Stationary Earth

The paper above is from January 2013.

This is hitting the mainstream.

There is literally no argument left for those who say the helio model is proven by science.

Another brand spanking new paper here Submitted on 17 May 2013:

"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.

LINK: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4134.pdf

Abstract Link: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4134

Doc,

can you help me bud?
i was talking to someone about basically NASA moon hoaxes; which touched on space travel; which led to me saying something stoopid like -

satellites orbit in the space between the firmament and earth or similar.

LOL.

can you explain it to me again?

i tried going through all the posts last night but when i got to the Musky drama i got tired...hehe.

the idea i'm trying to get across is how and WHERE our satellites orbit around our stationary earth...i'm like *snap snap* it's not firmament it's....*snap snap* - that space watchamacallit.
i know you covered it cuz i saw it...

ta luv
z

Satellites are all in the firmament, as the firmament is everything from the Earths surface right up to the waters above the firmament.

However, not all satellites orbit.

Geostationary satellites hang in space at an exact distance of 22,236 miles above the Earth's equator. At that distance gravitational (of the Earth) and centrifugal (of the spinning stars) forces are balanced. So a satellite in that zone will stay stationary above the same spot over Earth (with some very minor individual swaying).

The point to get across is that the SAME EXACT results of movement and forces will occur in a rotating earth in a stationary universe framework ,or in a stationary earth with a rotating universe framework. There's...no...difference between the two. It is a fact of physics that there cannot be any difference.

Strangelove wrote:Satellites are all in the firmament, as the firmament is everything from the Earths surface right up to the waters above the firmament.

However, not all satellites orbit.

Geostationary satellites hang in space at an exact distance of 22,236 miles above the Earth's equator. At that distance gravitational (of the Earth) and centrifugal (of the spinning stars) forces are balanced. So a satellite in that zone will stay stationary above the same spot over Earth (with some very minor individual swaying).

The point to get across is that the SAME EXACT results of movement and forces will occur in a rotating earth in a stationary universe framework ,or in a stationary earth with a rotating universe framework. There's...no...difference between the two. It is a fact of physics that there cannot be any difference.

okay buddy.
gotcha.
it was this part my pea brain was struggling to picture:

Geostationary satellites hang in space at an exact distance of 22,236 miles above the Earth's equator. At that distance gravitational (of the Earth) and centrifugal (of the spinning stars) forces are balanced.

of course, impossible for me.

but you, are BRILLIANT.

is our new Geo member's video public? can i post it?
just asking into the air.
haven't even looked at it yet.
ttyl brudda

(i might be back with more questions if i get stuck, though i'm pretty much a tin foil hat flat earther, so i doubt anyone will ask anything).

LOL

If they're professing believers, I always flip the script on 'em in a gracious manner. I approach it from an inspiration of scripture tact.

I introduce the various passages like Joshua commanding the sun and reference the sundial. Then I inform them that I want to retain and maintain as high a view of inspiration as practically possible relative to the original autographs, barring copyist error minutiae that's apart from the inspiration and is man-related, etc.

To begin, if Helio is correct, then a lower form of divine inspiration is implicit because now the text is subject to man's perceptions rather than the knowledge conveyed by the very Spirit of the Creator.

Then I begin with the relative inverse kinematics and move from there to the fact that few ever consider anything other than what they've been told. And I insist it's merely a coin-flip to begin, and yet one has to be chosen. Then it's an issue of me not modifying my view until Helio is proven against the Geo default of history and scripture.

And since Foucalt's and the few other experiments are rudimentary and inconclusive for Helio considering relative movements (and they've never been revisited or supplemented); then I'm not prepared to budge off of Geo until it's proven as substantial theory instead of a barely tested inversion that only qualifies as a hypothesis or postulate instead of true theory. I don't accept the burden of proof that has to be upon the Helio position instead.

Then I explain the Neo-Tychonic and explain the issues with Ptolemaic Geo and ask if they ever considered all this on a stand-alone basis and if they know who all the players are, like Brahe and the others. Then I give them a two-paragraph history summary and introduce the aether as the firmament with a Planck density of 10/93rd power, and give them a visual.

It works every time, even if they have to go google details or look at the orery, etc. I give them resources and send them to check for themselves and ask them to make it an issue of prayer and a view of scriptural inspiration not subject to man's knowledge, but the Spirit's who actually breathed the text through them.

It sticks a crowbar in the corner to pry the door open for some light. Then I'll play "hardball" if they balk and get beligerent. And now I add the new Planck data that undermines the inflationary model, along with other new developments.

I think we may see a move to attempt to shift back to a soft Geo model and incorporate it into the Kabbalah paradigm of Science to really blur the lines. Who knows.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
I think we may see a move to attempt to shift back to a soft Geo model and incorporate it into the Kabbalah paradigm of Science to really blur the lines. Who knows.

Already happening and prepared well in advance.

Multiverse Theory.

Strangelove wrote:

Already happening and prepared well in advance.

Multiverse Theory.

Indeed. I hadn't previously considered that. Interesting. Thanks.

I posted some quotes from George Ellis a while back.

He says Multiverse Theory is pretty much the end of science.

Completely unfalsifiable.

Karl Popper would be turning in his grave.

People will prefer to believe what they cannot see if it agrees with their philosophy rather than swallowing the pill of what science shows them if it points to God.

Strangelove wrote:I posted some quotes from George Ellis a while back.

He says Multiverse Theory is pretty much the end of science.

Completely unfalsifiable.

Karl Popper would be turning in his grave.

People will prefer to believe what they cannot see if it agrees with their philosophy rather than swallowing the pill of what science shows them if it points to God.

That's for sure. And the Hegelian-influenced viewpoints are everywhere. Process Theology. Becoming over being. It's sickeningly folding together. Purpose over Jesus. Self-Godhood. Blech and yuk. Disgusting.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:That's for sure. And the Hegelian-influenced viewpoints are everywhere. Process Theology. Becoming over being. It's sickeningly folding together. Purpose over Jesus. Self-Godhood. Blech and yuk. Disgusting.

Rick DeLano calls it..

Consilience - The Post-Scientific world.

LINK: Magisterial Fundies

Here is multiverse champion and atheist high-priest Lawrence Krauss and fellow darwinian mystic Richard Dawkins.  It is mind-boggling and height of irony that their new movie is supposed to celebrate a culture of science and skepticism, and people continue to swallow it.  Wow! Just listen to their wild faith claims...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6TeLMLkYsw


I like the descriptor of "Nihilistic Cosmology" to explain these people's religion.   Everything must be a meaningless accident.  Earth must be just another random chunk of rock that exploded out of nothing and happened to be in the right place, and of course the public had to be sold on Heliocentrism before this religion could really take off... and a couple centuries later the world believes that fish species shape-shifted into humans.  Incredible...

2 Thessalonians 2:10-11
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

no more accurate way to describe the whole situation than that..  there is no way people would honestly accept these idiotic philosophies if they were honestly seeking the truth.  They are grasping for any excuse to doubt and turn away from God.

lifepsyop wrote:Here is multiverse champion and atheist high-priest Lawrence Krauss and fellow darwinian mystic Richard Dawkins.  It is mind-boggling and height of irony that their new movie is supposed to celebrate a culture of science and skepticism, and people continue to swallow it.  Wow! Just listen to their wild faith claims...

Dawkins says "I believe that the universe has a lot of life out there".

I said a coupla posts up:

Strangelove wrote:People will prefer to believe what they cannot see if it agrees with their philosophy rather than swallowing the pill of what science shows them if it points to God.

I rest my case.

Science, real science...observable, verifiable, experimental...boots on the ground, down to Earth science tells us that we are the only life in the universe, and that our location is unique in the universe.

Dawkins philosophy says that there must be life out there which is illogical even with regard to 'theoretical' science as it doesn't even follow what the basic evidence tells us. It's a silly philosophy because his 'go to' angle is "oh there is so many zillions of stars out there so there must be!" but it's been scientifically PROVEN that Earths location is unique.

Gods magnificent rotating universe.

Something I learned recently

Stellar parallax / Star distance measurements are based on the assumption that the Earth is moving around the Sun.   To be more specific, the base measurement for the parallax formula is based on the belief that the Earth has moved 300 million kilometers through space.

The funny thing is, is that star distances are often used as a circular argument for heliocentrism / against geocentrism.  For instance,  when someone says the Earth isn't moving because we don't see any significant change in Polaris position from the North Pole,  the heliocentrist will say "we don't see Polaris move because the stars are trillions of miles away" ... yet that counter-argument is based on the assumption that heliocentrism is true in the first place!


Many quotes from mainstream 'authorities' at this site:  What do you think?


https://sites.google.com/site/oldshepherd1935/thestellarparallaxdeception

“Astrometric measurements not only determine the position of the objects on the celestial sphere (sky), but can also be used to measure the distances to the stars. By measuring the change in a star’s position as the earth revolves around the sun, you can determine the distance to that star.  This change in [a star’s] position [based on a sun-orbiting Earth] is known as a star’s parallax….Astrometry is the foundation on which almost all of astronomy is based…the bedrock of methods for determining distances to astronomical objects…” (FAME Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.usno.navy.mil/FAME/faq, p.1, 6-1-01)

Hi lifepsyop,

It's true that trigonometric parallax measurements are based on the unproven assumption that Earth orbits the sun.

However, using the argument "the Earth isn't moving because we don't see any significant change in Polaris position from the North Pole" is not a sound argument for the geocentrist I think. It doesn't matter if the Earth is orbiting the sun or vice versa, you will still see the same things from Earth. There is no visual proof that can support one position over the other. This is important to think about.

Marshall Hall's (RIP, the essay you cite is based on his website page at FixedEarth.com) biggest weakness was that he never got to grips with the science regarding the Machian Universe and the aether. The heliocentrists can give the stars whatever distances they want, it doesn't hurt our position one bit.

Strangelove wrote:Hi lifepsyop,

It's true that trigonometric parallax measurements are based on the unproven assumption that Earth orbits the sun.

However, using the argument "the Earth isn't moving because we don't see any significant change in Polaris position from the North Pole" is not a sound argument for the geocentrist I think. It doesn't matter if the Earth is orbiting the sun or vice versa, you will still see the same things from Earth. There is no visual proof that can support one position over the other. This is important to think about.

Marshall Hall's (RIP, the essay you cite is based on his website page at FixedEarth.com) biggest weakness was that he never got to grips with the science regarding the Machian Universe and the aether. The heliocentrists can give the stars whatever distances they want, it doesn't hurt our position one bit.

We will observe the same things in both heliocentric and geocentric models.  But the star distances aren't an observation.  They are only mathematically derived claims based on unobserved movements of the Earth, right?

I  agree with that it's not evidence against geocentrism, either way.  If the stars are 25+ trillion miles away then nothing changes.  However, if they are actually closer, (whether or not that can be proven), wouldn't this be direct evidence against a moving Earth?   Because they require stars to be a certain distance away to compensate for their lack of movement relative to a 300 million km change in position?

I have only loosely familiarized myself with the Machian universe framework, mostly from listening to Malcolm Bowden.  This says that the physics of a moving local body (earth)in space, is relative to the physics of the motion of space (stellar mass, etc.) around a fixed local body.  For example,  the Coriolis effect which is claimed to be due to Earth's rotation,  is equally explained in geocentric model as the rotation of the stellar mass around a fixed Earth.   Is this in the ballpark of your understanding of Mach, Doc?

lifepsyop wrote: However, if they are actually closer, (whether or not that can be proven), wouldn't this be direct evidence against a moving Earth?

Well, this is the thing...it can't be proven. We just cannot measure the distance to stars.

lifepsyop wrote:I have only loosely familiarized myself with the Machian universe framework, mostly from listening to Malcolm Bowden.  This says that the physics of a moving local body (earth)in space, is relative to the physics of the motion of space (stellar mass, etc.) around a fixed local body.  For example,  the Coriolis effect which is claimed to be due to Earth's rotation,  is equally explained in geocentric model as the rotation of the stellar mass around a fixed Earth.   Is this in the ballpark of your understanding of Mach, Doc?

Yes, exactly. The two systems are physically identical. Any observations or forces produced by one system must be produced in the other. This is a fact of science. The only difference is of relative motion only which is basically a perspective change, a meaningless transformation. Mach himself said...

"...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."

I was in a discussion with someone about the Earth's rotation and Mach's Principle.  They claimed local rotation of Earth had nothing to do with the structure of the Universe.  I told them that any Centripetal or Centrifugal force is a circular motion based on the presence of a fixed axis.   I then asked them how such a circular motion would be measurable if the entire structure of the universe were rotating in precise synchronization?  By all accounts everything would then appear to be at rest.

So correct me if I'm wrong,  but in a heliocentric model, the Earth is traveling 300 million km (or 2 AU) in six months.   In a geocentric model,  the Sun is only moving about 5 million km closer or further in six months, as it travels along a helicoidal pattern around Earth.

I don't claim we can distinguish one from the other based on observations alone,  but would this not make the models very different in principle?  (in terms of generating baseline measurements for stellar parallax and things of that nature)

Just curious.  This area of research is obviously not my strong point.  I believe it because the Bible says it.

Amazing. I finally found other people who also believe God's Word is the truth. I have truly been in the wilderness.

lifepsyop wrote:So correct me if I'm wrong,  but in a heliocentric model, the Earth is traveling 300 million km (or 2 AU) in six months.   In a geocentric model,  the Sun is only moving about 5 million km closer or further in six months, as it travels along a helicoidal pattern around Earth.

I don't claim we can distinguish one from the other based on observations alone,  but would this not make the models very different in principle?  (in terms of generating baseline measurements for stellar parallax and things of that nature)

 If you can't distinguish one from the other based on observations alone then the models are identical in principle with regard to parallax because stellar parallax is an observational phenomenon.

lauramarc wrote:Amazing. I finally found other people who also believe God's Word is the truth. I have truly been in the wilderness.

 Welcome Laura!

Feel free to tell us a little bit about yourself here:

New Member Intro

lauramarc wrote:Amazing. I finally found other people who also believe God's Word is the truth. I have truly been in the wilderness.

There are many verses in the Bible that declare either a moving Sun, or a stationary Earth. 

But I think the most compelling argument from a Biblical perspective is the Creation in Genesis.  God carved out a space in the heavens, and generated and cultivated the land of the Earth.  He did this before creating the Sun, Moon, or stars.   There is no hint of Earth being put into motion, or 'set on a course', or anything like that...  I don't think one can come away from a straightforward reading of Genesis thinking that the Earth is a planet like Mars or Venus.  Earth is special.  The whole universe was constructed for it.

Geocentrism is not even a strange idea at all.  It makes very little assumptions, and is fairly conservative in comparison with some mainstream cosmological theories.   It seems people rage against it, because like Creationism, it casts out a giant banner that says YOU WERE CREATED.  The implications are unacceptable, and thus these well-supported scientific models like Creationism(ID), Young-Earth, Global Flood Catastrophism, and Geocentrism become outcast as heretical blasphemies, to be railed against from a safe distance via mass media campaigns, but never taken on in a fair fight in serious public debate.

lifepsyop wrote:

There are many verses in the Bible that declare either a moving Sun, or a stationary Earth. 

But I think the most compelling argument from a Biblical perspective is the Creation in Genesis.  God carved out a space in the heavens, and generated and cultivated the land of the Earth.  He did this before creating the Sun, Moon, or stars.   There is no hint of Earth being put into motion, or 'set on a course', or anything like that...  I don't think one can come away from a straightforward reading of Genesis thinking that the Earth is a planet like Mars or Venus.  Earth is special.  The whole universe was constructed for it.

Geocentrism is not even a strange idea at all.  It makes very little assumptions, and is fairly conservative in comparison with some mainstream cosmological theories.   It seems people rage against it, because like Creationism, it casts out a giant banner that says YOU WERE CREATED.  The implications are unacceptable, and thus these well-supported scientific models like Creationism(ID), Young-Earth, Global Flood Catastrophism, and Geocentrism become outcast as heretical blasphemies, to be railed against from a safe distance via mass media campaigns, but never taken on in a fair fight in serious public debate.

I think heliocentrism is part of the deception that will draw people away from the truth. We know God can create a massive universe; however, that's not what we know is true if we believe His Word. People are ridiculed if they don't believe the ones with what is basically "secret knowledge", knowledge the regular guy can't disprove or prove it. People are supposed to have faith in man's word rather than God's. And God's Word is ripped to shreads in most people's minds, since it's "so unscientific". Even, most "believers" of God's Word, think you're crazy is you say the sun rises and sets, just like God's Word says. That aliens seeded man, etc., etc. Seems like that'll be one of the next additions to this deception. Genesis... if you tear out the roots, the whole tree dies.

Wow, heres a mildly favorable write up on the stationary Earth (strong geocentrism) position from the Assistant Professor of Astro Geophyics at ICR...

Geocentricity and Creation


~snippett...

"Relativity is the theory which is accepted as the correct one by the great majority of scientists at present. However, many science teachers and textbooks are not aware of this [that Relativity says that both helio OR geo positions can be true], and it is not uncommon to find heliocentricity taught as the progressive and "obviously true" theory even today."

More evidence that the Christian science community is no longer trying to separate themselves so aggressively from geocentricity.

Very, very interesting.

Hmmm. I went to that ICR page. That they actually admit there is a possibility of geocentricity being true is interesting. Perhaps the veil is being pulled away? It was slow going with creationism so many years ago; maybe it's the same with geocentricity.

 "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)

Planck data is already in for over 2 months. It's proved there are no errors in COBE and WMAP.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.7290v1.pdf


APRIL 2013

The dynamical description of the geocentric Universe
Luka Popov
University of Zagreb, Department of Physics, Bijeniˇcka cesta 3
2, Zagreb, Croatia

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.


Popov wrote another article on Geocentric stellar parallax
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.7129.pdf


This is a very interesting thread where you can watch the geocentrist "JohnMartin" easily contending with
hordes of heliocentrists,  most of them just casting insults of course. 
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?157245-Johnmartin-Explain-Foucault-Pendulum-on-stationary-Earth

Seems Mr.Popov is interested in geocentrism.

I posted excerpts from another of his papers at the bottom of the last page in this thread.

Newton-Machian analysis of Neo-tychonian model of planetary motions.

Looks like he is destroying basic helio myths one by one in juicy up to date peer reviewed papers. Nice. Definitely collecting all this guys work.