Stationary Earth

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Brilliant finds, Doc. :-)

Oh theres more.

[reading]

I just can't say it too many times. I'm thankful for the Helio pieces of the puzzle and the Kabbalah expose. I'd spent many years putting most of this together, but the missing blanks have largely been filled in by info from your ardent research.

The entire fulcrum of all this garbage is Helio/Kabbalah.

“Who [the sun] alone appears, by virtue of his dignity and power, suited…and worthy to become the home of God himself, not to say the first mover”

- Johannes Kepler, On the Motion of Mars, Prague, 1609, Chapter 4).


"Kepler knew that in Tycho’s possession were the raw observations that he, as “architect,” longed to assemble into a coherent picture of planetary motion. And Tycho knew that the gifted Kepler had the mathematical wherewithal to prove the validity of the Tychonic [geocentric] system of the heavens. But Kepler was a confirmed Copernican; Tycho’s model had no appeal to him, and he had no intention of polishing this flawed edifice to the great man’s ego."

- Alan W. Hirshfeld, Parallax: The Race to Measure the Universe, New York: W. H. Freeman and Co, 2001, pp. 92-93).

Interesting looking book here folks:


Joshua Gilder and Anne-Lee Gilder, "Heavenly Intrigue: Johannes Kepler, Tycho Brahe, and the Murder Behind one of History’s Greatest Scientific Discoveries", New York: Doubleday, 2004

"Let all keep silence and hark to Tycho who has devoted thirty-five years to his observations… For Tycho alone do I wait; he shall explain to me the order and arrangement of the orbits… Then I hope I shall one day, if God keeps me alive, erect a wonderful edifice.....

Brahe may discourage me from Copernicus (or even from the five perfect solids) but rather I think about striking Tycho himself with a sword…I think thus about Tycho: he abounds in riches, which like most rich people he does not rightly use. Therefore great effort has to be given that we may wrest his riches away from him. We will have to go begging, of course, so that he may sincerely spread his observations around”

- Kepler, Letter to Michael Maestlin, February 16 1599, Gesammelte Werke, vol. xiii, p. 289

Strangelove wrote:The Earth has the Moon at her service. As Aristotle says, in his On Animals, the Moon has the closest relationship with the Earth. Meanwhile the Earth conceives by the Sun, and becomes pregnant with an annual rebirth."

- Nicolaus Copernicus , De Revolutionibus, Of the Order of the Heavenly Bodies 10.

is it SCIENCE? or RELIGION?

Jeremiah 44:17
We will certainly do everything we said we would: We will burn incense to the Queen of Heaven and will pour out drink offerings to her just as we and our fathers, our kings and our officials did in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. At that time we had plenty of food and were well off and suffered no harm.

Gill:
to burn incense unto the queen of heaven; which, according to Abarbinel, was the moon, which is the queen of heaven, as the sun is king; it was called by the Heathens Coelestis and Urania: but there are some that think that some great star in heaven, that is king over the rest, is meant; so the Targum renders it, the star of heaven; which they understand of the sun, as Kimchi observes; the sun being much worshipped in Egypt; but Kimchi himself derives the word for "queen", here used, not from the root which signifies "to reign"; but from another, which signifies "to work"; and so renders it, "the work", or "frame of heaven"; the sun, moon, and stars; and so the Syriac version is "the host of heaven";

Strangelove wrote:"In the middle of all sits Sun enthroned. In this most beautiful temple could we place this luminary in any better position from which he can illuminate the whole at once? He is rightly called the Lamp, the Mind, the Ruler of the Universe: Hermes Trismegistus names him the Visible God, Sophocles’ Electra calls him the All-seeing. So the Sun sits as upon a royal throne ruling his children the planets which circle round him. The Earth has the Moon at her service. As Aristotle says, in his On Animals, the Moon has the closest relationship with the Earth. Meanwhile the Earth conceives by the Sun, and becomes pregnant with an annual rebirth."

- Nicolaus Copernicus , De Revolutionibus, Of the Order of the Heavenly Bodies 10.

Deuteronomy 4:19
And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars--all the heavenly array--do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven.

Ezekiel 8:16
He then brought me into the inner court of the house of the LORD, and there at the entrance to the temple, between the portico and the altar, were about twenty-five men. With their backs toward the temple of the LORD and their faces toward the east, they were bowing down to the sun in the east.



oopsy.

Strangelove wrote:Brahe may discourage me from Copernicus (or even from the five perfect solids) but rather I think about striking Tycho himself with a sword…I think thus about Tycho: he abounds in riches, which like most rich people he does not rightly use. Therefore great effort has to be given that we may wrest his riches away from him. We will have to go begging, of course, so that he may sincerely spread his observations around”

- Kepler, Letter to Michael Maestlin, February 16 1599, Gesammelte Werke, vol. xiii, p. 289

same old M.O.

Strangelove wrote:"The personality of Galileo, as it emerges from works of popular science, has even less relation to historic fact than Canon Koppernigk’s…[H]e appears…in rationalist mythography as the Maid of Orleans of Science, the St. George who slew the dragon of the Inquisition. It is, therefore, hardly surprising that the fame of this outstanding genius rests mostly on discoveries he never made, and on feats he never performed. Contrary to statements in even recent outlines of science, Galileo did not invent the telescope; nor the microscope; nor the thermometer; nor the pendulum clock. He did not discover the law of inertia; nor the parallelogram of forces or motions; not the sun spots. He made no contribution to theoretical astronomy; he did not throw down weights from the leaning tower of Pisa and did not prove the truth of the Copernican system. He was not tortured by the Inquisition, did not languish in its dungeons, did not say ‘eppur si muove’; and he was not a martyr of science "

- Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers, p. 358.

uh....ya. Uncle Art said a lot of stuff that wasn't PC....(Khazars and stuff).

ARTHUR KOESTLER AND WIFE SUICIDES IN LONDON

By ERIC PACE

Published: March 4, 1983

Arthur Koestler, an archetype of the activist Central European intellectual who drew on his Communist background for the antitotalitarian novel ''Darkness at Noon,'' was found dead with his wife at their London home yesterday. Police officials said their deaths were apparently by suicide.

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/03/04/world/arthur-koestler-and-wife-suicides-in-london.html?pagewanted=all

hmmm....

zone wrote:

- Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers, p. 358.

uh....ya. Uncle Art said a lot of stuff that wasn't PC....(Khazars and stuff).

ARTHUR KOESTLER AND WIFE SUICIDES IN LONDON

By ERIC PACE

Published: March 4, 1983

Arthur Koestler, an archetype of the activist Central European intellectual who drew on his Communist background for the antitotalitarian novel ''Darkness at Noon,'' was found dead with his wife at their London home yesterday. Police officials said their deaths were apparently by suicide.

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/03/04/world/arthur-koestler-and-wife-suicides-in-london.html?pagewanted=all

hmmm....

Fascinating. I find myself frustrated in being constrained to the rigours of everyday life. What I wouldn't give to have the time and the freedom to indulge to my hearts content. Great stuff you guys. I love reading all that is posted here

i know Fes. just moving and all has been a lot.
but its good to know you're here readin'.

and its wonderful when you find time to post. love ya brother.

Quote from a geocentric blogger:

"If, as relativity claims, we can with equal justification choose any reference frame and call that one “at rest,” with the result that no reference frame is privileged and really “at rest,” then why cannot the Christian say that, since God created man, man is therefore special in the universe; and that therefore, man is justified in claiming that Earth’s frame is truly “at rest,” and the rest of the universe is in motion relative to Earth. In other words, the ancient view that the sun revolves around the Earth, indeed that the entire universe revolves around the Earth, is the correct view. If any reference frame we choose can be regarded as “at rest,” why not choose Earth’s frame? Perhaps God truly did create Earth “at rest,” and Earth is the only body in the universe “at rest.”

Most physicists would say that there are certain astronomical observations that can only be explained if the Earth is revolving around the sun. These observations are what led Copernicus to his sun-centered model of the solar system. But if this is true, and certain observations can only be explained in terms of a sun-centered model, does this not violate Einstein’s assertion that any reference frame can with equal justification be regarded as “at rest?” For does not Copernicus show us that Einstein is incorrect? If scientists wish to uphold Einstein, then there must be some way to explain astronomical observations such that Earth can be regarded as “at rest.” And if so, then the Christian, with his belief in God, is perfectly within his right to assert that the universe is centered on the Earth, and no scientist can legitimately refute the Christian."

Article contnues here: Geocentrism - Scott Reeves

FRom - http://ecbiz97.inmotionhosting.com/~sanmig7/thetruth/

1 ›› Earth, our planet, is at the Center of the Universe
2 ›› The Sun revolves around the Earth
3 ›› All of the Universe, the stars and all other universal bodies, circle the Earth
4 ›› The Universe is bound in a medium which we shall refer to as the Plenum
5 ›› The existence of the Plenum explains many properties of the Universe
6 ›› The Plenum confines the Universe even more strongly than gravity
7 ›› The Plenum moves the whole Universe in a similar fashion as floating and submerged objects must move in the direction of a strong current of water on Earth
8 ›› The Universe is not as old as most scientists claim
9 ›› There are no other alternate or parallel universes
10 ›› Scientists looking for “dark matter” will never find it because the effects that they attribute mistakenly to dark matter are actually effects of the Plenum
11 ›› There are no other life forms on other planets besides those that exist on Earth
12 ›› There are other intelligent life forms, superior and immortal life forms, but they do not inhabit a specific planet
13 ›› If a scientist, mathematician, astrophysicist investigates the possibility of the Plenum open-mindedly and follows that path of logic he or she will also discover that mysteries are solved and that the math works beautifully
14 ›› In every science, in every detail, in every investigation the most striking revelation and discovery is that there is a super-intelligent designer plainly at work
15 ›› All life is plainly, unmistakably, irrevocably embedded with super humanly designed CODE that must speak to all of us with a voice of thunder that we are not alone and were deliberately created by a conscious personality who has designs and intentions for our existence

What do you think of Longomontanus' semi-Tychonic geocentric model that ammends the original Tychonic with a daily rotating earth?

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:What do you think of Longomontanus' semi-Tychonic geocentric model that ammends the original Tychonic with a daily rotating earth?

I think its unnecessary.

A step back. Unscientific.

Plus its unbiblical.

LINK: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.2425v2.pdf

Excerpts:

“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.

LINK: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.5602v2

""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."

LINK: http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/pictures/einstein.cfm

"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: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0811.3529v1

"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: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0811.3529v1

"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.

LINK: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0811.3529v1

Strangelove wrote:

I think its unnecessary.

A step back. Unscientific.

Plus its unbiblical.

I don't disagree. I just met a group of intellectuals who hold that view and won't budge over to the Neo-Tychonic. I thought you might have some comparative insight from Sungesis or others about it. At least they're close. I just don't know quite how to pragmatically contrast the two with evidenciary information that might compel them. Oddly, they dismiss the Neo-Tycho model very casually.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
I don't disagree. I just met a group of intellectuals who hold that view and won't budge over to the Neo-Tychonic. I thought you might have some comparative insight from Sungesis or others about it. At least they're close. I just don't know quite how to pragmatically contrast the two with evidenciary information that might compel them. Oddly, they dismiss the Neo-Tycho model very casually.

You cant contrast the two. They are exactly the same model! Just with a change of reference frame.

We Christians choose to differentiate with regards to absolute frame based on metaphysical grounds (The Bible). Your friends seem to hold to their frame based on........whatever they feel is important.

"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."

LINK: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.html

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

Universe is Finite, "Soccer Ball"-Shaped, Study Hints

Sean Markey
National Geographic News
October 8, 2003

Theories about whether space is finite or infinite, flat or curved have blazed in the firmament of scientific discourse with varying intensity over time, burning brighter or fading in the face of new data and competing ideas.

Now a new study of astronomical data only recently available hints at a possible answer: The universe is finite and bears a rough resemblance to a soccer ball or, more accurately, a dodecahedron, a 12-sided volume bounded by pentagons.

If proven by further evidence and scrutiny, the model would represent a major discovery about the nature of the cosmos.

What makes it exciting now is it's not a matter of idle speculation," said Jeffrey Weeks, a freelance mathematician in Canton, New York, and study co-author. "There's real data to look at and the possibility of getting a definite answer."

Article continues here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1008_031008_finiteuniverse.html

In this geocentric model, what is your opinion on the size of the sun and distance from the earth?

Wanbli_Tokeya wrote: In this geocentric model, what is your opinion on the size of the sun and distance from the earth?

I'm just gonna move your question here if you dont mind friend:

Geocentric Vs Heliocentric

Robert Sungenis' rebuttal to Dr. Danny Faulkner and Dr. Gerald Aardsma's (Answers in Genesis AIG) Views on Geocentrism:

LINK TO PDF

Strangelove wrote:Astronomers Find Evidence of a Special Direction in Space

Could the cosmos have a point?

LINK: Sciencific American

Snippett~

"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."

Snippett~

"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."

The results of the Planck satellite have just come in (March 2013).

"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