I have thought about the Earth being stationary for years but just never talked about it because the world believed the Earth was spinning so it must be true, right? The fact is we've been lied to. If you want to take the blue pill and stay in your stupor and believe what you were told to believe without critically questioning it then just get off this thread. If you want to take the red pill and see how far the rabbit hole goes then stay with me here.
I am pretty shocked to discover that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever the Earth is moving. We all have been duped to believe the Earth rotates and revolves around the Sun. This is as shocking to me as when I found out evolution was a lie.
The heliocentric model was pretty much foisted upon us because of academia's atheistic bias and the serpent was likely to be ultimately behind the lie (more on that later). Go ahead and try to find scientific evidence for heliocentricism. You won't be able to. Moreover there is no scientific evidence against geocentricism! What a shocker.
Scientists know the geocentric model is just as "valid" as the heliocentric model:
We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance (Hoyle, F., 1975. Astronomy and Cosmology - A Modern Course. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.)
Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is "right" and the Ptolemaic theory "wrong" in any meaningful physical sense. (Hoyle, F., 1973, Nicolaus Copernicus, Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., London.)
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” -Cosmologist George Ellis, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally"
"Every experiment ever designed to detect the motion of the earth has failed to detect earth's motion and/or distinguish it from relative counter motion of the universe." -Mark Wyatt, "Is Geocentricism Possible?"
"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either 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 coordinate systems." -Albert Einstein
Astronomer Dr. Bouw on Geocentricity and the Space Program:
"...Again, once more for the record:it has been shown at least six different ways this century alone that the equations
and physics used by NASA to launch satellites are identical to the equations derived from a geocentric universe. Thus, if the space program is proof of anything, it proves geocentricity and disproves heliocentrism."
G. D. Bouw, "News Extracts", Bulletin of Tychonian Society, Spring, 1990, #53, p.28, (Quoted p. 43, The Earth Is Not Moving, by Marshall Hall, 1994 printing.)
In an article, "The Energy of Space That Isn't Zero", Lawrence Krauss stated (2006):
But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun - the plane of the earth around the sun - the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe. The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is (s)imply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales.
But these scientists would never interject their own bias and philosophy into their work... would they?
Edwin Hubble, who detected redshift isotropically distributed all around us, said (The Observational Approach to Cosmology):
"…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...This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility.... the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs.... such a favored position is intolerable...Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape."
Stephen Hawkings (A Brief History of Time) said ..."all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe."
He does provide and alternative view, though:
"There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe."
Cosmologist named George Ellis created a model with earth at one of two centers. Paul Davies editor of Nature magazine commented on the results:
"Often the simplest of observations will have the most profound consequences. It has long been a cornerstone of modern science, to say nothing of man’s cosmic outlook, that the Earth attends a modest star that shines in an undistinguished part of a run-of-the-mill galaxy. Life arose spontaneously and man evolved on this miscellaneous clump of matter and now directs his own destiny without outside help. This cosmic model is supported by the Big-Bang and Expanding Universe concepts, which in turn are buttressed by the simple observation that astronomers see redshifts wherever they look.
These redshifts are due, of course, to matter flying away from us under the impetus of the Big Bang. But redshifts can also arise from the gravitational attraction of mass. If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! The argument advanced by George Ellis in this article is more complex than this, but his basic thrust is to put man back into a favored position in the cosmos. His new theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations, even though it clashes with the thought that we are godless and making it on our own."
"Many competent physicists have acknowledged that, unless we can get outside the Cosmos, we cannot prove either a "Sun-centered Solar System," or an "Earth Centered Cosmos," and a number of competent physicists and others have done a good job of demonstrating the truth of this claim. In the following brief list, not one is, or was a fundamentalist Christian, or Geocentrist, yet, in one way or another, all argued and presented considerable evidence, that the physics is the same whether you choose heliocentricity or geocentricity, and that the "proofs" that the earth travels around the sun are not proofs of that view at all:
Gerber, P., 1898. Zeitschrift für Mathematik u. Physik, 43:93
Rosser, W. G. V., 1964. An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, (London: Butterworths), p. 460
Thirring (1916. Physicalische Zeitschrift 19:33)
Møller, C., 1952. The Theory of Relativity, (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. 318-321
Lense, J. & Thirring, H., 1921, Physikalische Zeitschrift 22:29
Einstein (in general and often, argued that there is no difference whether you choose the sun, Earth, or Mars as your frame of reference, you would still have an "inertial system," meaning you could still shoot rockets and hit Mars)
Brown, G. Burniston, 1955. Proceedings of the Phys. Soc. B, 68:672
Moon, P. & Spencer, D. E., 1959. Philosophy of Science, 26:125.
Barbour and Bertotti, 1977. Il Nuovo Cimento B, 38, 1.
Nightengale, J.D. American Journal of Physics, 45:376, 1977.
Of the above papers, six of them demonstrated that a geocentric model of the Cosmos explained as many phenomena as a heliocentric one (one with a sun centered solar system). They also demonstrated that all phenomena used as "proofs" of heliocentricity would behave the same in a Cosmos where the Earth was at the center and did not move. This includes the seasons on the Earth, apparent "retrograde motion" of some planets, the Focault pendulum, oblateness of the earth (bulge at the equator), and the Coriolis effect. None of the authors were geocentric Christians, most did it largely as an intellectual exercise."
The only scientific evidence I can find the Earth is spinning is Foucault's Pendulum but that can be accounted for in a geocentric model:
"If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around" - Albert Einstein, cited in "Gravitation", Misner Thorne and Wheeler pp. 544-545.
"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right." - Max Born, "Einstein's Theory of Relativity", Dover Publications, 1962, pp 344 & 345.
A June 25, 1913 letter from Einstein to Ernst Mach* concerning such forces from a relativistic point of view:
"[Y]our happy investigations on the foundations of mechanics, Planck's unjustified criticism notwithstanding, will receive brilliant confirmation. For it necessarily turns out that inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies, quite in the sense of your considerations on Newton's pail experiment. The first consequence is on p. 6 of my paper. The following additional points emerge:*(1) If one accelerates a heavy shell of matter S, then a mass enclosed by that shell experiences an accelerative force. (2) If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around.
*In the Ptolemaic system, the earth is considered to be at rest and without rotation in the center of the universe, while the sun, other planets and fixed stars rotate around the earth. In relational mechanics this rotation of distant matter yields the force ... Now the gravitational attraction of the sun is balanced by a real gravitational centrifugal force due to the annual rotation of distant masses around the earth (with a component having a period of one year). In this way the earth can remain at rest and at an essentially constant distance from the sun. The diurnal rotation of distant masses around the earth (with a period of one day) yields a real gravitational centrifugal force flattening the earth at the poles. Foucault’s pendulum is explained by a real Coriolis force acting on moving masses over the earth’s surface ...The effect of this force will be to keep the plane of oscillation of the pendulum rotating together with the fixed stars.
- Andre K. T. Assis, professor of physics at the University of Campinas - UNICAMP, in Brazil) Relational Mechanics, pp. 190-191
What geocentricism has over heliocentricism is there has been actual scientific experiments that have shown the Earth is NOT IN MOTION:
1. Michelson-Morley Experiment "Proves" Earth at Rest! The Michelson-Morely experiment failed to detect any movement of Earth around the sunhttp://youtu.be/CUdaTH3T3Ok
2. Airy's "Failure" was that to observe a particular star he did NOT have to increase the tilt of his telescope when he filled it with water."... (light travels about 1/4 slower through water). To understand this, here is an analogy:
You are driving a car in the rain with a stove pipe sticking up. The pipe is the telescope and the rain beads are light rays. You do not want the sides of the pipe to get wet. If you are still, the rain comes straight down into the pipe and the pipe stays dry. This is how light would behave coming to a still earth. If you began to move, the drops would hit the inside walls of the pipe unless you tilted the pipe to account for the movement. The faster you move, the more tilt is necessary. If you put a fan at the bottom of the pipe blowing up, the increase needed would be even more since the drops would travel through the pipe more slowly. With a moving earth, you'd likewise have to tilt the telescope or the light would hit the sides. The water in the scope acted as the fan, which would necessitate leaning the pipe/telescope more than an empty one.
Airy found that the light passed through the water filled telescope at the same angle as an empty one. Oops, that would indicate the earth was still. If the earth was moving he should have to tile the telescope more."
This animation demonstrates what happens, proves that the Earth is stationary and therefore at the centre of the universe - as the Bible maintains.http://youtu.be/87M2i61N1cU
3. The Michelson-Gale experiment."This detected the aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth! Thus, the Michelson-Morely experiment detected no movement of the earth around the sun, yet the Michelson-Gale experiment measured the earth's rotation (or the aether's rotation around the earth!) to within 2%! This surely speaks volumes for geocentricity."
4. The Sagnac experiment http://youtu.be/SWmlimH7laY " The Sagnac experiment (Reference - Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3) Sagnac rotated a table complete with light and mirrors with the light being passed in opposite directions around the table between the mirrors. He detected the movement of the table by the movement of the interference fringes on the target where they were recombined. This proved that there IS an aether that the light has to pass through and this completely destroys Einstein's theory of Relativity that says there is no aether. It is for this reason that this experiment is completely ignored by scientists. More recently Kantor has found the same result with similar apparatus."
"All these experiments are never taught at universities, so consequently, scientists, including most Christian creationists, are ignorant of this evidence for geocentricity."
You can Google these experiments.One may find it interesting to read about them and about their efforts to explain away the findings (such as using ad hoc explanations) and to suppress the findings. The implications of an immobile Earth would surely weaken the atheist worldview which permeates the science community.
Now let's go over problems/questions I have asked heliocentric believeres on the internet if the Earth is really rotating and the atmosphere with it. Thus far I've not received any satisfactory answers:
If the atmosphere is rotating with the Earth at 1,000 mph, do you actually believe clouds are moving faster than 1,000 mph at the opposite direction of the earth's supposed spin?
You don't think it is odd the wind travels in all kinds of directions, sometimes changing by the second and sometimes clouds moving at different directions in the same area of the sky? For instance, observe a stratum of clouds going for hours together in a direction the very opposite to that in which the earth is supposed to be moving and sometimes you can see different layers of stratum of clouds moving south- north direction and the other moving in a west-east direction. It gets more complicated than that, different strata may be seen not only moving in different directions but, at the same time, moving with different velocities; some floating rapidly and uniformly, and others passing gently along, sometimes becoming stationary, then starting fitfully into motion, and often standing still for minutes together.
If the atmosphere is rotating with the earth it would mean that the air is moving at the same speed as the part of the Earth that it is next to. Thus, the air at Quito, Ecuador is moving twice as fast as the air at Oslo, Norway.
But if the air at Quito is moving twice as fast as the air at Oslo, that would create the following “problems” that are not supported by reality:
An airplane that took off from Oslo on a clear day, heading west, would be going into a headwind of about 834.9 km/hr (519 mph). Thus, it would need to travel at least the speed of a fast passenger jetliner to make even a few miles of headway. But if it took off heading east, it would hardly need to be using its jets to travel an expected distance for the time it was airborne. Why isn't this the case?
Also why is the atmosphere spinning together with the earth? If the gravitational force would be so great to be able to pull the atmosphere together with the earth then how come the little birds are able to fly?? Or the bugs for that matter??
Supposedly the Earth is moving at 1,000 + 67,000 + 500,000 + 670,000,000 mph through space, and somehow all these centrifugal, gravitational, and inertial forces cancel out perfectly so that standing on Earth we experience none of it, can you explain how that is so?
Knowing the heliocentric model is no more "valid" than the geocentric model and the geocentric model having actual scientific experiments providing evidence for it unlike the heliocentric model, does that make you reconsider the Earth is moving?
How will it change your worldview if you come to the belief that the Earth was immobile?
Would that make you consider that there is a Designer?
If you are a Bible believer and doubt the Earth is immobile consider the following:
If the earth really stopped spinning in the places the Bible says the sun stopped (Josh 10:12-13), or went backwards (Isa 38:8), it would have cataclysmal effects.It would have made Noah's flood look like a puddle. It would cause unfathomable earth disruptions, massive land shifts, immense earthquakes, spewing volcanos, etc.
Moreover it reads in Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."
In the Biblical Creation there was no sun for the earth to go around until the fourth day! (Genesis 1:14-19)
Genesis 15:12...... "...and when the sun was going down..."
Matthew 5:45.... "...for He maketh His sun to rise...."
Over 60 scriptures that reads the Sun rises or goes down.
How do you reconcile a moving Earth with the aforementioned passages with the Bible?
You could say that somehow God miraculously alleviated all those devastating effects, but if you're going to go that far out on a limb that has no scriptural or scientific basis, why buck at geocentricity in the first place?
It is my belief that it was satan, the one who deceives the whole world, who is the one responsible for the Copernicus Revolution to make it seem man is insignificant and as if God doesn't exist or care. We are just on a rock in a random part of the Universe with no goal or purpose, right? That's what these Godless "scientists" would have us believe. But if the world knew the Earth was at the center of the universe one would have to be pretty blind to think this was all an accident. If the world knew the universe rotated around the Earth that would imply a Designer and a lot less people would reject Jesus Christ and end up in hell. Remember, the goal of satan is to keep people from believing the truth, who is Jesus Christ, at all cost.
The Bible is clear that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever should have everlasting life.
The Bible is clear in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth so the Earth is special.
Psalms 8:4 "what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?"
Job 7:17 ""What is mankind that you make so much of them, that you give them so much attention,"
The Earth is so special that it is God's foot stool (Isaiah 66:1) "This is what the LORD says: "Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. ..."
Thanks for reading. Have a good day.
