Does the Earth Really Move?

[PaladinValer]

As I said; game, set, match.

 

[Ebed-Yahweh]

Tell me how a satellite trained to track one particular star not have to move (except for tiny corrections) if according to you they are rotating around a fixed Earth evry 23hrs 56 mins 4 sec.

Are you talking about the moon? I never said it didn't have to move. Anyway, please take the time to read through the following quotes and see if some of this doesn't make sense.

Eclipse Phenomena Reveals Heliocentricity Model

To Be Built Purely On Assumptions


Note these seven assumptions required by the Helio Model that enables it to account for the precise phenomena required in Solar Eclipses:


1) The Sun must cease its observed daily spiral orbit pattern around the Earth and become stationary relevant to the Earth and the Moon. We must assume that what everyone who has ever lived has seen with their own eyes--the Sun rising in the East and setting in the West--is not truly what is happening. Rather what no one has ever seen--a stationary Sun--is what we are told is scientific truth.

2) The Earth must rotate West to East ccw (counterclockwise) on an "axis" every 24 hours at an equatorial speed of c. 1040 MPH. This is purely and simply an assumption required by the Helio Model that has never been witnessed nor experienced by anyone who has ever lived. It is an assumption that flies in the face of all observed phenomena--birds, clouds, artillery, jet time whether E or W; etc.

3) The Earth must orbit the Sun ccw annually at an average speed of c. 67,000 MPH. This is a composite assumption dependent upon the previous never witnessed assumptions that the Sun is stationary and the Earth is rotating. All experimental efforts to prove this orbital motion of the Earth have failed, and there have been hundreds of them.

4) The Earth must be tilted on an "axis" at 23.5 degrees as it orbits the Sun. Again, this is a necessary and contrived assumption for explaining the seasons that is built upon the previous assumptions of a stationary Sun, a daily rotating Earth, and an annual orbit of the Earth around the Sun. The Geo Model of the Sun orbiting the Earth annually from the Tropic of Capricorn to the Tropic of Cancer-- just as it is observed to do--is a much more elegant explanation of the seasonal changes on Earth. And, of course, it fits the Scripture demands of a non-moving Earth and a moving Sun.

5) The Earth’s atmosphere must be assumed to be just an airy extension of the alleged rotating Earth. This "atmospheric envelope", as it is called--allegedly is mysteriously connected to the Earth’s surface and extends to at least 22,200 miles high where the mis-named "geosynchronous satellites" roost [and even to the end of the Earth’s gravitational field 216,000 miles out, some would say]. This "airy extension" is assumed to have the uncanny ability to synchronously adjust the speed of any object going through it--birds, clouds, helicopters, jets, missiles, "geosynchronous satellites"--to the alleged rotational speed of the Earth. This assumption is said to account for such anomalies as a jet flying at 500 MPH due west between airstrips 3000 miles apart on the Equator at 40,000 ft. and arriving in six hours regardless of the alleged eastwardly rotation of the Earth beneath it at over 1000 MPH for six hours...which rotation would bring the westward destination on the Earth’s surface toward the jet twice as fast as the plane is going. On this flight the jet will have gone 3000 miles westward and the Earth will have rotated 6000 miles eastward. Then, according to the "envelope" assumption, turning back and flying due east over the same distance at the same speed will require the same six hours regardless of the alleged eastwardly rotation of the Earth beneath the plane in the same direction at over 1000 MPH for six hours. The Earth on this return flight has allegedly moved 6000 miles in six hours and the plane 3000 miles; yet the airstrip is where it was on the first flight and not 3000 miles further east. All such denials of the only obvious explanation for such ridiculous assumptions is that the Earth is not moving. But, we can’t have that, now can we? Therefore, we must postulate and assume that there is indeed "an atmospheric envelope" which rotates with the Earth just as if were something solid nailed securely to the surface and rotating with it. Moreover, this incomprehensible but necessary "assumption/fact" of the universally believed and sacrosanct Helio Model is amazingly unperturbed by the Earth’s assumed orbit around the assumed stationary Sun at c.67,000 MPH, or its assumed orbit around the Milky Way Galaxy at c. 500,000 MPH, or its assumed exit from the assumed Big Bang explosion at c. 660,000,000 MPH....

("..There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." 6 You tell ‘em, Mark Twain!)

6) The Moon must change its observed E to W cw motion around the Earth [every 24 hours and 52 minutes average] to a W to E motion around the Earth every 29.5 days. This complete reversal of the Moon’s direction is yet another indispensable assumption required by the stationary Sun assumption, the revolving Earth assumption, the orbiting Earth assumption, and the tilted Earth assumption which make up the Helio Model. Although each and every one of these assumptions is necessary to make a mathematical model that answers the appearances, not a single one has a factual basis.

7) The observed motion of the Stars around the Earth nightly must cease in the Helio Model. Because of the billions of light year distances to the furthermost stars claimed by modern cosmology--especially in the Kabbalistic Big Bang Paradigm--this assumption of non-moving stars is counted as the trump card that will defeat any revival of the non-moving Earth Geo Model of the Bible. Yet, note this well: This is a claim just like the others that is wholly dependent upon the acceptance of the multiple indispensable assumptions of the Helio Model, especially the rotating Earth-stationary Sun--reverse Moon direction assumptions. Given the ineffably profound transvaluation of every aspect of modern man’s "knowledge" (HERE) that the "Copernican Revolution" instigated, and given the obviously indescribable havoc that would result from exposing its purely assumptive construction (in clear violation of unfailing observational evidence), is there anyone so naive left in the world who could not readily agree that no means would be spared to prevent such an exposure from occurring? Having answered that rhetorical question truthfully, then shall the obvious means to preserving the trump card of a universe so vast that the stars could not get around nightly be ignored because the means to upset that mythological applecart are right at hand?? It’s simple really. Take one brimful cup of high-sounding but utterly fraudulent computer-programmed Virtual Reality Simulations (HERE), add four teaspoons of occult mathematics to fit the fantasies (HERE, p.9), pour in two shot glasses of an ancient anti-Bible religious agenda labeled NASA’s "Origins Program" (HERE), stir ceaselessly and serve daily to all media and academic outlets with an air of breathless wonderment at what "science" is discovering. (Viola! Mass hallucinosis!)

From http://www.fixedearth.com/kabbala VII.htm

By contrast, there are four requirements involved in the Geocentric Model which fit all occasions including the incredibly precise Solar Eclipse Phenomena:

1) As observed, the Sun goes around a non-moving Earth every 24 hours.

2) The Earth is stationary relative to an orbiting Sun and Moon. This is a posture attested to by all the senses, confirmed by the Michelson-Morley experiments, established repeatedly in the Bible, and challenged only by a clever mathematical model...and alleged distances to stars that prohibit their diurnal orbit (HERE).

3) As observed without variation, the Moon orbits the stationary Earth east to west every 24 hours and 52 minutes on the average.

4) The Stars go around the Earth every 23 hours and 56 minutes (HERE).

From http://www.fixedearth.com/Assumptions.htm

Also, I'm currently reading through a thread on the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board. One of the posters (named Yannox) makes this interesting comment concerning Foucault's Pendulum:

Foucault's Pendulum will precess in the same way if the Earth stands still and the universe rotates around it once a day (Lense & Thirring, Moller, Rosser, Barbour & Bertotti). The claim that it is "proof positive" of a rotating Earth is still mindlessly touted in elementary textbooks and museums. To do so is akin to the Aristotelian claim arguing against the Earth's motion about the sun on the basis that the moon would be left behind, or that a stone from a tower would land far to the west of the tower if the earth were rotaing. After all, in the Foucault Pendulum we do have the pendulum bob "falling" to the west.

Page Four of THE EARTH, center, REST OF THE UNIVERSE, revolving...

Same for the SOHO observatory looking at the Sun. How come it doesn't have to pan across the sky to keep up with a supposed orbiting Sun.

Why would the Soho observatory not have to make any adustments for the earth supposedly rotating at 1,000 mph?

My advice is "lay off the crack!"

Which crack? The one in the unassailable edifice of the heliocentric model and the Satanic world system of sun worship?

REASON FOR EDIT: Forget to post the link for the BABB thread.

 

[Mestel]

If you think #5 in the list you quoted makes any sense you have not gotten out of elementary school yet. This is just bizarre nonsense.

What the heck is #6 even implying?


Are you even reading what I typed? What has a satellite tracking a star (such as Gravity Probe B got to do with the Moon? Why does the SOHO observatory have any connection to the Earth's rotation?


Would you explain the observed solar radial velocity changes due to Jupiter?

Would you explain why the Spitzer mission doesn't have to make silly motions due to the rotating stars when it is not in orbit around the Earth but is in orbit around the Sun?

 

[seebs]

If you wanna be really pedantic, all of physics works just fine with arbitrary frames of reference. We can describe the whole universe as revolving around me, and it'll all work.

But... In any MEANINGFUL sense, we are indeed orbiting the sun.

 

[Ebed-Yahweh]

If you think #5 in the list you quoted makes any sense you have not gotten out of elementary school yet. This is just bizarre nonsense.

Please explain why it is bizzare nonsense. I am interested to understand why this is so.

What the heck is #6 even implying?

I think its saying that according to the heliocentric model the moon has to change the direction of its orbit at the start of every new month or lunar cycle, but I may be wrong.

Are you even reading what I typed? What has a satellite tracking a star (such as Gravity Probe B got to do with the Moon? Why does the SOHO observatory have any connection to the Earth's rotation?

Yes, I read what you typed. I wasn't aware before that the SOHO observatory was a satellite which is said to orbit "L1 once every six months, while L1 itself orbits the sun every 12 months" according to Wikipedia.

Would you explain the observed solar radial velocity changes due to Jupiter?

Would you explain why the Spitzer mission doesn't have to make silly motions due to the rotating stars when it is not in orbit around the Earth but is in orbit around the Sun?

I must admit that I don't yet have the technichal expertise to answer these questions. Perhaps you could answer these questions yourself if you bothered to study some concepts of the Geocentric model in any detail? But you automatically assume that what you have been taught is correct and refuse to reasonably consider any other options. How are you acting any differenty than a staunch evolutionary biologist who adamantly denies the possibility of intelligent design, or the Jew or Muslim who denies that Yahshua is the Christ based only upon the information they have been taught to believe is the truth, while neglecting to honestly investigate the other side?

 

[Ebed-Yahweh]

The truth about stellar parallax

"The first stellar parallax (the trigonometric one) was measured in 1838 by Friedrich Bessel for the star 61 Cygni. Its parallax of 0.3 places it at a distance3.3 parsecs or about 11 light-years...." 4

I had to read this two or three times before it sank in...and the same message is standard in all reports on the subject. What message? This blue ribbon pseudo-scientific hornswoggle that ranks up there with the best the world has to offer, that’s what! Herr Bessel’s "finding" (in 1838!) for the distance to 61 Cygni based on his trigonometric parallax hypothesis of parsecs has become the standard cosmological reference for distances to all the "nearby" stars! This is in spite of the fact that the method was calculated upon and was therefore deduced from the conviction in virtually all cosmological circles by that time that the earth orbited the sun and was on opposite sides of the sun every six months.. as has now become a "fact", of course. Since any accurate application of parallax to the calculation of distances is wholly dependent upon the position of the observer relevant to that which is being observed, Bessel’s deduction was based on faith in the heliocentric assumption that the position of the earthbound observer changed every six months by some 186,000,000 miles (the diameter of the alleged earth orbit).

By contrast, Geocentric parallax is a technique which uses the diameter of the earth as a baseline. Because of this small baseline (8000 miles) this parallax is useful only for close objects such as the Moon and perhaps a few planets. Thus, if the earth and its observers are not orbiting the sun, the standard for distance measurements that is arbitrarily set at 206,265 x 93,000,000 miles based on an 0.3 parallax taken from an observation point 186,000,000 miles away from the previous observation point...those measurements would produce a distance that is 23,250 times larger than a distance calculated from a stationary earth! (8000 x 23250=186,000,000)

The importance of what has happened here relevant to true measurement of distances in space can not be overstated! The only reason any parallax at all showed up for Bessel’s star 61 Cygni (0.3) was because the baseline for the observer was assumed to be One-Hundred and Eighty Six Million Miles further away than the baseline of the observer six months earlier...thus giving a baseline on a triangle of 186,000,000 miles instead of 8000 miles!

From http://www.fixedearth.com/Size & Structure Part V.htm]The Size and Structure of the Universe According to the Bible and Non-Theoretical Science Part V The Mother of All Space Science Fraud Is At Work In The Measurement of Star Distances

Black-body Curve of CMB
During the long gestation period of COBE, there were two significant astronomical developments. First, in 1981, two teams of astronomers, one led by David Wilkinson of Princeton and the other by Francesco Melchiorri of the University of Florence, simultaneously announced that they detected a quadripole distribution of CMB using balloon-borne instruments. This finding would have been the detection of the black-body distribution of CMB that FIRAS on COBE was to measure. However, a number of other experiments attempted to duplicate their results and were unable to do so (Leverington, 2000).

Second, in 1987 a Japanese-American team led by Andrew Lange and Paul Richardson of UC Berkeley and Toshio Matsumoto of Nagoyo University made an announcement that CMB was not that of a true black body. In a sounding rocket experiment, they detected an excess brightness at 0.5 and 0.7 mm wavelengths. These results cast doubt on the validity of the Big Bang theory in general and help support the Steady State theory of the Universe (Leverington, 2000).

With these developments serving as a backdrop to COBE’s mission, scientists eagerly awaited results from FIRAS. The results of FIRAS were startling in that they showed a perfect fit of the CMB and the theoretical curve for a black body at a temperature of 2.7K, thus proving the Berkeley-Nagoyo results erroneous.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE

Is it possible that NASA pre-programmed COBE to 'discover' the results it wanted in order to support the Big Bang Theory?

As for the star aberration, I need to do more research.

Here's another interesting website I just found:

Myths about the Copernican Revolution

 

[Mestel]

Is it possible that NASA pre-programmed COBE to 'discover' the results it wanted in order to support the Big Bang Theory?

Do you really think this is the way the world works? I mean really? It is really obscene to suggest this. Impossible to pull off anyway, but just the height of idiocy to even suggest it.

Where is this worldwide conspiracy of atheists? You would not only have to fix COBE but GONG and MAXIMA and WMAP etc etc. Pure nonsense.

 

[Mestel]

Back to your stellar parallax passage. What do you say to the fact that using modern interferometers we can directly image nearby stellar disks. Thus to say the stars are not at their derived parallax distances you have to invent new physics to explain their tiny diameters you would obtain by your method. The conventional diameters are backed up by several other methods anyway.

To explain things your way is a foolish path of inventing new physics or exceptions every step of the way.

 

[Mestel]

I must admit that I don't yet have the technichal expertise to answer these questions. Perhaps you could answer these questions yourself if you bothered to study some concepts of the Geocentric model in any detail? But you automatically assume that what you have been taught is correct and refuse to reasonably consider any other options. How are you acting any differenty than a staunch evolutionary biologist who adamantly denies the possibility of intelligent design, or the Jew or Muslim who denies that Yahshua is the Christ based only upon the information they have been taught to believe is the truth, while neglecting to honestly investigate the other side?

Exactly, you don't have the technical expertise. Some of us work in these areas for a living and what is more have the intelligence to investigate the claims. Yours are found wanting to say the least.

​

 

[Ebed-Yahweh]

Exactly, you don't have the technical expertise. Some of us work in these areas for a living and what is more have the intelligence to investigate the claims. Yours are found wanting to say the least.

That's nice.

Oh, and it's not a world-wide conspiracy of atheists, but a world-wide conspiracy of fallen angels, demons, and satanists in whatever form they might take. NASA just happens to be a religious institution devoted to spreading the doctrines of Kabbalah and Freemasonry through black magic rituals, propaganda, and deceit.

It's interesting to note that in Hebrew, nasa means "to bear, carry, lift up; forgive; to be forgiven, honred, carried; to be carried off, lifted up; to cause to carry, to bring; to exalt oneself, lift up oneself (Strong's Concordance reference #5375). Kind of interesting, especially considering that space might be identified as "the second heaven" according to Biblical cosmology (the sky/atmosphere being the first and paradise/God's domain being the third). In Isaiah 14:14, Satan says, "14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."

Notice the title for God used in KJV Isaiah 57:15, "For thus saith the high and lofty [nasa] One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones. "

So. is NASA and the Space Program actually just one big Virtual Reality deception? I believe they are.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I knew it would come down to this in the end. Conspiracy theory.

When we get:

equivocation (or even association) of the English Acronym NASA with the Hebrew word nasa;
suggestion that the whole space program is a virtual reality simulation;
invention of occult shenanigans for which there is absolutely zero evidence;

we are most certainly in tin-foil hat country. Sorry.

 

[thekawasakikid]

That's nice.

Oh, and it's not a world-wide conspiracy of atheists, but a world-wide conspiracy of fallen angels, demons, and satanists in whatever form they might take. NASA just happens to be a religious institution devoted to spreading the doctrines of Kabbalah and Freemasonry through black magic rituals, propaganda, and deceit.

It's interesting to note that in Hebrew, nasa means "to bear, carry, lift up; forgive; to be forgiven, honred, carried; to be carried off, lifted up; to cause to carry, to bring; to exalt oneself, lift up oneself (Strong's Concordance reference #5375). Kind of interesting, especially considering that space might be identified as "the second heaven" according to Biblical cosmology (the sky/atmosphere being the first and paradise/God's domain being the third). In Isaiah 14:14, Satan says, "14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."

Notice the title for God used in KJV Isaiah 57:15, "For thus saith the high and lofty [nasa] One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones. "

So. is NASA and the Space Program actually just one big Virtual Reality deception? I believe they are.

I don't have the technical expertise either (I was woefully perplexed in the latter years of my physics education!) but you seem to me to have proved Mestel's point admirably...

 

[seebs]

Oh, and it's not a world-wide conspiracy of atheists, but a world-wide conspiracy of fallen angels, demons, and satanists in whatever form they might take. NASA just happens to be a religious institution devoted to spreading the doctrines of Kabbalah and Freemasonry through black magic rituals, propaganda, and deceit.

Look. Lots of people will call you names over this. But... Here's the argument you should really think about.

NASA is a government agency.

Government agencies simply aren't competent enough to pull off the kind of thing you're talking about.

 

[PaladinValer]

Oh yes; I'm a evil, Devil-worshipping Satanist out for blood and the minds of the world to pollute with my falsehoods of heliocentricism. Ooga-booga!

[/sarcasm]

 

[herev]

Oh yes; I'm a evil, Devil-worshipping Satanist out for blood and the minds of the world to pollute with my falsehoods of heliocentricism. Ooga-booga!

[/sarcasm]

Ah, have you been inducted into the ooga-booga club?

 

[Ebed-Yahweh]

Actually, I was just introduced to the the possibility of the Geocentric view being true less than a week ago. I had never really considered it before. I'm sure the idea seemed just as strange to me as anyone else who has read this thread. Ultimately, if the Acentric or Heliocentric models are true, then I could deal with it. However, if the Geocentric model could possibly be proven true, then it would change the world, so that is why I am interested in it at present. I've learned a couple of things about science and astronomy over the last few days that I didn't know before, so it has been a rewarding experience in any case.

Even though I do like the String theories, Brane theory, and holographic universe models which have been developed to help marry Relativity with Quantum Physics, I am seriously considering that General Relativity is false. There are serious scientists out there who reject it. You should check out Mathematical Magic
and the other webpage I quoted from concerning relativity earlier Einstein's Theory of Relativity - Scientific Theory or Illusion?.

The Electric universe model (also known as Plasma Cosmology) rejects Relativity and seems to be able to make physics operate without it. Also, some people believe that Dayton Miller was actually able to detect Ether Drift, although that that might mean the earth is moving even though it may help disprove General Relativity. I'm not sure about that one. Perhaps, if ether drift is true, it actually provides evidence for the universe rotating around the earth? Anyway, here's a link if you want to read more about that.

Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift
Experiments: A Fresh Look

For those who believe that it's absolutely insane or stupide or both to even consider geocentric or Geocentric models, here's a couple of good links:

Myths about the Copernican Revolution

Geocentrism Challenge

Why Geocentricity?

And here's an interesting quote of Malcolm Bowden from his THE BASIC SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS
FOR GEOCENTRICITY webpage.

THE ROTATION OF THE UNIVERSE
How can the universe rotate so rapidly without disintegrating? There is growing evidence that the aether has "Planck density" - it is extremely dense and the sun and planets are like corks in very dense water comparatively. This whole universe sweeps round the earth because otherwise it would collapse in on itself due to its density. The mechanics of this system forces the other planets etc. to describe ellipses in their orbit around the sun. Ernst Mach proposed that it is the weight of the stars circling the earth that drags Foucault pendulums around, creates Coriolis forces in the air that give the cyclones to our weather etc. Barbour and Bertotti (Il Nuovo Cimento 32B(1):1-27, 11 March 1977) proved that a hollow sphere (the universe) rotating around a solid sphere inside (the earth) produced exactly the same results of Coriolis forces, dragging of Foucault pendulums etc. that are put forward as "proofs" of heliocentricity! This paper gives several other confirmations of the superiority of the geocentric model.

Thus, there is evidence that the earth is NOT moving around the sun, but either the aether is moving around the earth carrying the planets with it, or the earth is spinning on its axis. The most likely model is that the aether is rotating around the earth as calculations show that if it did not, it would rapidly collapse upon itself.

 

[wobbly]

Presumably it's also conceivable that Australians do stand on their heads and that the moon is also made of cheese?

Gee you northerners don't know anything do you, of course we don't stand on our heads. We actually hang upside down feet our feet. That's when were not winning gold medals in the swimming.

Martin

And do you realise how much trouble it is for me to write upside down so you can read it.

 

[Bushido216]

Gah. Just... gah.

 

[PaladinValer]

Ah, have you been inducted into the ooga-booga club?

I'm a card-carrying member, baby

 

[herev]

I'm a card-carrying member, baby

good to see you back--been missing you!
OOOOGA