka cesta 32, Zagreb, Croatia


"According to Einstein, the argument over whether the earth turns around or the heavens revolve around it, is seen to be no more than an argument over the choice of reference frames. There is no frame of reference from which an observer would not see the effects of the flattening of the poles. Thus in frame number 1 (the earth turns round while the sky is at rest), the centrifugal force is a consequence of the earth’s motion (uniform acceleration) relative to the heavens. This causes the flattening. In the latter frame, number 2 (the sky rotates and the earth stands still), the centrifugal force should be understood as being an effect of “the rotating heavens,” which is generating a gravitational field that causes the flattening of the poles. The two explanations are equivalent as there is equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass."

- “Einstein’s Ether: D. Rotational Motion of the Earth,” Galina Granek, Department of Philosophy, Haifa University, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel, Apeiron, Vol. 8, No. 2, April 2001, p. 61.

"Before Copernicus, people thought that the earth stood still and that the heavens revolved about it once a day. Copernicus taught that "really" the earth revolves once a day, and the daily rotation of sun and stars is only "apparent"... But in the modern theory the question between Copernicus and his predecessors is merely one of convenience; all motion is relative, and there is no difference between the two... Astronomy is easier if we take the sun as fixed than if we take the earth... But to say more for Copernicus is to assume absolute motion, which is a fiction. It is a mere convention to take one body as at rest. All such conventions are equally legitimate, though not all are equally convenient."

- Bertrand Russell "The ABC of Relativity [ London: Allen & Unwin, 1958, p.13].

"If we were to adopt a frame of reference like Tycho’s in which the Earth is at rest, then the distant galaxies would seem to be executing circular turns once a year, and in general relativity this enormous motion would create forces akin to gravitation, which would act on the Sun and planets and give them the motions of the Tychonic theory. Newton seems to have had a hint of this. In an unpublished ‘Proposition 43’ that did not make it into the Principia, Newton acknowledges that Tycho’s theory could be true if some other force besides ordinary gravitation acted on the Sun and planets."

- Steven Weinberg, To Explain the World: The Discovery of Modern Science, Harper Collins, 2015, pp. 251-252.

"We need not necessarily trace the existence of these centrifugal forces back to an absolute movement of K’ [Earth]; we can instead just as well trace them back to the rotational movement of the distant ponderable masses [stars] in relation to K’ whereby we treat K’ as ‘at rest.’…On the other hand, the following important argument speaks for the relativistic perspective. The centrifugal force that works on a body under given conditions is determined by precisely the same natural constants as the action of a gravitational field on the same body (i.e., its mass), in such a way that we have no means to differentiate a ‘centrifugal field’ from a gravitational field….This quite substantiates the view that we may regard the rotating system K’ as at rest and the centrifugal field as a gravitational field….The kinematic equivalence of two coordinate systems, namely, is not restricted to the case in which the two systems, K [the universe] and K’ [the Earth] are in uniform relative translational motion. The equivalence exists just as well from the kinematic standpoint when for example the two systems rotate relative to one another."

- Einstein’s October 1914 paper titled: “Die formale Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie,” trans. by Carl Hoefer, in Mach’s Principle: From Newton’s Bucket to Quantum Gravity, eds. Julian Barbour and Herbert Pfister, pp. 69, 71.

"Kepler's standpoint is particularly interesting, since he was deeply impressed by Tycho Brahe's 'demolition' of the crystal spheres. Kepler posed the problem of astronomy in the famous words: "From henceforth the planets follow their paths through the ether like the birds in the air. We must therefore philosophize about these things differently."

His response to the problem was very `Machian'.... The planets could not possibly follow such precise orbits by a mere inspection of empty space — they must be both guided and driven in their motion by the real masses in the universe, namely, the sun and the sphere of the fixed stars.

This deeply held conviction was a decisive factor in Kepler's discovery of the laws of planetary motion — truly, a pre—Machian triumph of Mach's Principle."

- 'Mach's Principle: From Newton's Bucket to Quantum Gravity' p9. Julian Barbour, Herbert Pfister.

"If the earth is affected with an absolute rotation about its axis, centrifugal forces are set up in the earth: it assumes an oblate form, the acceleration of gravity is diminished at the equator, the plane of Foucault's pendulum rotates, and so on. [In Newton's view] all these phenomena disappear if the earth is at rest and the other heavenly bodies are affected with absolute motion round it, such that the same relative rotation is produced. But if we take our stand on the basis of facts, we shall find we have knowledge only of relative spaces and motions. Relatively, not considering the unknown and neglected medium of space, the motions of the universe are the same whether we adopt the Ptolemaic or the Copernican mode of view."

- Ernst Mach, The Science of Mechanics 4th Edition pp 231-232

"The superior simplicity of the Copernican theory was just as much of a myth as its superior accuracy. The myth of superior simplicity was dispelled by the careful and professional work of modern historians. They reminded us that while Copernican theory solves certain problems in a simpler way than does the Ptolemaic one. the price of the simplification is unexpected complications in the solution of other problems. The Copernican system is certainly simpler since it dispenses with equants and some eccentrics: but each equant and eccentric removed has to be replaced by new epicycles and epicyclets. . .he also has to put the center of the universe not at the Sun. as he originally intended. but at an empty point fairly near to it.....I think it is fair to say that the ‘simplicity balance” between Ptolemy’s and Copernicus’ system is roughly even."

- The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, Imre Lakatos, pp 173-174

"We might hope therefore that the Einstein theory. which is well suited to such problems, would throw more light on the matter. But instead of adding further support to the heliocentric picture of the planetary motions. the Einstein theory goes in the opposite direction. giving increased respectability to the geocentric picture. The relation of the two pictures is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation. and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view"

- Sir Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus. An Essay on His Life and Work, p.87

Dynamical description of Tychonian Universe

Abstract. Using Mach’s principle, we will show that the observed diurnal and annual motion of the Earth can just as well be accounted as the diurnal rotation and annual revolution of the Universe around the fixed and centered Earth. This can be performed by postulating the existence of vector and scalar potentials caused by the simultaneous motion of the masses in the Universe, including the distant stars. 

Luka Popov University of Zagreb

"One could just as legitimately assume the Earth to be fixed and the entire universe, with its great spherical cloud of black-body radiation, to be moving. The equations are the same. Indeed, from the standpoint of relativity the choice of reference frame is arbitrary. Naturally, it is simpler to assume the universe is fixed and the Earth moving than the other way around, but the two ways of talking about the Earth's relative motion are two ways of saying the same thing."

- 'The Relativity Explosion', Martin Gardner, pp. 184-185. On another page Gardner writes: "Do the heavens revolve or does the Earth rotate? The question is meaningless. A waitress may just as sensibly ask a customer if he wanted ice cream on top of his pie or the pie placed under his ice cream" (ibid., p. 87). 

“…it is very important to acknowledge that the Copernican theory offers a very exact calculation of the apparent movements of the planets…even though it must be conceded that, from the modern standpoint practically identical results could be obtained by means of a somewhat revised Ptolemaic system….It makes no sense, accordingly, to speak of a difference in truth between Copernicus and Ptolemy: both conceptions are equally permissible descriptions. What has been considered as the greatest discovery of occidental wisdom, as opposed to that of antiquity, is questioned as to its truth value.”

- Physicist, Hans Reichenbach, From Copernicus to Einstein, 1970, pp, 18, 82.

“…the Earth-centered system…is in reality absolutely identical with the system of Copernicus and all computation of the places of the planets are the same for the two systems.”

- Astronomer, J. L. E. Dryer, A History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler, New York, Dover Publications reprint, 1953, p. 363. See also his 1890 work Tycho Brahe, (New York, Dover Publications reprint, 1963).

Last edited by Strangelove on Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:12 am; edited 24 times in total

"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"


Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Posts : 3138
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Experimental Stationary Earth Quotes

Post by Strangelove on Thu Dec 12, 2013 1:44 pm

"Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest..."

- Lorentz’s 1886 paper, “On the Influence of the Earth’s Motion on Luminiferous Phenomena,” in Arthur Miller’s Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, p. 20.

"A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth's movement. The results were always negative (...) We do not have any means of discovering whether or not we are carried along in a uniform motion of translation..."

- Henri Poincaré , From Poincaré’s lecture titled: “L’état actuel et l’avenir de la physique mathematique,”  St.Louis, Sept 24, 1904, Scientific Monthly, April, 1956.

"There was just one alternative; the earth's true velocity through space might happen to have been nil."

- Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11, 8

"The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the earth's motion on physical phenomena allows us to...[Pauli gives up looking for experimental evidence and moves on to the abstract 'escape hatch' theories of Einstein]"

- Wolfgang Pauli, The Theory of Relativity, 1958, p. 4.

"No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion."

- Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, 2nd rev. edition, 1957, p. 73.

"This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation... which presupposes that the Earth moves."

- Albert Michelson (Albert A. Michelson, “The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125)

“The data were almost unbelievable… There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest....“This, of course, was preposterous”

- Bernard Jaffe, Michelson and the Speed of Light, 1960, p. 76

" the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked... that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result."

- 'Relativity — The Special and General Theory', cited in Stephen Hawking's, 'A Stubbornly Persistent Illusion', 2007, p. 169. 

"It is possible to describe the entire universe using any chosen point as the unmoving center - the Earth will do very well - and no one can prove that choice is wrong....Scientists today prefer to picture everything in motion and nothing as being the center. If you haven't given much thought to the implications of twentieth-century science, you may be realize that because of the concept of relative motion, no one can prove that the Earth moves."

- Kitty Ferguson, Measuring the Universe, 1999, p. 106, 107.


(3) SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS. Most scientists know about the Michelson-Morely experiment - that failed to detect any movement of the earth round the sun. This had to be overcome so the Fitzgerald-Lorentz shortening of the apparatus was proposed, and eventually the paradoxical Relativity Theory was invented by Einstein to overcome this problem. However, there are three other experiments that have been deliberately ignored by universities because they support geocentricity -

(a) The Michelson-Gale experiment (Reference - Astrophysical Journal 1925 v 61 pp 140-5 - I forgot to put this reference in my book!) This detected the aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth! Thus, the Michelson-Morely experiment detected no movement of the earth around the sun, yet the Michelson-Gale experiment measured the earth's rotation (or the aether's rotation around the earth!) to within 2%! This surely speaks volumes for geocentricity.

(b) "Airey's failure" (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's "speed around the sun". Airey filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

(c) The Sagnac experiment (Reference - Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3) Sagnac rotated a table complete with light and mirrors with the light being passed in opposite directions around the table between the mirrors. He detected the movement of the table by the movement of the interference fringes on the target where they were recombined. This proved that there IS an aether that the light has to pass through and this completely destroys Einstein's theory of Relativity that says there is no aether. It is for this reason that this experiment is completely ignored by scientists. More recently Kantor has found the same result with similar apparatus.

All these experiments are never taught at universities, so consequently, scientists, including most Christian creationists, are ignorant of this evidence for geocentricity. Is it any wonder, therefore, that Christian geocentrists find their most vociferous opponents are fellow Christian creationists to whom geocentricity comes as a shock. They do not want to be tarred with such a heretical brush that will only increase the great ridicule they are already receiving for their stance against evolution?



After the Michelson-Morley experiment:

“The problem which now faced science was considerable. For there seemed to be only three alternatives. The first was that the Earth was standing still, which meant scuttling the whole Copernican theory and was unthinkable. The second was that the ether was carried along by the earth in its passage through space…The third solution was that the ether simply did not exist, which to many nineteenth century scientists was equivalent to scrapping current views of light, electricity, and magnetism, and starting again.”

- Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, pp. 109-110, (World Publishing Co., 1971).

“Always the speed of light was precisely the same…Thus, failure [of Michelson-Morley] to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the Earth must be ‘at rest’…It was therefore the ‘preferred’ frame for measuring absolute motion in space. Yet we have known since Galileo that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Why should it be at rest in space?”

- Adolf Baker, Modern Physics & Antiphysics, pp. 53-54 (Addison-Wesley, 1972).

“It is both amusing and instructive to speculate on what might have happened if such an experiment [Michelson-Morley] could have been performed in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries when men were debating the rival merits of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. The result would surely have been interpreted as conclusive evidence for the immobility of the Earth, and therefore as a triumphant vindication of the Ptolemaic system and irrefutable falsification of the Copernican hypothesis. The moral of this historical fantasy is that it is often dangerous to believe in the absolute verification or falsification of a scientific hypothesis. All judgments of this type are necessarily made in some historical context which may be drastically modified by the changing perspective of human knowledge.”

- G. J. Whitrow, The Structure and Evolution of the Universe, p. 79 (Harper, 1959).

Regarding the M-M Experiment:

"The easiest explanation was that the earth was fixed in the ether and that everything else in the universe moved with respect to the earth and the ether….Such an idea was not considered seriously, since it would mean in effect that our earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe, with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage by moving around it."

- James A. Coleman, Relativity for the Layman, p. 37

The Michelson-Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassing alternative. On the one hand they could scrap the ether theory which had explained so many things about electricity, magnetism, and light. Or if they insisted on retaining the ether they had to abandon the still more venerable Copernican theory that the earth is in motion. To many physicists it seemed almost easier to believe that the earth stood still than that waves – light waves, electromagnetic waves – could exist without a medium to sustain them. It was a serious dilemma and one that split scientific thought for a quarter century. Many new hypotheses were advanced and rejected. The experiment was tried again by Morley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of the earth through the ether was zero.

- Scientific historian Lincoln Barnett, "The Universe and Dr.Einstein", p. 44

“In the GPS, the Sagnac effect can produce discrepancies amounting to hundreds of nanoseconds....A Sagnac correction is needed to account for the diurnal motion of each receiver during signal propagation. In fact, one can use the GPS to observe the Sagnac effect."

- Neil Ashby, “Relativity and the Global Positioning System,” Physics Today, May 2002, p. 5

The Foucault Pendulum (support wire iron ball) is attached to the top of the central dome of the Queen Victoria Building (QVB) . The QVB is attached to the Planet Earth, which rotates on its own axis about once every 24 hours. The Earth also goes around the Sun, once every year. The Sun, in turn, goes around the centre of our galaxy, The Milky Way, once every 300 million years. These are all local motions.

The Foucault Pendulum somehow ignores all these local motions! The Foucault Pendulum somehow stays lined up in its original orientation with the Rest of The Universe.


How does the Foucault Pendulum "know" to ignore local motions, and line itself up with the distant stars? Some very reputable physicists say that we really don't know.

Perhaps it's a case of Newton's First Law of Motion:- "A body will try to keep on doing whatever it's doing, unless acted upon by an external force." So a body that is motionless will not move, unless an external force tries to push it. And a body that is moving will keep on moving, unless an external force tries to stop it.

This desire of a body to keep on doing whatever it's doing, is called inertia. Nobody really understands what inertia is. The traditional explanations involve some circular reasoning. The reasoning goes like this. A body will keep on doing whatever it's doing is because it has inertia. And inertia is the tendency of a body to keep on doing whatever it's doing. But why does it keep on doing what it's doing? Because it has inertia. But what is inertia? The tendency of a body to keep on doing whatever it's doing. And so on.

- University of Sydney, School of Physics website


The Allais effect is a claimed anomalous precession of the plane of oscillation of a pendulum during a solar eclipse. It has been speculated to be unexplained by standard physical models of gravitation, but recent mainstream physics publications tend rather to posit conventional explanations for the reported observations.


Allais' pendulum experiments earned him the 1959 Galabert Prize of the French Astronautical Society, and in 1959 he was made a laureate of the United States Gravity Research Foundation.

In response to Michelson-Morley:

“This would mean that the Earth’s diameter in the direction of its motion is shortened by 2½ inches."


“The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion through the aether, because the effect looked for – the delay of one of the light waves – is exactly compensated by an automatic contraction of the matter forming the apparatus.”

- Sir Arthur Eddington, Space, Time and Gravitation, p. 20

Yes thats right folks. The explanation offered as to why the experiment failed to pick up the delay of one of the light waves is cuz...

.....the apparatus....SHRUNK!?

Enter the “Fitzgerald
contraction" and later the

Fancy terms that describe absolute fantasy!

More on shrinking instruments:

"The explanation which had the most appeal in accounting for the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment was one that was literally dreamed up for the purpose. It is the so-called Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction. In 1893 Fitzgerald suggested that all objects contracted in the direction of their motion through the ether. He reasoned that if ordinary objects flattened out upon impact with other objects – a rubber ball hitting a wall or a ripe tomato dropped on the floor, for example – then why would it not be possible for objects that move through the ether to have the force of the ether push them in, or contract them? This would adequately explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. The arm of the interferometer moving against the ether would be shortened so that, even though the light wave travelling in that particular arm might be slowed down by the ether wind, this would be compensated for by having its path shortened.....


Objections to the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction hypothesis were rampant, as was to be expected, not only because there was no evidence to prove that such an effect took place, but particularly because Fitzgerald could not explain why objects would contract due to motion through the ether. The contraction hypothesis was originally advanced only as a possible explanation for Michelson and Morley’s results, providing such an effect existed. Then, too, the theory said that all materials travelling with the same velocity with respect to the ether would contract the same fractional amount. Since iron is much heavier and stronger than wood, for example, one would expect a greater contraction for wood than for iron, but this, too, went unanswered."

- James A. Coleman, Professor of Physics and Chairman of the Department of Physics at the American International College, Spring-field, Massachusetts, "Relativity for the Layman".

“This ‘null’ result was one of the great puzzles of physics at the end of the nineteenth century. One possibility was that...v would be zero and no fringe shift would be expected. But this implies that the earth is somehow a preferred object; only with respect to the earth would the speed of light be c as predicted by Maxwell’s equations.

This is tantamount to assuming that the earth is the central body of the universe.”

- Douglas C. Giancoli, Physics: Principles with Applications, 1985, pp. 613-614 and 1980, p. 625.

"One can of course believe anything one likes as long as the consequences of that belief are trivial. But when survival depends on belief, then it matters that belief corresponds to manifest reality.

We therefore teach navigators that the stars are fixed to the Celestial Sphere, which is centered on a fixed Earth, and around which it rotates in accordance with laws clearly deducible from common-sense observation.

The Sun and Moon move across the inner surface of this sphere, and hence perforce go around the Earth.

This means that students of navigation must unlearn a lot of the confused dogma they learned in school. Most of them find this remarkably easy, because dogma is as may be, but the real world is as we perceive it to be.

If Andrew Hill will look in the Journal of Navigation he will find that the Earth-centered Universe is alive and well, whatever his readings of the Spectator may suggest."

Darcy Peddyhoff
Royal Air Force College
Lincolnshire, England

(as published in 'New Scientist', Aug. 16, 1979, p. 543)

The Sagnac effect and transformations of relative velocities between inertial frames

J.H.Field D
´epartement de Physique Nucl´eaire et Corpusculaire, Universit´e de Gen`eve 24, quai Ernest-Ansermet CH-1211Gen`eve 4.


The Sagnac effect is analysed in both Galilean and Special relativity within a space-time geometrical model previously developed by Langevin and Post. The effect arises because of the different velocities of different light signals relative to the interferometer. The appropriate relativistic relative velocity transformation formulas obtained differ from the velocity transformation formulas of conventional Special relativity, the latter actually predicting that the Sagnac effect vanishes. The Michelson-Morley experiment is analysed using the same model and a nonvanishing fringe shift, albeit below the sensitivity of all such experiments performed to date, is predicted. The Sagnac effect for neutrinos of the CERN CNGS beam is also discussed. The Sagnac effect indicates that the ECI (Earth Centered Inertial) frame is a preferred one in which light signals have a speed close to c, in the vicinity of the Earth, as predicted by General relativity.


The final conclusions are that the ECI frame constitutes a physically-preferred reference system for light signals or neutrinos in the vicinity of the Earth and that the Sagnac effect is not correctly described by the velocity transformation formulas of conventional special relativity. There is clearly an important mismatch between what is known and applied by the engineers of the GPS system, and the content of the scientific literature and text books on Special relativity theory, that needs to be rectified.


It seems NASA predicts Lunar and Solar eclipses as well as the positioning of all other planets in our system, by the GEOCENTRIC MODEL!

Geocentric Ephemeris for the Sun, Moon and Planets - NASA

A summary of Relativity's 'begging the question' regarding the Michelson-Morley Experiment, by poster John Martin on forum.

To commit the fallacy of begging the question, a conclusion to be demonstrated is assumed into a premise.

1 An experiment is set up to demonstrate the motion of the earth through space.
2 A positive result is expected from theory.
3 The experiment produces a null result.
4 The null result has a cause.
5 The cause of the null result is not a stationary earth, because the earth is moving.
6 The cause of the null result is a moving earth
7 Therefore an experiment on the moving earth has demonstrated that c is constant in any inertial reference frame.
8 Therefore c is constant in all reference frames.

Line 8, implies a moving earth as part of the conclusion, yet line 5 merely asserts the earth is moving, to conclude to line 8. Therefore theconstancy of c is invalid according to the fallacy of begging the question.

The only way science can conclude to one of special relativities postulates is to beg the question on the motion of the earth as shown above.

The constancy of c in any inertial reference frame is known from a logical fallacy (see above)

Constancy of c in any inertial reference frame is a postulate of SR.
SR uses four dimensional space to mathematically explain the MM null result.
Minkowski space is four dimensional used to explain SR.
As SR is founded on a fallacious postulate, the so too, Minkowski space is also founded on a fallacious postulate.
As a fallacy invalidates a theory, then both SR and MS are invalid.

Link to full thread:

"The high-velocity experiments on mesons, such as those at CERN, are definite evidence of the meson lifetime's functional relationship to their velocity with respect to the Earth, but have nothing whatsoever to do with the 'time-dilation' of Special Relativity. The experiments also are yet another 'ether-drift' investigation, with the usual answer: the velocity of the Earth with respect to a fundamental frame is zero."

- 'The "Time Dilation" of Mesons Re-Examined', Donald T. MacRoberts, Galilean Electrodynamics, Volume 3, No. 5, pp. 83-84.

A "null" result doesn't mean ZERO relative velocity!

"Considering the motion of the Earth in its orbit only, this displacement should be 2D v2/V2 = 2D × 10‐8. The distance D was about eleven meters, or 2 × 107 wavelengths of yellow light; hence, the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part.5 But since the displacement is proportional to the square of the velocity, the relative velocity of the Earth and the ether is probably less than one‐sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one‐fourth."

- A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley, “On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” Art. xxxvi, The American Journal of Science, eds. James D and Edward S. Dana, No. 203, vol. xxxiv, November 1887, p. 341

“This ‘null’ result was one of the great puzzles of physics at the end of the nineteenth century. One possibility was that...v would be zero and no fringe shift would be expected. But this implies that the earth is somehow a preferred object; only with respect to the earth would the speed of light be c as predicted by Maxwell’s equations. This is tantamount to assuming that the earth is the central body of the universe.”

- Physicist, Douglas C. Giancoli, Physics: Principles with Applications, 1985, pp. 613-614 and 1980, p. 625.

"Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson’s null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity....[...]...I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun.”

- Albert Einstein,  in a speech titled: “How I Created the Theory of Relativity,” delivered at Kyoto University, Japan, Dec. 14, 1922, as cited in Physics Today, August, 35 (8), 45, 1982, by Yoshimasa A. Ono.

"The logical existence of the incremental Sagnac effect implies... that there is some compelling physical reason why the effect cannot be observed at the surface of the Earth....We hold that until something new is brought to the table, this question simply cannot be resolved. No currently accepted theory reveals why, like a Cheshire cat, the Sagnac effect shows itself in one kind of experiment but not in another."

- Howard C. Hayden and Cynthia K Whitney, "If Sagnac and Michelson-Gale Why Not Michelson-Morley?" Galilean Electrodynamics, vol. 1, no. 6, Tufts University, Nov./Dec. 1990, pp. 73-74.

"According to the second postulate of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity the speed of light is independent of the uniform motion of its source. Direct experimental evidence by W. Kantor of the US Navy Electronics Laboratory, San Diego, leads him to the surprising conclusion that it may be untenable (Journal of the Optical Society of America, Vol. 52, No. 8, p. 978)...[...]..If Einstein's postulate is correct there should be no displacement between the two sets of interference fringes on spinning the disc, because the light from the approaching and receding windows, respectively, should all have the same velocity. In fact, an unambiguous, easily noted shift of the fringes was apparent when the mirrors were in motion (maximum linear velocity: 4,690 cm per sec) and Kantor deduces that Einstein's second postulate is incorrect. The fringe shift, moreover, appeared to depend on the speed of the disc. If the present work turns out, on more rigorous research, to be flawless and free from experimental artefacts, and if there is no obvious alternative explanation for the observed effects, there may be a need to reconsider some basic ideas in physics."

- 'Light Velocity Dependant on Speed of Source?', New Scientist 1 Nov 1962 p276.

Last edited by Strangelove on Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:51 am; edited 21 times in total

"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"


Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Posts : 3138
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Kinematical (Observational) Quotes

Post by Strangelove on Thu Dec 12, 2013 1:47 pm

“There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun. Thus all Galileo’s discoveries…can be accommodated to the system [in which] the daily rotation of the heavens is communicated to the sun and planets, so that the Earth itself neither rotates nor revolves in an orbit.”

- I. Bernard Cohen, Birth of a New Physics, revised and updated, 1985, p. 78.

"Let it be understood at the outset that it makes no difference, from the point of view of describing planetary motion, whether we take the Earth or the Sun as the center of the solar system. Since the issue is one of relative motion only, there are infinitely many exactly equivalent descriptions referred to different centers - in principle any point will do, the Moon. Jupiter...So the passions loosed on the world by the publication of Copernicus' book De revolutionibus orbium coelestium libri VI were logically irrelevant..."

- Sir Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus. An Essay on His Life and Work, p.1

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.”

- George Ellis, a famous cosmologist, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995

"It is often said that Tycho’s model implies the absence of parallax, and that Copernicus’ requires parallax. However, it would not be a major conceptual change to have the stars orbit the sun (like the planets) for Tycho, which would give the same yearly shifts in their apparent positions as parallax gives. Thus if parallax were observed, a flexible Tychonean could adjust the theory to account for it, without undue complexity. What if parallax were not observed? For Copernicus, one only requires that the stars be far enough away for the parallax to be unmeasurable. Therefore the presence or absence of parallax doesn’t force the choice of one type of model over the other. If different stars were to show different amounts of parallax, that would rule out the possibility of them all being on one sphere, but still not really decide between Tycho and Copernicus.

In fact, if we don’t worry about the distant stars, these two models describe identical relative motions of all the objects in the solar system. So the role of observation is not as direct as you might have guessed. There is no bare observation that can distinguish whether Tycho (taken broadly) or Copernicus (taken broadly) is right."

- University of Illinois, Physics 319, Spring 2004, Lecture 03, p. 8

the telescope did not prove the validity of Copernicus’ conceptual scheme. But it did provide an immensely effective weapon for the battle. It was not proof, but it was propaganda.

[most of Galileo's opponents] agreed that the phenomena [steller abberation] were in the sky but denied that they proved Galileo’s contentions. In this, of course, they were quite right. Though the telescope argued much, it proved nothing

- Thomas Kuhn (Guggenheim Fellow in 1954, and in 1982 was awarded the George Sarton Medal by the History of Science Society), "The Copernican Revolution", 1959, p. 224.

"In Newton’s day, the Ptolemaic system and the Keplerian version of the Copernican system were taught side by side in the universities of the world. But the pendulum of belief had swung irreversibly to the Copernican side. In the minds of most scientists, the heliocentric universe had become fact…Yet there remained a crucial missing element in what was otherwise a complete and compelling picture of the universe: Not one shred of indisputable observational proof existed that the Earth moved through space.Here then was the holy grail of many an astronomer. To prove that the Earth in fact revolved in a wide orbit around the Sun, the parallax of just one star – any star – had to be detected. The hunt for stellar parallax was on."

- Alan Hirshfeld, "The Race to Measure the Cosmos", 2001, p. 47.

Ironically, the "the holy grail of many an astronomer. To prove that the Earth in fact revolved in a wide orbit around the Sun" is claimed by this author to be steller parallax, which is adequately explained in a neo-tychonic geocentric system with the stars aligned [centred] on the sun which revolves around the stationary Earth.

"Now imagine that…the whole mechanism is picked up…and put down again with the sun fixed at the central position formerly held by the Earth…All of the geometric spatial relations of the Earth, sun and Mars…are preserved…and since only the fixed point of the mechanism has been changed, all the relative motions must be identical…the Tychonic system is transformed to the Copernican system simply by holding the sun fixed instead of the Earth. The relative motion of the planets are the same in both systems, and the harmonies are therefore preserved."

- Thomas S. Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution, 1959, pp. 204-205.

"...we can take either the Earth or the Sun, or any other point for that matter, as the center of the solar system. This is certainly so for the purely kinematical problem of describing the planetary motions. It is also possible to take any point as the center even in dynamics, although recognition of this freedom of choice had to await the present century......if we wish to consider the Earth to be at rest, it will be necessary to give an annual epicyclic motion to every object in the distant universe, as well as to the planets of the solar system. We cannot dismiss such a procedure simply on grounds of inconvenience or absurdity."

- Sir Fred Hoyle, "Nicolaus Copernicus", pp. 82-83.

"Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east, as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west, as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption, which can never be proved or disproved by observation."

- Dennis W. Sciama, "The Unity of the Universe", 1961, p. 102-103

Dennis W. Sciama Wiki~

"He is considered as one of the fathers of modern cosmology."


“So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest. Despite its role in philosophical debates over the nature of our universe, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.” — Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design, pages 41-42.

"I have two things to say that might surprise you: first, geocentrism is a valid frame of reference, and second, heliocentrism is not any more or less correct.” — Phil Plait, The Bad Astronomer

LINK: Discover Magazine

"The recent paper published in European Journal of Physics [1] aimed to demonstrate the kinematical and dynamical equivalence of heliocentric and geocentric systems. The work is performed in the Neo-Tychonian system, with key assumption that orbits of distant masses around the Earth are synchronized with the Sun's orbit. Motion of Sun and Mars have been analysed, and the conclusion was reached that the very fact of the accelerated motion of the Universe as a whole produces the so-called "pseudo-potential" that not only explains the origin of the pseudo-forces, but also the very motion of the celestial bodies as seen from the static Earth. After the paper was published, the question was raised if that same potential can explain the motion of the distant stars that are not affected by the Sun's gravity (unlike Mars), and if it can be used to reproduce the observation of the stellar parallax. The answer is found to be positive."

- Luka Popov, 'Stellar parallax in the Neo-Tychonian planetary system' 2013, Submitted to European Journal of Physics

"The popular belief that Copernicus' heliocentric system constitutes a significant simplification of the Ptolemaic system is obviously wrong. The choice of the reference system has no effect on the structure of the model, and the Copernican models themselves require about twice as many circles as the Ptolemaic models and are far less elegant and adaptable!" 

Modern historians, making ample use of the advantage of hindsight, stress the revolutionary significance of the heliocentric system and the simplification it had introduced. In fact, the actual computation of planetary positions follows exactly the ancient patterns and the results are the same. The Copernican solar theory is definitely a step in the wrong direction for the actual computation as well as for the underlying kinematic concepts"

- 'On Three Planetary Theory of Copernicus' - Otto Neugebauer 1968, p 103,

"The ancient argument over Whether the Earth rotates or the heavens revolve around it (as Aristotle taught) is seen to be no more than an argument over the simplest choice of a frame of reference. Obviously. the most convenient choice is the universe.... Nothing except inconvenience prevents us from choosing the Earth as a fixed frame of reference...If We choose to make the Earth our fixed frame of reference, we do not even do violence to everyday speech. We say that the sun rises in the morning, sets in the evening: the Big Dipper revolves around the North Star. Which point of view is “correct”? Do the heavens revolve or does the Earth rotate. The question is meaninglessness."

- The Relativity Explosion: Martin Gardner, 1976, pp 86-87

“The observation of the aberration show us, therefore, not the movement of the earth, but the variation of this movement; they cannot, therefore, give us information about the absolute motion of the earth.”

- Henri Poincaré, The Monist, The Principle of Mathematical Physics, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1905, p. 20.

Last edited by Strangelove on Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:24 am; edited 15 times in total

"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"


Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Posts : 3138
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Aether Quotes

Post by Strangelove on Thu Dec 12, 2013 1:50 pm

Dirac in 1951 published a Letter to Nature titled Is There an Aether?(2) in which he showed that the objections to an aether posed by Relativity were removed by Quantum Mechanics, and that in his reformulation of electrodynamics the vector potential was a velocity.(3) He concludes the Letter with 'We have now the velocity(2) at all points of space-time, playing a fundamental part in electrodynamics. It is natural to regard it as the velocity of some real physical thing. Thus with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aether'.

An Aether Model of the Universe

It is ironic that Einstein’s most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise was that no such medium existed…. Einstein… utterly rejected the idea of ether and inferred from its nonexistence that the equations of electromagnetism had to be relative. But this same thought process led in the end to the very ether he had first rejected, albeit one with some special properties that ordinary elastic matter does not have. The word “ether” has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum.

In the early days of relativity the conviction that light must be waves of something ran so strong that Einstein was widely dismissed. Even when Michelson and Morley demonstrated that the earth’s orbital motion through the ether could not be detected, opponents argued that the earth must be dragging an envelope of ether along with it because relativity was lunacy and could not possibly be right…. Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that such matter must have relativistic symmetry.

It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with “stuff” that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."

- Robert B. Laughlin (1993 Nobel laureate in physics), "A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down", 2005, pp. 120-121).

“According to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there would not only be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense”

- "Ether and the Theory of Relativity" by Albert Einstein, 5 May 1920 talk at the University of Leiden.

"Everything becomes clear if the idea that particles always have a position in space through time is brought back…. According to my current thinking, the particle is always located within a physical wave….The movement of the particle is assumed to be the superposition of a regular movement… and of a Brownian movement due to random energy exchanges which take place between the wave and a hidden medium, which acts as a subquantum thermostat. The point of prime importance in this model is that at each moment the particle occupies a well-defined position in space, and this re-establishes the clear meaning which the configuration space had in classical mechanics.”

- Louis de Broglie, “Waves and Particles,” Physics Bulletin, 22, February 1971

"…in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical, as we will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity. It does remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states…once again “empty” space appears as endowed with physical properties, i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to special relativity. One can thus say that the ether is resurrected in the general theory of relativity….Since in the new theory, metric facts can no longer be separated from “true” physical facts, the concepts of “space” and “ether” merge together."

- Albert Einstein, “Grundgedanken und Methoden der Relativitätstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt,” Morgan Manuscript, EA 2070, as cited in Ludwik Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, 2000, p. 2.

"Modern science has its roots in ancient Greek philosophy. This philosophy, as we know, used the word “ether” to designate the particular kind of matter that filled the universe. This term was used throughout the history of philosophy and science, and it was also current at the beginning of this century. A resumption of its use at the dawn of this new century is now a fact. Since, according to the General Theory of Relativity and other modern branches of physics, the space and time of the universe do not constitute a vacuum, but a structured material plenum characterized by different physical quantities, the historical and traditional word “ether” is the most appropriate to express these features of the universe."

- Ludwik Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, 2000, pp. 186-187.

"A few words about the gravitational ether, and the ether concept in general may be in place here. The ether hypothesis was thought to be buried by the Michelson-Morley experiment, but today it is more alive than ever, in the form of the CBR [Cosmic Background Radiation]: experiments capable of finding the ether were not possible in the 1880s, but were possible in the 1960s. In a sense, the electromagnetic ether has always been observed – as the heat of the Sun (since as pointed out, CBR is reprocessed photons)…. All the main cosmological, astrophysical and physical facts: the gravity and Olbers paradoxes, redshift effects and CBR, gravitation and radiation, and the existence of particles can be conceived in the framework of this ether concept."

- “Action-at-a-Distance and Local Action in Gravitation,” in Pushing Gravity, ed., Matthew Edwards, pp. 157-159.

"Today the vacuum is recognized as a rich physical medium….A general theory of the vacuum is thus a theory of everything, a universal theory. It would be appropriate to call the vacuum “ether” once again."

- S. Saunders and H. R. Brown, editors, The Philosophy of Vacuum, 1991, p. 251.

"Later in our treatise we will find that the very ether Louis de Broglie desired offers a solution to the wave/particle conundrum that has hampered modern science since de Broglie first discovered that electrons produce waves. Any particle that moves through a medium will, indeed, create waves. In fact, a return to ether will help solve one of the most mysterious and perplexing problems in Quantum Mechanics today, the phenomenon of “entanglement” – the spooky connection between pairs of photons, electrons or atoms even though they are separated by great distances. Perhaps this was why John Stewart Bell, the inventor of Bell’s Theorem to answer the phenomenon of entanglement, stated in a BBC radio interview: “Yes, the idea that there is an ether…that is a perfectly coherent point of view.”

- Ludwik Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, p. 154, citing M. Jammer’s, “John Stewart Bell and the Debate on Significance of his Contributions to the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics,” in Bell’s Theorem and the Foundations of Modern Physics, eds. A. Van der Merwe, F. Felleri, G. Tarozzi, Singapore, 1992, p. 5; also cited in P. C. W. Davies and J. R. Brown, eds., The Ghost in the Atom, 1986, pp. 49-50.

“investigations point towards a compelling idea, that all nature is ultimately controlled by the activities of a single superforce”

“[a living vacuum] holds the key to a full understanding of the forces of nature”

- Davies P. 'Superforce—the search for a grand unified theory of Nature. Simon and Schuster, New York, 1984, pp 5 and 104.

"Prior to the twentieth century, physics tried to explain how Nature works. Over the twentieth century, and especially in the last half, we got much more ambitious - now we’re uncovering what Nature is. The foundation is an entity I call the Grid. The Grid fills space, and is full of spontaneous activity. In some ways it resembles the old idea of “ether”. But the Grid is highly evolved ether, ether on steroids if you like, with many new features. We have some wonderful ideas waiting to be tested. There are good reasons to think that the Universe is a multilayered multicolored superconductor; that all four known forces can be brought together in a unified theory; that seemingly hopelessly different kinds of matter are just different aspects of one all-embracing stuff. I anticipate that the next few years will be a new Golden Age in fundamental physics."

- Frank Wilczek, Professor of Physics at MIT, Nobel Prize winner of 2004, author of the book "THE LIGHTNESS OF BEING: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces" (Basic Books; September 2, 2008) in a Q&A regarding his book.


Certainly, from the standpoint of the special theory of relativity, the ether hypothesis appears at first to be an empty hypothesis. 1n the equations of the electromagnetic field there occur, in addition to the densities of the electric charge, only the intensities of the field. The career of electromagnetic processes in vacuo appears to be completely determined by tliese equations, uninfluenced by other physical quantities. The electromagnetic fields appear as ultimate, irreducible realities, and at first it seems superfluous to postulate a homogeneous, isotropic ether-medium, and to envisage electromagnetic fields as states of this medium.

But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view. For the mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system hovering freely in empty space depends not only on relative positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the system in itself. In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, inust be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real.

"It is true that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as real something which is not observable by endeavouring to substitute in mechanics a mean acceleration with reference to the totality of the masses in the universe in place of an acceleration with reference to absolute space. But inertial resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant masses presupposes action at a distance; and as the modern physicist does not believe that he may accept this action at a distance, he comes back once more, if he follows Mach, to the ether, which has to serve as medium for the effects of inertia. But this conception of the ether to which we are led by Mach's way of thinking differs essentially from the ether as conceived by Newton, by Fresnel, and by Lorentz. Mach's ether not only conditions the behaviour of inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.

Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of relativity."

- Albert Einstein, an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden.

"It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must do, if gravitation, in the sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason, why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another, at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers."

- Isaac Newton to Bentley admitting that action at a distance involved in gravity is ABSURD. As recorded in Edwin Burtt, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science, Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, N.J. (1980), p. 266

"May not planets and comets, and all gross bodies, perform their motions more freely, and with less resistance in this aethereal medium than in any fluid, which fills all space adequately without leaving any pores, and by consequence is much denser than quick-silver and gold? And may not its resistance be so small, as to be inconsiderable? For instance; if this aether (for so I will call it) should be supposed 700,000 times more elastick than our air, and above 700,000 times more rare; its resistance would be above 600,000,000 times less than that of water. And so small a resistance would scarce make any sensible alteration in the motions of the planets in ten thousand years."

- Isaac Newton, Opticks, Fourth edition, 1730, Question 22.

"Modern science has its roots in ancient Greek philosophy. This philosophy, as we know, used the word "ether" to designate the particular kind of matter that filled the universe. This term was used throughout the history of philosophy and science, and it was also current at the beginning of this century. A resumption of its use at the dawn of this new century is now a fact. Since, according to the General Theory of Relativity and other modem branches of physics, the space and time of the universe do not constitute a vacuum, but a structured material plenum characterized by different physical quantities, the historical and traditional word "ether" is the most appropriate to express these features of the universe."

- 'Einstein and the Ether', Ludwik Kostro, 2000, pp 186-187,

"Einstein's new kind of ether was the metrical tensor field. He thus started to adhere to this new ether. He named it "Mach's ether" or simply "ether," and supplied the same reasons that Poincare had provided in his writings as to why we should adhere to the ether (we need the ether in order to remove absolute rotation and action-at-a-distance: see my papers "Poincare's ether"). Einstein thus returned to the 19th century concept of the ether, but stripped of it its most important characteristic: a medium being in absolute rest. One could still pose the perplexing question: Was Einstein's ether endowed with any properties independent of the masses in it? For if it did possess such properties then there was actually no difference between Einstein and Poincares ether. Einstein did not give a defmitive answer to the above question in his (1920) lecture."

- "Einstein's Ether: D. Rotational Motion of the Earth," Galina Granek, Department of Philosophy, Haifa University, Mount Cannel, Haifa 31905, Israel, Apeiron, Vol. 8, No. 2, April 2001, p. 64.

"A few words about the gravitational æther, and the æther concept in general may be in place here. The æther hypothesis was thought to be buried by the Michelson-Morley experiment, but today it is more alive than ever, in the form of the CBR: experiments capable of finding the æther were not possible in the 1880s, but were possible in 1960s. In a sense, the electromagnetic æther has always been observed..."

- Toivo Jaakkola Tuorla Observatory University of Turku "Action-at-a-Distance and Local Action in Gravitation", APEIRON Vol. 3 Nr. 3-4 July-Oct. 1996, p 70.

"Today the vacuum is recognized as a rich physical medium....A general theory of the vacuum is thus a theory of everything, a universal theory. It would be appropriate to call the vacuum "ether" once again."

- 'The Philosophy of Vacuum' , 1991, Simon W. Saunders, Harvey R. Jr. Brown, p 251.

"According to accepted theory, free space is a vacuum. If this is so, how can it exhibit impedance? But it does. The answer, of course, is that there is no such thing as a vacuum, and what we call free space has structure. The impedance equals 376+ ohms."

- "Space Must Be Quantizied,", Robert Moon, professor emeritus in physics at University of Chicago, 21st Century, 1988, p. 26ff. 

"In clear conception, it ought to be regarded as a direct manifestation of the luminiferous ether. In a system moving as a whole with respect to the ether, the elapsed time of propagation between any two points of the system should be altered as though the system were immobile and subject to the action of an ether wind which would blow away the light waves in the manner of atmospheric wind blowing away sound waves. The observation of the optical effect of such a relative wind of ether would constitute evidence for the ether, just as the observation of the influence of the relative wind of the atmosphere on the speed of sound in a system in motion would (in the absence of a better explanation) constitute evidence of the existence of the atmosphere around the system in movement."

- Georges Sagnac, “The Luminiferous Ether Demonstrated by the Effect of the Relative Motion of the Ether in an Interferometer in Uniform Rotation", Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Sciences 95, pp. 708-710, (1913).

Last edited by Strangelove on Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:34 pm; edited 14 times in total

"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"


Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Posts : 3138
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Copernican Principle Quotes

Post by Strangelove on Thu Dec 12, 2013 2:16 pm

“.....we shall interpret the Copernican principle as stating that the universe is approximately spherically symmetric about every point (since it is approximately spherically symmetric around us).”

-Hawking, S.W. and Ellis, G.F.R., The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 134, 1973. Their reference is to: Bondi, H., Cosmology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1960.

“…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth.…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility...the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs... such a favored position is intolerable…. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape”

Edwin Hubble - (The Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, pp. 50, 51,58-59.)

“A fundamental presupposition of modern cosmology is the Copernican Principle, that we are not in a central, or otherwise special region of the Universe. Studies of Type Ia supernovae, together with the Copernican principle, have led to the inference that the Universe is accelerating in its expansion. The usual explanation for this is that there must exist a ‘Dark Energy,’ to drive the acceleration. Alternatively, it could be the case that the Copernican Principle is invalid, and that the data has been interpreted within an inappropriate theoretical framework. If we were to live in a special place in the Universe, near the centre of a void where the local matter density is low, then the supernovae observations would be accounted for without the addition of dark energy.

- Timothy Clifton, Oxford Astrophysics Member, BSc, PhD. T. Clifton, et al, “Living in a Void: Testing the Copernican Principle with Distant Supernovae,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (13): 1302 (Sep 2008).

“…the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty.”

- Steven Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 42 (Bantam, 1988).

His co-author in another book, George F. R. Ellis admits much the same:

“This assumption is made because it is believed to be unreasonable that we should be near the center of the Universe.”

- George F. R. Ellis, “Is the Universe Expanding?” General Relativity and Gravitation 9 (2): 92 (1978).

“...all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe.”

- Steven Hawking, A Brief History of Time

“In the Friedman universe, one possible interpretation of the coordinates is that the whole space is on the surface of an expanding balloon and has no center… [But] in such a universe, there is no cosmic microwave background (CMB) dipole, even in the presence of a peculiar velocity. In other words, the observation of a CMB dipole excludes such an interpretation of the coordinates for the Friedman universe.”

- Y. Tomozawa, “The CMB Dipole and Existence of a Center for Expansion of the Universe,” Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics, University of Michigan, p. 2 (2 Feb 2008).

“Additionally, we must take seriously the idea that the acceleration apparently indicated by supernova data could be due to large scale inhomogeneity with no dark energy. Observational tests of the latter possibility are as important as pursuing the dark energy (exotic physics) option in a homogeneous universe.

Theoretical prejudices as to the universe’s geometry, and our place in it, must bow to such observational tests. Precisely because of the foundational nature of the Copernican Principle for standard cosmology, we need to fully check this foundation. And one must emphasize here that standard CMB anisotropy studies do not prove the Copernican principle: they assume it at the start.”

- George Ellis, “Inhomogeneity Effects in Cosmology,” arXiv:1103.2335v1 (Mar 2011).

“Often the simplest of observations will have the most profound consequences. It has long been a cornerstone of modern science, to say nothing of man’s cosmic outlook, that the Earth attends a modest star that shines in an undistinguished part of a run-of-the-mill galaxy. Life arose spontaneously and man evolved on this miscellaneous clump of matter and now directs his own destiny without outside help. This cosmic model is supported by the Big-Bang and Expanding Universe concepts, which in turn are buttressed by the simple observation that astronomers see redshifts wherever they look. These redshifts are due, of course, to matter flying away from us under the impetus of the Big Bang. But redshifts can also arise from the gravitational attraction of mass. If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! The argument advanced by George Ellis in this article is more complex than this, but his basic thrust is to put man back into a favored position in the cosmos. His new theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations, even though it clashes with the thought that we are godless and making it on our own.”

- Editor of Nature Magazine, Paul C. W. Davies.


Map reveals strange cosmos

By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor

The best map yet of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation - the so-called echo of the Big Bang - shows the Universe may not be the same in all directions.

The image has been produced from data collected by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (Map), which was launched in 2001.

"It is a photo of the most distant thing we can see; our best photo yet," said Dr Max Tegmark, of the University of Pennsylvania, US, who processed the image.

Dr Tegmark and colleagues present the CMB as a sphere: "The entire observable Universe is inside this sphere, with us at the centre of it."


Having produced the cleanest map of the CMB yet, Dr Tegmark displayed it in an unusual manner. Instead of a flat projection on a computer screen, he showed the data as ripples on a sphere - "after all the CMB comes from a sphere", he says.

"Space continues outside the sphere but this opaque glowing wall of hydrogen plasma hides it from our view. If we could only see another 380,000 light-years we would be able to see the beginning of the Universe," he told BBC News Online.

Looking for evidence

And he added: "We found something very bizarre; there is some extra, so far unexplained structure in the CMB.

"We had expected that the microwave background would be truly isotropic, with no preferred direction in space but that may not be the case."

Looking at the symmetry of the CMB - measures technically called its octopole and quadrupole components - the researchers uncovered a curious pattern.

They had expected to see no pattern at all but what they saw was anything but random.

"The octopole and quadrupole components are arranged in a straight line across the sky, along a kind of cosmic equator. That's weird.

"We don't think this is due to foreground contamination," Dr Tegmark said. "It could be telling us something about the shape of space on the largest scales. We did not expect this and we cannot yet explain it."


"If the low multipole behavior is caused by our universe having T 1 compact topology with one dimension small relative to the horizon scale, then the large scale power would be suppressed in this particular spatial direction as illustrated in Figure 1. Another possibility is hyperspherical topology corresponding to a closed universe."

- The significance of the largest scale CMB fluctuations in WMAP

Ang´elica de Oliveira-Costa1, Max Tegmark1, Matias Zaldarriaga2 & Andrew Hamilton3
1Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104,

“Studies of the cosmic background radiation have confirmed the isotropy of the radiation, or its complete uniformity in all directions. If the universe possesses a center, we must be very close to it…otherwise, excessive observable anisotropy in the radiation intensity would be produced, and we would detect more radiation from one direction than from the opposite direction.”

- Joseph Silk of the University of California, "The Big Bang: The Creation and Evolution of the Universe", p. 53 (W. H. Freeman, 1980).

"It is shown that the cosmological interpretation of the red shift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result: namely, that the Earth is the center of the Universe."

The Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes.”

- Y. P. Varshni, “The Red Shift Hypothesis for Quasars: Is the Earth the Center of the Universe?” Astrophysics and Space Science 43 (1): 3 (1976).

The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center (some other extremely contrived and implausible distributions are also possible). But Copernicus taught us that we are not in a special preferred position in the universe; Earth is not at the center of the solar system, the Sun is not at the center of the galaxy, and so forth. There is no reason to believe we are at the center of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts. If our instruments are sensitive enough to detect bursts at the edge of the spatial distribution, then they should not be isotropic on the sky, contrary to observation; if our instruments are less sensitive, then the N ∝ S-3/2 law should hold, also contrary to observation. That is the Copernican dilemma. To this day, after the detection of several thousand bursts, and despite earnest efforts to show the contrary, no deviation from a uniform random distribution (isotropy) in the directions of gamma-ray bursts on the sky has ever been convincingly demonstrated.”

- Jonathan I. Katz, The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts, The Most Violent Explosions in the Universe, pp. 84, 90-91 (Oxford University Press, 2002).

"Dark Energy is problematic. No one really knows what it is. We can make an educated guess, and use quantum theory to estimate how much of it there might be, but then we overshoot by an astounding factor of 10120. That is grounds enough, says George Ellis…to take a hard look at our assumptions about the universe and our place in it. “If we analyse the supernova data by assuming the Copernican principle is correct and get out something unphysical, I think we should start questioning the Copernican principle…. Whatever our theoretical predilections, they will in the end have to give way to the observational evidence.”

So what would it mean if…the outcome were that the Copernican principle is wrong? It would certainly require a seismic reassessment of what we know about the universe.If the Copernican Principle fails, all that goes [with] that [the Big Bang] goes out the window too….Cosmology would be back at the drawing board. If we are in a void, answering how we came to be in such a privileged spot in the universe would be even trickier."

- Marcus Chown, “Is the Earth at the Heart of a Giant Cosmic Void? New Scientist, Nov. 12, 2008, pp. 32‐35.

"Although dark energy may seem a bit contrived to some, the Oxford theorists are proposing an even more outrageous alternative. They point out that it's possible that we simply live in a very special place in the universe - specifically, we're in a huge void where the density of matter is particularly low. The suggestion flies in the face of the Copernican Principle, which is one of the most useful and widely held tenets in physics.

Copernicus was among the first scientists to argue that we're not in a special place in the universe, and that any theory that suggests that we're special is most likely wrong. The principle led directly to the replacement of the Earth-centered concept of the solar system with the more elegant sun-centered model.

Dark energy may seem like a stretch, but it's consistent with the venerable Copernican Principle. The proposal that we live in a special place in the universe, on the other hand, is likely to shock many scientists."

- Dark Energy: Is It Merely An Illusion? ScienceDaily (Sep. 26, 2008)


“A widespread idea in cosmology is that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic above a certain scale. This hypothesis, usually called the cosmological principle, is thought to be a generalization of the Copernican principle that “the Earth is not in a central, specially favored position”. The assumption is that any observer at any place at the same epoch would see essentially the same picture of the large scale distribution of galaxies in the universe.

However, according to a Fourier analysis by Hartnett & Hirano, the galaxy number count N from redshift z data (N–z relation) indicates that galaxies have preferred periodic redshift spacings.........A natural interpretation is that concentric spherical shells of higher galaxy number densities surround us, with their individual centers situated at our location.”

- Professor Shigeo Hirano, "Observational tests for oscillating expansion rate of the Universe" Physical Review D, 2010.

“The departures from uniformity are positive; the numbers of nebulae increase faster than the volume of space through which they are scattered. Thus the density of the nebulae distribution increases outwards, symmetrically in all directions, leaving the observer in a unique position. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature.”

-E. Hubble The Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, p.58

“....there is visible evidence in the raw data for an apparent concentric shell structure centered on the observer.”

“A Fourier analysis on galaxy number counts from redshift data of both the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey indicates that galaxies have preferred periodic redshift spacings of Δz=0.0102, 0.0246, and 0.0448 in the SDSS and strong agreement with the results from the 2dF GRS. The redshift spacings are confirmed by the mass density fluctuations, the power spectrum P(z)and N calculations.....”

“The Great Wall is shown in the second and third quadrants as indicated. In those two quadrants it is evident to the eye that there is general concentric structure with a spacing of about 75 h ^-1 Mpc.”

- J.G. Hartnett K. Hirano Sep 2008 "Galaxy redshift abundance periodicity from Fourier analysis of number counts N(z) using SDSS and 2dFGRS galaxy surveys” published in "Astrophysics and Space Science" journal.

"E. Hubble has shown that the observational data which he has obtained do not agree satisfactorily with the homogeneous relativistic cosmological models [Big Bang models]….the homogeneous models give an unrealistic picture of the physical universe. Perhaps this should not be too surprising, since Tolman [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 20, 169, 1934] has shown that, subject to certain simplifying conditions, a homogeneous model is unstable under perturbations in density. Any local tendency to expand would be emphasized by further expansion. Likewise, any local tendency to contract would be followed by further contraction. Thus if a homogeneous model is disturbed, it becomes nonhomogeneous”

- Guy C. Omer, Jr., “A Nonhomogeneous Cosmological Model,” Journal of the American Astronomical Society, vol. 109, 1949, pp. 165-166. See also W. B. Bonnor, “The Instability of the Einstein Universe”

Heres what the the universe around us looks like according to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey:


"Thus the theory might be valid provided the universe were packed with matter to the very threshold of perception. Nevertheless, the ever-expanding model of the first kind seems rather dubious. It cannot be ruled out by the observations, but it suggests a forced interpretation of the data. The disturbing features are all introduced by the recession factors, by the assumption that red-shifts are velocity-shifts. The departure from a linear law of red-shifts, the departure from uniform distribution, the curvature necessary to restore homogeneity, the excess material demanded by the curvature, each of these is merely the recession factor in another form….if the recession factor is dropped, if red-shifts are not primarily velocity-shifts, the picture is simple and plausible. There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of the timescale, no trace of spatial curvature, and no limitation of spatial dimensions. Moreover, there is no problem of inter-nebular material" [today’s “Dark Matter”].

- Edwin Hubble, The Observational Approach to Cosmology, p. 63.

From the paper - "Why is the Solar System Cosmically Aligned?"


“Developing the multi- pole vectors allowed us to examine how the CMB’s large-scale features align with each other and the ecliptic — the plane of Earth’s orbit around the Sun.”

Comment by geocentrist Rick DeLano at Magisterial Fundies:

"NOTE: In the geocentric model, simply reverse the position of the words “Earth” and “Sun” in the above sentence- and also in the graphic.

Remember to tilt the ecliptic 23.5 degrees, since the Earth is not tilted in the geocentric model, the cosmos is- and, interestingly enough, it is tilted exactly on the angle built into the CMB- the largest visible structure in the cosmos.

Please try and understand: there is one and only one cosmological model that would have predicted a cosmological significance to this 23.5 angle of the ecliptic.

It is the geocentric model.

In the heliocentric model, this 23.5 degree angle is ascribed to a tilt in the Earth’s axis- in other words, it is a purely local phenomenon, not expected to have any cosmological significance *at all*.

In this specific observation, it is the geocentric model which proves to have a better predictive fit to large-scale cosmological observations.

This will help you understand why this astonishing alignment with the ecliptic and equinoxes *of Earth* is described as the “Axis of Evil”.

Evil why?

Evil because there should be no possible reason to expect an alignment of the universe’s largest structure with supposedly insignificant Earth (or, if you prefer, supposedly insignificant local solar system)……
unless of course you are already a geocentrist, in which case the alignment is a very interesting confirmation that this angle is not merely local, but is cosmological, in significance."

Astronomers Find Evidence of a Special Direction in Space

Could the cosmos have a point?

LINK: Sciencific American


"The universe has no center and no edge, no special regions tucked in among the galaxies and light. No matter where you look, it’s the same—or so physicists thought. This cosmological principle—one of the foundations of the modern understanding of the universe—has come into question recently as astronomers find evidence, subtle but growing, of a special direction in space."


"For now, the data remain preliminary—subtle signs that something may be wrong with our standard understanding of the universe. Scientists are eagerly anticipating the data from the Planck satellite, which is currently measuring the CMB from a quiet spot 930,000 miles up. It will either confirm earlier measurements of the axis of evil or show them to be ephemera. Until then, the universe could be pointing us anywhere."



“Cosmological observations on the largest scales exhibit a solid record of unexpected anomalies and alignments, apparently pointing towards a large scale violation of statistical isotropy.”

“As a matter of fact, as cosmology and astronomy measurements close up on such vast scales, some surprises appear, in the form of large scale anomalies of the microwave sky, or large scale unexpected correlations among distant objects such as quasars, forcing us to ingeniously rethink our perhaps ingenuous paradigm……

It is generally thought that we live in a perfectly isotropic Universe, which implies that whichever direction in the sky we are looking towards, we should be observing the same features (at large distances). This assumption is being challenged by a number of observations in a variety of different contexts, from radio and optical polarisations of distant objects to cosmic microwave background (CMB) spectra, that conjure against the simplest realisation of the standard cosmological model.”

“The CMB is one of the most powerful sources of detailed information about our Universe at practically all possible length scales. In our case we are interested in the largest scales which roughly corresponds to looking at the lowest multipoles….there is a very easily identifiable preferred axis, the cosmological dipole once again; that is, the normal vectors to the planes determined by the quadrupole and the octopole (there are four of them) point all in the same direction, that of the ecliptic or equinox.”

“Observing very distant quasars, the authors of [6–8] have found evidence for a statistically significant correlation in the linear polarisation angles of photons in the optical spectrum over huge distances of order of 1 Gpc. In particular, they have found that these vectors tend to identify an axis in the sky which closely align with the direction of the cosmological dipole.”

“Let us stress here that the most important feature of all the observational findings reviewed in the previous section is the fact that they require a mechanism operating on unbelievably large scales, which generates coherence among disparate light signals from diverse sources.”

“According to the standard concordance model of cosmology, over 95% of the energy content of the universe is extraordinary- dark matter or dark energy whose existence has been inferred from the failure of the Standard Model of particle physics plus General Relativity to describe the behavior of astrophysical systems larger than a stellar cluster- while the very homogeneity and isotropy (and inhomogeneity) of the universe owe to the influence of an inflaton field whose particle-physics identity is completely mysterious even after three decades of theorizing……testing the cosmological principle should be one of the key goals of modern observational cosmology”.

- "Large-angle anomalies in the CMB" by Craig J. Copi, Dragan Huterer, Dominik J. Schwarz, and Glenn D. Starkman.


"However the very nature of the scientific enterprise is at stake in the multiverse debate: the multiverse proponents are proposing weakening the nature of scientific proof in order to claim that multiverses provide a scientific explanation. This is a dangerous tactic (note that we are concerned with really existing multiverses, not potential or hypothetical).

Two central scientific virtues are testability and explanatory power. In the cosmological context, these are often in conflict with each other (Ellis [12]). The extreme case is multiverse proposals, where no direct observational tests of the hypothesis are possible, as the supposed other universes cannot be seen by any observations whatever, and the assumed underlying physics is also untested and indeed probably untestable.

In this context one must re-evaluate what the core of science is: can one maintain one has a genuine scientific theory when direct and indeed indirect tests of the theory are impossible? If one claims this, one is altering what one means by science. One should be very careful before so doing."

- George F R Ellis, "Dark matter and dark energy proposals:maintaining cosmology as a true science?" November 21, 2008. LINK:

"The multiverse idea is not provable either by observation, or as an implication of well established physics (cf. Gardner [13]). It may be true, but cannot be shown to be true by observation or experiment. However it does have great explanatory power: it does provide an empirically based rationalization for fine tuning, developing from known physical principles.

Here one must distinguish between explanation and prediction. Successful scientific theories make predictions, which can then be tested. The multiverse theory can’t make any predictions because it can explain anything at all. Any theory that is so flexible is not testable because almost any observation can be accommodated. I conclude that multiverse proposals are good empirically-based philosophical proposals for the nature of what exists, but are not strictly within the domain of science because they are not testable. I emphasize that there is nothing wrong with empirically-based philosophical explanation, indeed it is of great value, provided it is labeled for what it is.

I suggest that cosmologists should be very careful not to make methodological proposals that erode the essential nature of science in their enthusiasm to support such theories as being scientific (cf. Tegmark [27, 28]), for if they do so, there will very likely be unintended consequences in other areas where the boundaries of science are in dispute. It is dangerous to weaken the grounds of scientific proof in order to include multiverses under the mantle of ‘tested science’ for there are many other theories standing in the wings that would also like to claim that mantle."

- George F R Ellis, "Dark matter and dark energy proposals:maintaining cosmology as a true science?" November 21, 2008. LINK:

"Perhaps there is a large scale inhomogeneity of the observable universe such as that described by the Lemaˆıtre-Tolman-Bondi (LTB) pressure-free spherically symmetric models, and we are near the centre of a void. The idea that such models can explain the supernova observations without any dark energy is discussed by Cel´eri´er at this meeting (and see also C´el´erier [7]).

This freedom enables us to fit the supernova observations with no dark energy or other exotic physics"

A typical observationally viable model is one in which we live roughly centrally (within 10% of the central position) in a large void.....and no dark energy or quintessence field"

Many dismiss these models on probability grounds: It is improbable we are near the centre of such a model. But there is always improbability in cosmology......In essence, there simply is no proof the universe is probable; that is a philosophical assumption, which may not be true. The universe may be improbable!! Secondly, there is no well-justified measure for any such probability proposal even if we ignore the first problem. This is still an issue of debate....And thirdly, a study by Linde et al [22] shows that (given a particular choice of measure) this kind of inhomogeneity actually is a probable outcome of inflationary theory, with ourselves being located near the centre! One cannot dismiss such models out of hand for probability reasons.

- George F R Ellis, "Dark matter and dark energy proposals:maintaining cosmology as a true science?" November 21, 2008.


"The statistical properties of the CMB fluctuations measured by WMAP appear "random"; however, there are several hints of possible deviations from simple randomness that are still being assessed. Significant deviations would be a very important signature of new physics in the early universe."


Oh ya....instead of actually believing our eyes we're gonna go physics!

"In particular, there is evidence for a violation of statistical isotropy at least on large angular scales in the context of the Planck fiducial sky model........In addition, there is evidence from such fits that the low-l spectrum of the Planck data departs from the fiducial spectrum in both amplitude and slope. These results could have profound implications for cosmology. "

Planck Results paper XXIII "Isotropy and statistics"

It has confirmed that Earth is at the centre of the universe. The standard cosmological principle has been scientifically falsified.

European Space Agency attempts to cover up the data and make excuses.

More from Rick DeLano here:

Magisterial Fundies

More from Robert Sungenis here:

2013 Planck Data Shows Universe is Non-Copernican

Two CMB anomalous features hinted at by Planck’s predecessor, NASA’s WMAP, are confirmed in the new high-precision data. One is an asymmetry in the average temperatures on opposite hemispheres of the sky (indicated by the curved line), with slightly higher average temperatures in the southern ecliptic hemisphere and slightly lower average temperatures in the northern ecliptic hemisphere. This runs counter to the prediction made by the standard model that the Universe should be broadly similar in any direction we look. There is also a cold spot that extends over a patch of sky that is much larger than expected (circled). In this image the anomalous regions have been enhanced with red and blue shading to make them more clearly visible.

ESA Website - Planck

"An alternative to admitting the existence of dark energy is to review the postulates that necessitate its introduction. In particular, it has been proposed that the SNe observations could be accounted for without dark energy if our local environment were emptier than the surrounding Universe, i.e., if we were to live in a void. This explanation for the apparent acceleration does not invoke any exotic substances, extra dimensions, or modifications to gravity – but it does require a rejection of the Copernican Principle. We would be required to live near the center of a spherically symmetric under-density, on a scale of the same order of magnitude as the observable Universe. Such a situation would have profound consequences for the interpretation of all cosmological observations, and would ultimately mean that we could not infer the properties of the Universe at large from what we observe locally.

Within the standard inflationary cosmological model the probability of large, deep voids occurring is extremely small. However, it can be argued that the center of a large underdensity is the most likely place for observers to find themselves. In this case, finding ourselves in the center of a giant void would violate the Copernican principle, that we are not in a special place…"

- “Living in a Void: Testing the Copernican Principle with Distant Supernovae,” Physical Review Letters, 101, 131302 (2008) DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.131302.with citation from A. D. Linde, D. A. Linde and A. Mezhlumian in Physical Letters B345, 203 (1995) and S. Alexander, T. Biswas and A. Notari at [arXiv.0370]; and H. Alnes, M. Amarzguioui and Ø. Grøn in Physical Review D73, 083519 (2006); and J. Garcia‐Dellido & T. Jaugboelle in Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 04, 003 (2008).

"Astronomers will find it hard to settle that troubling sensation in the pit of their stomachs. The truth is that when it comes to swallowing uncomfortable ideas, dark energy may turn out to be a sugar-coated doughnut compared to a rejection of the Copernican principle.”

- “Dark Energy and the Bitterest Pill,” July 14, 2008 at the Physics arXiv blog.

"If the redshifts are a Doppler shift...the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young."

- Edwin Hubble, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 17, 506, 1937.

Relevant: On the Geocentric Nature of Hubble Law

Inflationary paradigm in trouble after Planck 2013

The recent Planck satellite combined with earlier results eliminate a wide spectrum of more complex inflationary models and favor models with a single scalar field, as reported in the analysis of the collaboration. More important, though, is that all the simplest inflation models are disfavored by the data while the surviving models -- namely, those with plateau-like potentials -- are problematic. We discuss how the restriction to plateau-like models leads to three independent problems: it exacerbates both the initial conditions problem and the multiverse-unpredictability problem and it creates a new difficulty which we call the inflationary "unlikeliness problem." Finally, we comment on problems reconciling inflation with a standard model Higgs, as suggested by recent LHC results. In sum, we find that recent experimental data disfavors all the best-motivated inflationary scenarios and introduces new, serious difficulties that cut to the core of the inflationary paradigm. Forthcoming searches for B-modes, non-Gaussianity and new particles should be decisive.

Cornell University Library

"The Copernican principle states that humans are not privileged observers of the universe and provides our philosophical basis for assuming that on the largest scales the universe is spatially homogeneous. While it is one of the foundational aspects of modern cosmology, this assumption remains untested outside of the standard paradigm. Though it may seem pedantic to test something so obvious, the standard paradigm itself is built on shaky foundations, relying on an unexplained, gravitationally repulsive, dark-energy component for observations to fit the model. The implications of this cannot be overstated. Assuming that the laws of physics do apply equally everywhere in the universe, the only non- copernican configuration possible is one in which we live in a place that originates from special initial conditions."

- 'Testing the Copernican principle by constraining spatial homogeneity' : Wessel Valkenburg,1, 2 Valerio Marra,2 and Chris Clarkson3 1Instituut-Lorentz for Theoretical Physics, Universiteit Leiden Postbus 9506, 2333 CA Leiden, The Netherlands.


"Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies, which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic 1,2. This alignment has been dubbed the “axis of evil” with very damaging implications for the standard model of cosmology3. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropies4. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sources 5,6,7. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions. The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon."


"...there is no denying that from the large anisotropies present in the radio sky, independently seen both in the discrete source distribution and in the diffuse CMBR, the Copernican principle seems to be in jeopardy."

- 'Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky?' Ashok K. Singal, Astronomy and Astrophysics Division, Physical Research Laboratory, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad - 380 009, India. Cosmology and Extragalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO), Submitted on 17 May 2013.


Abstract Link:

 "One is therefore placed between a rock and a hard place. If the WMAP ILC is a reliable reconstruction of the full-sky CMB, then there is overwhelming evidence (de Oliveira-Costa et al. (2004); Eriksen et al. (2004); Copi et al. (2004); Schwarz et al. (2004); Copi et al. (2006); Copi et al. (2007); Land & Magueijo (2005a,b,c,d); Raki ́c & Schwarz (2007); for a review see Huterer (2006)) of extremely unlikely phase alignments between (at least) the quadrupole and octopole and between these multipoles and the geometry of the Solar System — a violation of statistical isotropy that happens by random chance in far less than 0.025 per cent of random realizations of the standard cosmology.  If, on the other hand, the part of the ILC (and band maps) inside the Galaxy are unreliable as measurements of the true CMB, then the alignment of low-l multipoles can- not be readily tested, but the magnitude of the two-point angular correlation function on large angular scales outside the Galaxy is smaller than would be seen in all but a few of every 10,000 realizations.

We can only conclude that (i) we don’t live in a standard ΛCDM Universe with a standard inflationary early history; (ii) we live in an extremely anomalous realization of that cosmology; (iii) there is a major error in the observations of both COBE and WMAP; or (iv) there is a major error in the reduction to maps performed by both COBE and WMAP. Whichever of these is correct, inferences from the large-angle data about precise values of the parameters of the standard cosmological model should be regarded with particular skepticism."

- No large-angle correlations on the non-Galactic microwave sky, Craig J. Copi, Dragan Huterer, Dominik J. Schwarz and Glenn D. Starkman. 26th Aug, 2013 (revision of 2008 paper)

But the main reason for believing in an ensemble of universes is that it could explain why the laws governing our Universe appear to be so finely tuned for our existence. [...]This fine-tuning has two possible explanations. Either the Universe was designed specifically for us by a creator or there is a multitude of universes--a "multiverse".

- Marcus Chown, New Scientist, 06 June 1998.

The Copernican Principle is similarly flexible: When conjuring habitable planets, it assumes ours is one among countless winners. Yet when conjuring a multiverse, it assumes that our universe is a lonely winner among countless flops. The choice seems to depend on which assumption is required as a defense against design. That feature, as we shall see, can once again transform speculation into orthodoxy.

- Denyse O'Leary, Evolution News and Views

LINK to article

Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory

Our universe is perfectly tailored for life. That may be the work of God or the result of our universe being one of many.


Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multi­verse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.

The idea is controversial. Critics say it doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved.

- Tim Folger, November 10, 2008, Discover Magazine Online


"There currently exists considerable evidence in favor of a large scale anisotropy in the Universe with the preferred axis pointing roughly in the direction of Virgo, close to the CMBR dipole. This includes, radio (Jain & Ralston 1999) and optical polarizations (Hutsem ́ekers 1998; Hutsem ́ekers & Lamy 2001; Jain et al. 2004), CMBR quadrupole and octopole (de Oliveira-Costa et al. 2004) as well as the radio source distribution and brightness (Blake & Wall 2002; Singal 2011; Gibelyou & Huterer 2012; Rubart & Schwarz 2013; Kothari et al. 2013). The physical reason for these observations is not clear and points towards a violation of the cosmological principle."

- 'Dipole Anisotropy in Integrated Linearly Polarized Flux Density in NVSS Data', Prabhakar Tiwari and Pankaj Jain Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology, Kan pur - 208016, India, 20 August 2013.


"We now have increasing direct evidence that dark matter does not exist in galaxies [3]. Then it is unlikely that some dark matter is hidden somewhere else in the universe. Therefore the widely excepted (sic) ΛCDM cosmology is in difficulty. For this reason it is worthwhile to reconsider the expansion in the universe by starting from scratch." [...] "Our result (4.37) has the merit that it does not contain hypothetical stuff."

- 'Inhomogeneous cosmology in the cosmic rest frame', G ̈unter Scharf, Institut fur Theoretische Physik, Universit ̈at Z̈urich Winterthurerstr. 190 , CH-8057 Z ̈urich, Switzerland, 13 Dec 2013.


"Cosmology is not even astrophysics: all the principal assumptions in this field are unverified (or unverifiable) in the laboratory, and researchers are quite comfortable with inventing unknowns to explain the unknown. How then could, after fifty years of failed attempt in finding dark matter, the fields of dark matter..dark energy have become such lofty priorities in astronomy funding, to the detriment of all other branches of astronomy? I demonstrate in this article that while some of is based upon truth, at least just as much of ΛCDM cosmology has been propped by a paralyzing amount of propaganda which suppress counter evidence and subdue competing models. [...] I believe astronomy is no longer heading towards a healthy future, unless funding agencies re-think their master plans by backing away from such high a emphasis on groping in the dark."

- Richard Lieu, 'ΛCDM cosmology: how much suppression of credible evidence, and does the model really lead its competitors, using all evidence?', 2007, abstract.

"Dark energy appears to be the dominant component of the physical Universe, yet there is no persuasive theoretical explanation for its existence or magnitude. The acceleration of the Universe is, along with dark matter, the observed phenomenon that most directly demonstrates that our theories of fundamental particles and gravity are either incorrect or incomplete. Most experts believe that nothing short of a revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics will be required to achieve a full understanding of the cosmic acceleration. For these reasons, the nature of dark energy ranks among the very most compelling of all outstanding problems in physical science. These circumstances demand an ambitious observational program to determine the dark energy properties as well as possible."

- Report of the Dark Energy Task Force, 2006

Galactic ‘axis of asymmetry’ threatens cosmic order

Baffling rows of spiral galaxies that prefer to spin in one direction could have profound implications for our understanding of the cosmos


"If the universe does contain such an axis, it would contradict our current view of the cosmos, which assumes that matter and energy are uniformly distributed throughout, and that the universe looks pretty much the same in all directions."

"A similar bias among structures of cosmic proportions would have deep implications. For example, if more galaxies are spinning one way than the other, this implies that the universe has a net spin, or angular momentum, in a particular direction. Since angular momentum can neither be created or destroyed, the universe must have come into existence in a spin. What set it spinning, though, and what is it spinning relative to?"

Is the Universe Spinning? New Research Says "Yes"

If the universe was born rotating, like a spinning basketball, Longo said, it would have a preferred axis, and galaxies would have retained that initial motion.

"It could be," Longo said. "I think this result suggests that it is."

Galaxies spin, stars spin, and planets spin. So, why not the whole universe? The consequences of a spinning universe would be profound. The cornerstone of modern cosmology is that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic — it has no preferred orientation and looks the same in all directions.

On the face of it, the claim of a spin axis would seem anti-Copernican. In other words, the universe has a preferred axis, which means there is indeed a special direction in space.

A left-handed and right-handed imprint on the sky as reportedly revealed by galaxy rotation would imply the universe was rotating from the very beginning and retained an overwhelmingly strong angular momentum.

Ultra-compact radio sources and the isotropy and homogeneity of the Universe
J. C. Jackson

A 2.29 GHz VLBI all-sky survey of ultra-compact radio sources has formed the basis of a number of cosmological investigations, which examine the relationship between angular-size and redshift. Here I use a sample of 468 such sources with 0.5This is interpreted as meaning that the Universe is not spatially homogeneous on the largest scales, and is better represented at late times by a spherically symmetric model with a density enhancement at its centre.

"We have shown that most of the global time cutoff measures of the multiverse suffer from severe inconsistencies and developed a new framework which allows us to study the measure problem from a completely different perspective. In the emerging picture an infinite multiverse is replaced with a finite geocentric region..."

- 'Geocentric cosmology: a new look at the measure problem', Mahdiyar Noorbala and Vitaly Vanchurin, Department of Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, 2011.

Last edited by Strangelove on Tue Feb 21, 2017 6:12 am; edited 22 times in total

"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"


Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Posts : 3138
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Speed of Light Quotes

Post by Strangelove on Thu Dec 12, 2013 2:23 pm

“In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity

- Albert Einstein, Relativity: The Special and the General Theory, authorized translation by Robert W. Lawson, 1961, p. 85).

“Relative to the stationary roundabout [the Earth], the distant stars would have a velocity rω [radius x angular velocity] and for sufficiently large values of r, the stars would be moving relative to O’ [the observer] with linear velocities exceeding 3 × 108 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction…that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u < c = 3 × 108 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General theory, it is possible to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c. However, this is not true when gravitational fields are present. In addition to the lengths of rods and the rates of clocks the velocity of light is affected by a gravitational field. If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 × 108 m/sec under these conditions.

- An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, William G. V. Rosser, 1964, p. 460, comments in brackets added.

"...the universe does expand faster than the speed of light, and, perhaps more surprisingly, some of the galaxies we can see right now are currently moving away from us faster than the speed of light!"

- Ask an Astronomer - Cornell University

"There are many galaxies visible in telescopes with red shift numbers of 1.4 or higher. All of these are currently traveling away from us at speeds greater than the speed of light."

- Faster-than-light - WIKI

"...galaxies farther than 4300 megaparsecs from us are currently moving away from us at speeds greater than that of light. Cosmological innocents sometimes exclaim, “Gosh! Doesn’t this violate the law that massive objects can’t travel faster than the speed of light?” Actually, it doesn’t. The speed limit that states that massive objects must travel with v < c relative to each other is one of the results of special relativity, and refers to the relative motion of objects within a static space. In the context of general relativity, there is no objection to having two points moving away from each other at superluminal speed due to the expansion of space."

- "Introduction to Cosmology", Barbara Ryden, page 39.

"…it is permissible to assume that the Earth is a nonrotating frame of reference. From this point of view, the stars will have a circular velocity around the Earth that is much greater than the speed of light. A star only ten light-years away has a relative velocity around the Earth of twenty thousand times the speed of light."

- Martin Gardner, Relativity Explosion, 1976, p. 68.

Last edited by Strangelove on Thu Mar 09, 2017 4:10 am; edited 4 times in total

"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"


Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Posts : 3138
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Newtonian Mechanics and Centre of Mass Quotes

Post by Strangelove on Thu Dec 12, 2013 2:39 pm

“Although in the nineteenth century this argument was believed to be a satisfactory justification of the heliocentric theory, one found causes for disquiet if one looked into it a little more carefully. When we seek to improve on the accuracy of calculation by including mutual gravitational interactions between planets, we find – again in order to calculate correctly – that the center of the solar system must be placed at an abstract point known as the “center of mass,” which is displaced quite appreciably from the center of the Sun. And if we imagine a star to pass moderately close to the solar system, in order to calculate the perturbing effect correctly, again using the inverse-square rule, it could be essential to use a “center of mass” which included the star.

The “center” in this case would lie even farther away from the center of the Sun. It appears, then, that the “center” to be used for any set of bodies depends on the way in which the local system is considered to be isolated from the universe as a whole. If a new body is added to the set from outside, or if a body is taken away, the “center” changes.

- Fred Hoyle, 'Nicolaus Copernicus', 1973, p. 85.

Consider a rotating, solid sphere immersed in a viscous fluid. As it rotates, the sphere will drag the fluid along with it. At various points in the fluid, set down little rods, and watch how the fluid rotates them as it flows past. Near the poles the fluid will clearly rotate the rods in the same direction as the star [i.e., sphere] rotates. But near the equator, because the fluid is dragged more rapidly at small radii than at large, the end of a rod closest to the sphere is dragged by the fluid more rapidly than the far end of the rod. Consequently, the rod rotates in the direction opposite to the rotation of the sphere

Now reverse the situation. If we want to cause the sphere to rotate clockwise, we would need to turn the rods at the poles clockwise, and the ones at the equators counter-clockwise….This picture is clear then: to turn the sphere, the rotation of the particles (MTW’s “rods”) at the poles must be the opposite of that at the equator…However, in the case of a rotating firmament, all the particles are rotating in the same direction, with the angular velocity common to the entire firmament. The equatorial inertial drag is in the opposite direction as that acting near the poles. Using calculus, one integrates the effect from the center of the Earth outward in infinitesimal shells, showing that the Earth is in fact locked in place, the resulting inertial shear being distributed throughout the Earth’s internal volume. It could be demonstrated that were the Earth to be pushed out of its “station keeping” position, the uneven force distribution would return it to its equilibrium state.

- Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, 'Gravitation', p. 1120.

"Newtonian laws operate in a world-model that is very different from everyday intuition. Because Newtonian space is infinite and homogeneous, Earth and its surface are not special places. The directions "up," "down," and "sideways" are fundamentally similar. Nor is rest privileged over uniform motion. None of these concepts matches everyday experience. They troubled Newton's contemporaries, and even Newton himself."

- Frank Wilczek, Professor of Physics at MIT, Nobel Prize winner of 2004, in his book "THE LIGHTNESS OF BEING: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces" page 1. (Basic Books; September 2, 2008).

“In order for the Earth to be at rest in the center of the system of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, there is required both universal gravity and another force in addition that acts on all bodies equally according to the quantity of matter in each of them and is equal and opposite to the accelerative gravity with which the Earth tends to the Sun…Since this force is equal and opposite to its gravity toward the Sun, the Earth can truly remain in equilibrium between these two forces and be at rest. And thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest, as in the Tychonic system.”

- Isaac Newton, Proposition 43.

Last edited by Strangelove on Fri Dec 13, 2013 12:12 am; edited 1 time in total

"Gentlemen you cant fight in here, this is the War Room!"


Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Posts : 3138
Age : 42
Gender : Male Location : Israel of God
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentricity - Ordered Quotes

Post by Sponsored content

Sponsored content

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum