Stationary Earth

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

Very, very interesting turn towards the geocentric side by the main creationism websites. I've never seen them support the geocentric argument before. Times are changin'.

This from AnswersInGenesis:

"A Review of Dr. Russ Humphreys' A Young-Earth Relativistic Cosmology"

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1998/01/21/review-relative-cosmology

A mildly favourable review of a bible based geocentric paper!?

Snippett~

====================

The
paper covers much more ground than can be reviewed here, but the 6
general conclusions are listed below. They all have relevance to the
proposed relativistic cosmology.

Matter in the universe is bounded.
The universe has expanded.
The Earth is near the centre of the universe.
The universe is young as measured by clocks on Earth.
The original matter God created was ordinary liquid water.
God transformed the water into various elements by compaction.

And here is ICR:

"The Universe Has a Center"

http://www.icr.org/universe-center/

"Massive Quasar Cluster Refutes Core Cosmology Principle"

http://www.icr.org/articles/view/7246/243/

AMAZING DOC!!!

can i take it to the other forum?

zone wrote:AMAZING DOC!!!

can i take it to the other forum?

You go for it Sister!

love you buddy. i love you so much.
i have a thread in Misc. devoted to it.
i said it's all your work.

some are liking it.
and its impossible to refute.
started it i dunno...month ago?

love you buddy.

‘They defend the old theories by complicating things to the point of incomprehensibility.’ - Fred Hoyle

Objection: In the Geocentric model you have stars exceeding the speed of light.

Answer: 1) No, the aether is doing the moving not the stars

2) In the Copernican model YOU have stars exceeding the speed of light.

"...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

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

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

fixed earth web master dies


Dear FEF Friends,

It is with heavy heart that I inform you that on March 8, my beloved husband, Marshall Hall, passed away after fighting a courageous battle with cancer. For more than 40 years of study and writing, it would be hard to find a more dedicated servant of the Lord and God's word. Marshall's tireless pursuit of hard evidence exposing the false science and false religion, working to destroy the Bible's credibility from Creation to Jesus and beyond to Heaven, continued until his last days here on Earth. Being familiar with Marshall's work, you know that the Lord has blessed his quest for factual truth in these two areas which affect us all.

Thankfully, Marshall and I had some time to consider the future of the Fair Education Foundation, which includes both the website and sale of books. We decided, I will maintain FEF with the help of our daughters, Debbie and Nokie. It will continue to be a family effort to glorify God and his Word. This website, with the hundreds of pages of documented evidence, will remain available online; with monthly bulletins, written by Marshall, still being posted through July.

Throughout this entire last year, Marshall never stopped reminding us that there is greater life awaiting us as his words tell us that "even among the most fortunate--[there is] sadness, disappointment, health problems, and the lifelong awareness that life is brief and death is inescapable, and any prolonged joy one might experience is tempered by bummers of one sort or another awaiting their turn to get that smile…" (Marshall Hall, March, 2013).

We appreciate your past business and are asking for your continued support of the Fair Education Foundation, Inc. With God's help, we will continue Marshall's mission. Please keep us in your prayers.

Be Blessed,



Bonnie, Debbie, & Nokie

http://www.fixedearth.com/

....

zone wrote:love you buddy. i love you so much.
i have a thread in Misc. devoted to it.
i said it's all your work.

some are liking it.
and its impossible to refute.
started it i dunno...month ago?

love you buddy.

Never underestimate the cognitive dissonance of others that will always allow them to simply say "nuh-uh" and stomp their feet with rhetoric.

zone wrote:fixed earth web master dies

I didn't agree with all of Marshall's views on geocentrism, but he certainly played his part in my growth into the subject.

The sheer productivity, the entertaining writing style and passion of the man are things to be greatly admired.

RIP. God keep you.

Strangelove wrote:

I didn't agree with all of Marshall's views on geocentrism, but he certainly played his part in my growth into the subject.

The sheer productivity, the entertaining writing style and passion of the man are things to be greatly admired.

RIP. God keep you.

In summary, on what did you agree and disagree with Marshall regarding Geo? Can you itemize each briefly?

If I remember rightly, basically he spent a lot of energy trying to prove that the universe was much smaller than MS science claimed because he thought that this got Geocentrists out of sticky arguments like super-luminal star speeds, and billions of light years distance = billions of years for evolution to occur.

There is no need to do this as the Machian universe, aether and Relativity's co-variance principle handles the question of star speeds, and rapid inflation (God stretched out the firmament like a tent) handles the billions of light years.

The GWW team are much better on the science.

More on Marshall's objections here:

http://www.fixedearth.com/Machian%20Model%20Obstacle.htm

But Marshall was way more entertaining!

Cracking read that website. You get lost in the links.

Strangelove wrote:If I remember rightly, basically he spent a lot of energy trying to prove that the universe was much smaller than MS science claimed because he thought that this got Geocentrists out of sticky arguments like super-luminal star speeds, and billions of light years distance = billions of years for evolution to occur.

There is no need to do this as the Machian universe, aether and Relativity's co-variance principle handles the question of star speeds, and rapid inflation (God stretched out the firmament like a tent) handles the billions of light years.

The GWW team are much better on the science.

More on Marshall's objections here:

http://www.fixedearth.com/Machian%20Model%20Obstacle.htm

But Marshall was way more entertaining!

Cracking read that website. You get lost in the links.

Yes, the kaeidoscopic links are mind-numbingly frustrating, but generally worth the effort. Thanks for the summary.

Literally every faith-based person I speak with at any length embraces Geo and starts waking up to some degree. I'm convinced it's the fulcrum for awakening, just as it was the same for leveraging all the Science tripe.

The new Planck data is giving inflation fits.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Literally ever faith-based person I speak to embraces Geo and starts waking up to some degree.

I met a Christian in the town I live who's with me on this!

Finally someone in the flesh...lolz!

Strangelove wrote:

I met a Christian in the town I live who's with me on this!

Finally someone in the flesh...lolz!

It's gonna build momentum in those of faith. The alleged science is pathetic for Helio. There's a prestigious Physics department on the local state university campus. I've begun convo with the only two Christian professors about Geo. It will be interesting.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:It's gonna build momentum in those of faith. The alleged science is pathetic for Helio. There's a prestigious Physics department on the local state university campus. I've begun convo with the only two Christian professors about Geo. It will be interesting.

For 'weak geocentrism' i.e. Earth is at or near the centre of the universe, we occupy a special position, the universe is non-Copernican...

...I think the momentum is reaching a peak. A few posts up I posted articles from ICR and AIG. This is very exciting.

For 'strong geocentrism' i.e. The Earth is stationary at the centre of the universe and everything is revolving around us every 24 hours....

....I think it will take more willingness to spread word about the 19th century interferometer results, get back to the aether (quantum field theory is doing this) and take a pop at Relativity's more insane postulates. This will take more time.

Strangelove wrote:

For 'weak geocentrism' i.e. Earth is at or near the centre of the universe, we occupy a special position, the universe is non-Copernican...

...I think the momentum is reaching a peak. A few posts up I posted articles from ICR and AIG. This is very exciting.

For 'strong geocentrism' i.e. The Earth is stationary at the centre of the universe and everything is revolving around us every 24 hours....

....I think it will take more willingness to spread word about the 19th century interferometer results, get back to the aether (quantum field theory is doing this) and take a pop at Relativity's more insane postulates. This will take more time.

Sounds about right. Well said.

Strangelove wrote:
For 'weak geocentrism' i.e. Earth is at or near the centre of the universe, we occupy a special position, the universe is non-Copernican...

...I think the momentum is reaching a peak. A few posts up I posted articles from ICR and AIG. This is very exciting.

All the evidence for this issue has been compiled by the GWW team and Rick Delano who are about to release a feature length documentary called 'The Principle' which will blow the lid on this thing.

http://theprinciplemovie.com/

Should be released b4 the end of the year!

Strangelove wrote:

All the evidence for this issue has been compiled by the GWW team and Rick Delano who are about to release a feature length documentary called 'The Principle' which will blow the lid on this thing.

http://theprinciplemovie.com/

Should be released b4 the end of the year!

That will be legitimately epic. Exciting stuff.

Strong and weak geocentrism is pretty well covered in this article at creationwiki:

http://creationwiki.org/Geocentric

Although they don't use my terms, the seperation is clear.

The important point is this though:

"Both camps admit that no experiment, observation, or phenomenon can demonstrate that the earth is moving."

In other words, Christians have no reason to belive the Earth is moving, so they can move into the strong geo position with 100% confidence. The Earth is stablished that it not be moved!

Strangelove wrote:Strong and weak geocentrism is pretty well covered in this article at creationwiki:

http://creationwiki.org/Geocentric

Although they don't use my terms, the seperation is clear.

The important point is this though:

"Both camps admit that no experiment, observation, or phenomenon can demonstrate that the earth is moving."

In other words, Christians have no reason to belive the Earth is moving, so they can move into the strong geo position with 100% confidence. The Earth is stablished that it not be moved!

Yep. And there IS movement. So... All the rest of Science goes to the dumpster or recycle bin.

Strangelove wrote:
All the evidence for this issue has been compiled by the GWW team and Rick Delano who are about to release a feature length documentary called 'The Principle' which will blow the lid on this thing.

http://theprinciplemovie.com/

Should be released b4 the end of the year!

doc will you send me an alert when it's out?
loves ya.

zone wrote:doc will you send me an alert when it's out?
loves ya.

I certainly will Sister, or you can click on the link and put your email in.

"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.

LINK: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.4078v1.pdf

"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

LINK: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.6045.pdf