North - South

[cikljamas]

@ Al, let me show you one of the biggest (if not The biggest) flaw in heliocentric theory:

Heliocentric "explanation" why there is annual motion of all the stars:

HC: Because of the Earth's annual translation (revolution around the Sun)! :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

Maybe they could have gotten away somehow with such a nonsense had they not overlooked one terrible mistake (which is crucial part of their theory, hence why they can't get rid of it): Fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis!

I remind us all to quest. No 4:

Question No 4: Why do the stars appear to be fixed along a celestial sphere?

GC: Because they are.

HC: The stars only appear to be fixed along a celestial sphere because they are so incredibly far away. Even after hundreds of millions of miles of our (supposed) orbit around the Sun, the stars appear in the exact same positions at the exact same meridian times because they are many "light-years" away. A light-year is approximately 6 TRILLION miles away and that is why they falsely seem fixed from our faulty perspective.

IT is found by observation that the stars come to the meridian about four minutes earlier every twenty-four hours than the sun, taking the solar time as the standard. This makes 120 minutes every thirty days, and twenty-four hours in the year. Hence all the constellations have passed before or in advance of the sun in that time. This is the simple fact as observed in nature, but the theory of rotundity and motion on axes and in an orbit has no place for it. Visible truth must be ignored, because this theory stands in the way, and prevents its votaries from understanding it. What is plain and consistent with every known fact, and with the direct evidence of our senses, must be interpreted or translated into theoretical language--must be called "an illusion of our senses," and affirmed to be an apparent result only; the real cause being the earth's progressive motion round the sun in what is called the ecliptic, the plane of which is assumed to be inclined to the equator 23° 28´. Samuel Rowbotham "Zetetic Astronomy"

Alleged sidereal time (one rotation on Earth's axis) = 23h 56min

The same amount of time Stellatum (all fixed stars) needs for to make one revolution around the Earth each day, that is why one alleged rotation on Earth's axis has to be accomplished after 23h 56min!

The only other (instead of the true geocentric reason) reasonable (theoretically) explanation for the annual motion of all the stars would be appropriate-necessary speed of the Earth's rotation (not it's annual revolution-translation).

It means that heliocentrists could have avoided (and even then the success of their escape from falling into ultimate disgrace before eyes of the world would have been just to the certain extent) their biggest flaw only if they had used the very same reason (Earth's rotation) for the explanation of "apparent" annual motion of the Stellatum as they use it (Earth's rotation) for diurnal (daily) motion of all the stars around the Earth.

It was and is and will be really a fatal flaw in heliocentric theory!

"The trouble with lying is that your lie changes slightly with each telling." Rene

"The trouble with lying is that your lies accumulates slightly with each telling." cikljamas

[Dingus]

[ethan]

I finally found video evidence of the magical ice rim at the edge of the earth.

www.it-doesnt-exist.com

If you don't see it at the link, the internet rulers must have confiscated it.
How do people honestly believe that nonsense when so many pilots have flown around the globe.

[cikljamas]

I finally found video evidence of the magical ice rim at the edge of the earth.

www.it-doesnt-exist.com

If you don't see it at the link, the internet rulers must have confiscated it.
How do people honestly believe that nonsense when so many pilots have flown around the globe.

Here is more evidence:

NASA Is Tricking Us With Animations

Have you seen TheFakingHoaxer's work? It's a million times more believable than what NASA puts out. I don't know why they don't simply hire him for the job.

Here it is: Space Shuttle Destroyed by TFH - CGI - 2D

The Moon And The Venus (good music)

Pay particular attention if your intuition starts to turn up the volume. You might notice quite distinctive synchronicities or chance events that tie together in some way happening around you, or other things that strike you as being a bit odd. That can be a clue that you really need to tune in to your psychic antennae!

p.s. your link doesn't work, perhaps you made it all up...i wouldn't be surprised...

[cikljamas]

Response to Steve Kellmeyer’s Comments about Geocentrism

Very interesting ending of above very interesting and educational conversation:

Kellmeyer: What I can't understand is this: if the Church requires us to hold to Young Earth Creationism, why aren't Young Earthers logically consistent? Why don't they ALSO hold to geocentrism, which is a lot easier to defend than Young Earthism is? This is a mystery to me.

R. Sungenis: It’s a mystery to me also.

cikljamas: What I can't understand is this: if the Church requires us to hold to geocentrism, why aren't geocentrists logically consistent? Why don't they ALSO hold to flat earth hypothesis, which is a lot easier to defend than geocentrism? This is a mystery to me.

R. Sungenis: silence

Kellmeyer: So, if you want to use the Bible as a science text, I ask only that you be consistent. If you are a Young Earther, you really should promote geocentrism as well. Stop attributing to evolution that which evolution doesn't even address: the beginning of life. Seriously consider joining the Flat Earth Society. Be consistent.

R. Sungenis: silence

cikljamas: This silence is a mystery to me. And yes, hadn't he been ironic (giving Sungenis advice to join the flat earth society) we could have said that Kellmeyer has got the point, it is really inconsistent to use the Bible as a science text, and promote geocentrism but in the same time opposing flat earthism which is also biblically founded notion.

[cikljamas]

Once more on annual motion of all the stars:

There are actually two different reasons why stars appear to move across our sky. The first is because the Earth is spinning and second because the Earth itself is moving around the Sun.

Even if heliocentrists were able to explain annual motion of stars (which is not the case - for geometrical reasons) within their theory, there are also some other very plausible reasons why HC would still be totally impotent to accomplish this task successfully:

In order to make it appear as (annual motion of the stars) at least theoreticaly possible heliocentrists should fulfill - set right (after repairing irreparable geometrical flaw in HC theory) one more condition which is also unreachable for them:

Beside maintaining the Earth's alleged rotation at a constant speed they should also adjust (which they can't) Earth's orbital speed so to be constant (not variable) as well.

The Earth's orbit is not perfectly circular. As a result its velocity changes slightly over the course of the year. At its closest to the Sun in January, the Earth is moving 30,300m/s, while at its furthest it is moving 29,300m/s.

Although 1km/s is a large change of velocity, it occurs gradually over 6 months, so we feel no real acceleration from it. The acceleration that is present is dwarfed by that of Earth's gravitational pull.

Now, let's do some math:

January (perihelion): 30,300 km/s * 3600 = 109,080 km/h
July (aphelion): 29,300 km/s * 3600 = 105,480 km/h

January: 109,080 * 24 = 2,617,920 km per day
July: 105,480 * 24 = 2,531,520 km per day

Difference: 86,400 km per day * 30 = 2,592,000 km per month

Now, compare this difference with next excerpt:

A sidereal day is the amount of time it takes for the stars to go once around the sky, equal to 23 hours and 56 minutes. The word sidereal means "relating to the stars." The difference in length between the solar and sidereal day causes the rising and setting times of stars to change throughout the year. If the star Rigel, for example, rises at noon today, it will rise at 11:56 tomorrow. In six months, it will rise at midnight. Because the difference between solar days is tied to the orbit of the Earth, there is exactly one more sidereal day in a year than there are solar days.

So, we are off for one whole day (4 min) per month! HC is really tragically funny theory with no basis in reality whatsoever!!!

On top of that, we should also bare in mind these irrefutable facts:

If we accept the Copernican viewpoint and its unavoidable extrapolations with regard to the structure of the universe, we have to accept the consequences. Then we cannot hold on to the picture of a simple sun- centered cosmos, of which not even Newton was fully convinced, but which Bradley and Molyneux took for granted. Today the astronomers assure us that our Great Light is only an insignificant member of a spiral Milky Way galaxy, containing billions of stars. Our sun flies at a speed of about 250 km/sec around the center of this system. And that is not all, the ruling cosmology also tells us how the Milky Way itself whirls at 360,000 km/hr through the space occupied by the local group of galaxies. Now all these imposing particulars are theoretically gathered from observations assuming the speed of light to be 300,000 km/sec, at least, everywhere through our spatial neighborhood. But if this cosmological panorama is put through its paces, there is a hitch somewhere. The astronomical theorists cannot have their cake and eat it. If they accept— as all the textbooks still do!—Bradley's “proof” of the Copernican truth, then their cosmological extrapolations of that truth clash with a not-yet developed simple heliocentrism; that is to say, with the model of an earth orbiting a spatially unmoved sun.

The other way around, when holding on to their galactic conjectures, they are at a loss how to account for a steady 20”.5 stellar aberration. For in that scheme our earth, dragged along by the sun, joins in this minor star's 250 km/sec revolution around the center of the Milky Way. If, for instance, in March we indeed would be moving parallel to the sun's motion, our velocity would become 250+30 = 280 km/sec, and in September 250-30 = 220 km/sec. The “aberration of starlight,” according to post- Copernican doctrine, depends on the ratio of the velocity of the earth to the speed of light. As that velocity changes the ratio changes. Hence Bradley's 20”.496 should change, too. But it does not. Therefore, there is truly a fly in this astronomical ointment, paraded and promoted as a truth.


Maybe you would also like to think over this aspect of alleged changing Earth's orbital speed:

When you say '..no matter how jolty this speed-change is (ie. no matter how high the acceleration), we would never feel it, because we are moving in just the same way'

We also move the same way in a car yet if it slows or increases it's velocity we feel it easily, despite moving exactly the same way. Gravity keeps us seated in the car, gravity keeps us seated on the planet. So how would the Earth's velocity change not affect us in a similar fashion to the acceleration of deceleration of a car, a helicopter, a train, or anything else in which we are contained and hold an identical velocity?

One question for scientists:

How is this possible according HC theory:

I shot this picture of the Super Moon yesterday 9 p.m.:



I shot this picture of the Full Moon this morning (4 a.m.):



Maximum librations are 7° 54' longitude and 6° 50' latitude. Also, 1° diurnal libration occures because of motion of the observer as the Earth rotates.

Do you see in above pictures the difference of just one degree? I will also soon upload videos from which these pictures have been taken out so that any possible doubts (concerning authenticity of above pictures) could be removed.

[cikljamas]

Here we go:

Super Moon Croatia August 9th 2014
Full Moon Croatia August 10th 2014
Full Moon Croatia August 11th 2014

Moon pole shifting for 135 degrees

Tom Jones & George Kirby - Shake, Rattle & Roll
TOM JONES FLIPS, FLOPS and FLIES!

[cikljamas]

It's time for one little off-topic:

Tomorrow we celebrate The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Celebration in the Roman Catholic Church of the Virgin Mary's being taken up into heaven when her earthly life ended; corresponds to the Dormition in the Eastern Orthodox Church)

So, what we should maybe ask ourself is if heavens is indifferent about what is going on in today's world, world of lies and deceptions (we should always bare in mind one of the greatest lies: heliocentric lie)? Maybe the best answer to that question we can get if we try to find out the true answer to the next question: IS MEĐUGORJE REAL?

Two medical teams, one from Milan and the other from renowned French University of Montpellier, have scientifically examined the visionaries during the time of reported apparitions. Each has independently validated the legitimacy of their state of ecstasy as being in some form of true communication outside of their ordinary time-space experience (13) . These scientific studies also ruled out any possibility of "collective hallucination" and, by deduction, any form of mere human deception of falsification (14) .
Is Medjugorje Real?

The Medjugorje apparitions possess all the principal characteristics that the Church looks for in manifesting supernatural authenticity. The message contents are in complete conformity with the official doctrinal teachings of the Catholic Church. The phenomena that accompany the messages constitute scientifically validated ecstasy during the apparitions and numerous reports of healings. The visionaries manifest lives of moral integrity and psychological stability. More than 200 bishops, archbishops, and cardinals have visited the site officially, in addition to the many unofficial visits by the shepherds of the Church. In addition, well over 100 bishops, archbishops, and cardinals have publicly expressed their belief in Our Lady’s presence in Medjugorje (15) . The spiritual fruits of conversion and spiritual peace have been the ubiquitous testimony of the greater part of the thirty million pilgrims who have come to Medjugorje and have responded to the Queen of Peace’s call for greater faith, prayer, fasting, conversion, and peace.

Two final testimonies to the supernatural reality of Medjugorje are worthy of special mention.

On August 14, 1994, I was in Calcutta, presenting talks on the fifth Marian Dogma of Mary Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate to six different sections of Missionaries of Charity groups at Mother Teresa’s direct request (including two of which Mother herself attended). When I first entered her presence and walked over to the place we would sit and begin talking, I saw a calendar with the image of Our Lady of Medjugorje on its cover hanging on the wall next to us. After a few minutes of enthusiastic conversation with Mother regarding other Marian issues, I pointed up to the calendar and asked her, "Mother, do you believe in Medjugorje?" She responded by putting her finger up to her lips as if to gesture "shhh" or let us speak quietly of this, and answered, "I asked Our Lady of Medjugorje to come to my first home for the dying in Calcutta, and she did!" I did not have the courage to further question the future saint, "How did she come, Mother? – in the form of an apparition? a healing?" She simply left the subject with a serene smile on her face.

The second personal testimony comes from Pope John Paul II. Over the course of his blessed pontificate, he had received several of the visionaries in private audience, including a twenty-minute audience with Mirjana in 1987 (16) ; had invited numerous bishops and priests to go to Medjugorje and to pray for him there (17) ; and the late Cardinal Tomasek had made public the typical comment of John Paul II to inquiring bishops: "If I were not Pope I would like to go to Medjugorje to help at the work with the pilgrims" (18) .

We have in incontestable documentation the written words of Pope John Paul II to his lifetime Polish friends, Marek and Sophia Skwarnicki in their personal correspondence (released with their permission), which manifests the saintly Holy Father’s personal belief in Medjugorje, and his common spiritual practice of daily pilgriming to Medjugorje in his heart" (19) . For example, in John Paul’s letter of December 1992 to the Skwarnicki Family, he writes:
I thank Sophia for everything concerning Medjugorje. I, too, go there every day as a pilgrim in my prayers: I unite in my prayers with all those who pray there or receive a calling for prayer from there (20) .

On February 25, 1994, John Paul writes:
I guess Medjugorje is better understood these days. This kind of "insisting" of our Mother is better understood today when we see with our very eyes the enormousness of the danger. At the same time, the response in the way of a special prayer—and that coming from people all around the world—fills us with hope that here, too, the good will prevail (21) .

And in closing his May 28, 1992, letter to his Polish friends, John Paul reiterates: "And now we every day return to Medjugorje in prayer" (22) .

Is Medjugorje real? According to the Church’s own criteria, the spiritual fruits superabundant throughout the world, and the saintly witnesses and discernments of Pope John Paul II and Bl. Teresa of Calcutta, I believe the only proper theological response is "yes."

Read more: Is Medjugorje Real?

[cikljamas]

Hiding In Plain Sight!!!

We debunked heliocentricity as brash fraud and we did it beyond any reasonable doubt, didn't we? Now, there could be still doubts and questions like this (post #181):

Once again you wrongly assume that if the Earth doesn't spin it must be flat.

There is no reason to believe any of this.

If it is not heliocentric then it is geocentric, but flat Earth is no where to be found in this.

Now I am not claiming the universe is geocentric, but if we assume the Earth doesn't spin, then it would be geocentric. Anyway, even if it is geocentric it doesn't mean it is flat. Do you understand that?

At this solemn feast let me show you one really powerful "heliocentric" proof in favor of FET and contrary to round-geocentric theory:

This proof is HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT in the next picture:



Would you be able to see that proof without my assistance?

So, let me help you:

In above heliocentric fraudulent figure there is also one big truth:

All you have to do is to understand that Sun is revolving around the Earth, not the other way around. edit...Better to say, the Sun is circling above the Earth...edit (Al, thanks for your continuous surveillance and detailed scrutiny of my english grammar!) (Nice animation also!)

After we made it clear you can see that in above figure heliocentrists admit that the orbital speed of the Earth (which is in fact the speed of the Sun) is highest during winter solstice when the Sun is above tropic of capricorn, then the Sun is slowing down when arrives vertically above equator (during equinoxes), and the lowest speed of the Sun is when the Sun is hovering above the tropic of cancer (summer solstice).

This is completely consistent with FET, and absolutely in contradiction with geocentric round Earth model, because there in no possible compelling RET explanation for different speeds of the Sun regarding it's different positions above the equator, the tropic of capricorn and the tropic of cancer.

Can it be more obvious than that?

As it was with UN flag, now it is the same thing with above heliocentric fraudulent diagram:

HIDING FLAT EARTH TRUTH IN YOUR PLAIN SIGHT!!!

God bless you!

[aljhoa]

All you have to do is to understand that Sun is revolving around the Earth, not the other way around.

Al

[cikljamas]

@ Al, just in case you haven't noticed yet, i edited my post above.

The Earth is at the centre of the universe. No proof to the contrary has ever been forthcoming, and observational evidence confirms it.

In 1971, a Dutch-Canadian educator, Walter van der Kamp, founded the Tychonian Society and wakened the world to Geocentricity, the modern version of an earth-centered universe. At the same time, observational scientists were also acknowledging geocentricity in their fashion. In his 1937 book, The Observational Approach to Cosmology, the now famous Edwin Hubble wrote, “Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth.” In a 1995 article in Scientific American, one of the worldʼs leading theorists in cosmology, George Ellis, declared, “I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.”

Even the ultra-renowned physicist Stephen Hawking has said, “all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe...[that] we must be at the center of the universe.” By the end of the 20th century it was not only geocentricists who were aware of the Earthʼs apparent centrality, orthodox scientists were also acknowledging that the universe did appear to be earth-centered.

The observational evidence had become overwhelming. One simple observation is that the number of stars and galaxies increases fairlyequally in all directions. That is, if you count all the stars in one direction, and compare it with the count in the opposite direction, the number is always about the same. Similarly, radio sources are isotropic or have the same value when measured in every direction. After Hubble discovered the red-shifts, they were whimsically alled “the fingers do G-d,” because, as measurements of distance, they show long lines, all pointing inwardly toward the Earth, and from every direction. The mass (matter) of the universe also has a pattern with the Earth seemly at the densest part of the universe. That is, the universe becomes less and less dense as one moves away from the Earth. Quasars, a specific kind of galaxy, form concentric hells around the Earth, or a series of shells all centered on the Earth.

The most compelling evidence was discovered in 1965 in a study of the microwave background radiation. A 1976 article in Scientific American, acknowledged, ”This observation seems to suggest that the universe is remarkably symmetrical and, what is even more extraordinary, that we happen to be at its center”. Whatʼs more, the universe itself seems to be rotating around a central axis according to the satellite experiment, COBE, launched in 1989. Such observational evidence can be found in standard scientific textbooks, and while they are open to interpretation, the apparent centrality of the Earth has been widely acknowledged.

Historically, there has never been any proof that the Sun-centered model is actually true!!!

There have been deliberate attempts to prove and measure the Earthʼs supposed motion. It is at this point that the scientific literature becomes utterly fascinating and revealing. In 1887, Albert Michelson and Edward Morley, performed an experiment that shook the world, metaphorically speaking. With an interferometer, they attempted to measure the speed of light in two directions; along the line of Earthʼs supposed path around the Sun, and at right angles to it. The expected result was that the Earth is traveling at 30 km/sec. But to their astonishment, the experiment showed only marginal motion. The Michelson experiment came to be known as the most successful "failed" experiment ever attempted because from it came the all the conclusions of modern cosmology. Those conclusions are: there is no aether (medium) through which the Earth is traveling; the speed of light is always the same even if the source or the observer is moving; and the universe has no centre or boundary. Very few scientists were willing to admit to the more obvious conclusion that the Earth really isnʼt moving although hey were fully aware that that it isexactly what the Michelson-Morley experiments implied.

This experiment, when performed by Georges Sagnac in 1913, was equally disturbing, and many scientists scrambled to defend the Theory of Relativity which it clearly seemed to contradict. In classical terms, Sagnac had proved that there is an aether and that the speed of light is not a constant. Michelson had been reluctant to do the experiment himself because it would only confirm what is observationally evident, that the orbital speed of the Earth actually is zero and that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.

The point made by the two interferometer experiments cannot be ignored. That the Earth is at the centre of a rotating universe is a completely logical conclusion from the interferometer experiments of Michelson-Morley and Sagnac.


Explaining lunar and solar eclipses.

In the opening pages his book, Eclipse, J.P. McCoy makes it very clear that the best way to understand eclipses is to suppose that the Earth is at the centre of the universe, and that the universe is rotating around the Earth every twenty-four hours.13 In this way eclipses can be more easily understood, predicted hundreds of years into the future, and even computed backwards into the distant past.

"The most ancient observations of which we are in possession, that are sufficiently accurate to be employed in astronomical calculations, are those made at Babylon about 719 years before the Christian era, of three eclipses of the moon. Ptolemy, who has transmitted them to us, employed them for determining the period of the moon's mean motion; and therefore had probably none more ancient on which he could depend. The Chaldeans, however, must have made a long series of observations before they could discover their 'Saros,' or lunar period of 6585⅓ days, or about 18 years; at which time, as they had learnt, the place of the moon, her node and apogee return nearly to the same situation with respect to the earth and the sun, and, of course, a series of nearly similar eclipses occur."

"The precision of astronomy arises, not from theories, but from prolonged observations, and the regularity of the motions, or the ascertained uniformity of their irregularities."

"No particular theory is required to calculate eclipses; and the calculations may be made with equal accuracy independent of every theory."

"It is not difficult to form some general notion of the process of calculating eclipses. It may be readily conceived that by long-continued observations on the sun and moon, the laws of their revolution may be so well understood that the exact places which they will occupy in the heavens at any future times may be foreseen, and laid down in tables of the sun and moon's motions; that we may thus ascertain by inspecting the tables the instant when these bodies will be together in the heavens, or be in conjunction."

Tables of the places of the sun and moon, of eclipses, and of kindred phenomena, have existed for thousands of years, and w ere formed independently of each other, by the Chaldean, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hindoo, Chinese, and other ancient astronomers. Modern science has had nothing to do with these; farther than rendering them a little more exact, by averaging and reducing the fractional errors which a longer period of observation has detected.

Read more: CAUSE OF SOLAR AND LUNAR ECLIPSES.

[cikljamas]

The Earth is assumed to be fixed and motionless for highly practical reasons.

No less astounding is how NASA publishes its ephemerides. Ephemerides are tables giving the positions of the objects in the sky at various times. A simple check of the NASA website shows that the tables are geocentric. In the Preface, it is made clear that detailed fixed-earth ephemerides are needed not just for astronomy, but also for interplanetary missions (whatever it means ). In other words, NASA uses geocentric calculations to send satellites into space! It is an utter misconception that NASA makes its calculations based on the Copernican model in which the Earth is orbiting the Sun and rotating on its axis. Whenever an astronomer points a telescope at a star, or NASA sends a satellite into space, there is a tacit assumption that the Earth is a fixed object, and that it is the Sun, the Moon and the planets that are in motion. This is confirmed in Astronomy: A Self-teaching Guide by Dinah Moche. Her exact words are: “Astronomers use the celestial sphere to locate stars and galaxies and to plot the courses of the Sun, Moon, and planets throughout the year.”

To learn that NASA publishes fixed-earth tables should not be surprising. The Babylonians recorded ephemerides 4000 years ago, and thereby established the basis of Western astronomy. Since ancient times, the locations of the objects in the sky have been determined by only two measurements: their position and the time. In modern times this means a bodyʼs position relative to the Earthʼs equator extended into space and to Greenwich Mean Time, or, where the object is in the sky and at what time of the day.NASA uses this information prepared jointly by the U.S. Naval Observatory and the Royal Greenwich Observatory to publish its Astronomical Almanac. Like the Babylonians, NASAʼs astronomical tables are strictly practical and arithmetical. No philosophical considerations are ever involved, and the Earthʼs supposed orbital and axial motions are not factored into the Astronomical Almanac. The claim, therefore, that NASAʼs accomplishments in space exploration validates the Copernican model is entirely bogus.

Finally, the notion of the Earth as a planet runs counter to our experience. We see the Sun rise and set each day. We see all the stars rotating about the North Star in the night sky. We have no sensation that the Earth is moving. As big as we believe the universe to be, all our experiences are confined to the Earth or very near to the Earth. That is the point that Alan Hirshfeld, an astronomer at the University of Massachusetts, alludes to:

“To believe the heliocentric picture of the heavens, even of a moving,
spinning Earth is counterintuitive. Despite decades as an astronomer, I
still find it hard to fathom that the Earth streaks through half a million
miles of space while we snooze away the night in our beds.”

In 2008, an article in New Science openly questioned “Copernicusʼs idea that the Earth was just one of many planets orbiting the sun,” asking if the idea could actually be wrong. In a related article, three Oxford astrophysicists discuss future tests of the Copernican principle. The Copernican principle is an assumption that the universe appears the same when viewed in any direction from every location, or that the universe has no real centre. But, as New Science points out, that principle was “introduced into cosmology not because of any observational evidence, but to save face.” Scientists had been forced into that simplifying assumption directly as a result of the Michelson-Morley experiments. Now, four hundred years after Copernicus, scientists are devising ways to test his theory. It is proven to be wrong and “require a seismic reassessment of what we know about the universe!!!

[cikljamas]

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: "the sun is at rest and the Earth moves," or "the sun moves and the Earth is at rest," would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS." (The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, 1938, 1966, p. 212.)

Now that last quote is very important for the following reason. Even today there are people who accept Einstein's theory of relativity whole-hearted, and would insult and denigrate anyone who see use an earth-centred system saying that it is impossible and unworkable and the maths don't pan out. They would argue that "rotational inertial frames" make some sort of difference so as to make geocentricity impossible. But the amazing thing is that Einstein himself said it makes no difference and that both systems would work. Thus, based on the equivalence principle, which says that maths and processes that work in a "solar system" model would work in the earth-centred model but in a different or reverse way, it is baseless to say that geocentricity is impossible or unworkable or even useless. When a student of a system contradicts the master and originator of the system, then there should be no hindrances to holding the student's point of view with a lot of skepticism, if not rejecting them altogether. Thus, in this same case, if the disciples of Einstein try to make it seem like his own theory makes geocentricity impossible, the words of the Einstein himself should silence the issue. But, as we find out too many times in life, when a person holds personally and wholehearted to his special theory or way of thinking, no one, not even his teacher or superior, can tell him otherwise.

I want you to consider these words from the secular-minded online encyclopedia, Wikipedia:

"If general relativity is true, then there exists a non-inertial reference frame where the Earth is the immobile center of a non-inertial universe (see equivalence principle). There also exists a reference frame (inertial or non-inertial) for any other arbitrary choice of coordinate systems. This means that strictly speaking, a preferred coordinate system cannot be chosen, nor can a preferred coordinate system be rejected on the grounds of physics alone. Other considerations (for example, those of theoretical or ontological parsimony urged by Occam's Razor) must inform our interpretation of observed phenomenon. In terms of the influential philosophy of science stemming from the work of Karl Popper, such non-falsifiable claims qualify as metaphysics and are not properly formulated scientific hypotheses." (Geocentric model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Modern geocentrism)

Now just think about this. This wikipedia will make it seem as if the geocentric theory was disproven and made obsolete by Newton and Kepler. So it is already staking a claim to know what really and absolutely moves around what: the earth definitely moves around the sun!

But just look at the above quote: if general relativity is true then a preferred coordinate system cannot be chosen or rejected on the grounds of physics alone, and we can add "on the grounds of observations alone". This means that on the grounds of observations and science proper, any place in the universe can be used as a centre, but every place is as good as the others, but no better. The other considerations for preferring one place to another that are then given by wikipedia are all philosophical. Therefore, based on this, geocentricity cannot be shown be wrong, i.e., cannot be falsified, and thus is not a "properly formulated scientific hypotheses".

Some readers may then appreciate the irony of this statement for Wikipedia itself. Based on such thinking, the solar system model is also unfalsifiable. Preferring to use the sun as a centre to judge movement and thus claim that the planets move absolutely around the sun, using the sun as our reference point for movement, this cannot be accepted or rejected based on physics alone! And thus, it too is a system that cannot be falsified, shown to be wrong. And following logically on from what Wikipedia say, the solar system model is not a "properly formulated scientific hypotheses".

So based on relativity, the geocentric model is as good as the sun-centred model, but no better or worse.

But understand that the earth centred system is not based on a theory of relativity. It's just based on what we can see and what scientific experiments undoubtedly already (long time ago) have proven!!!

The age of denial and deception is coming to an end!

[cikljamas]

Why every world map you're looking at is WRONG?

Flight Time Christchurch to Rio - Flat Earth proof

[aljhoa]

Why every world map you're looking at is WRONG?

this map represent Antarctic before it was covered by glaciers, hundred thousand years ago

The Mysteries Of The Piri Reis Map - 03

Al