http://www.geocentrism.com/ - An objective scientific proof of geocentrism, and what BIG SCIENCE doesn't want you to know

Iwasamwillbe

We are Legion. We are one.
kiwifarms.net
http://www.geocentrism.com/

We have all been told since knee high that the earth goes around the sun. It has become such an accepted fact, that almost no one questions it. What this website will do is to show that in fact geocentrism has never been disproven; that the current theories about the universe are based on a long string of assumptions, which if changed would cause us to radically reinterpret our observations; that science has no direct proof for these assumptions, but rather chooses them as a philosophical choice; that many observations could be interpreted as proof of geocentrism (geostationism) just as readily, and in some cases more so than current big-bang, acentric, expanding universe cosmology.

THE PRINCIPLE- The Movie Big Science Does NOT want YOU to see. SEE IT NOW.

Is Geocentrism Possible?
by Mark Wyatt

April 10, 2008


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. So much so that this failure has become the bedrock of relativity theory. See Galileo Was Wrong for a full explanation of these experiments.
Many, many observations tell us that we are in or very near the center. But science applies unproven assumptions to make this go away (i.e., isotropy). They say that every where looks like the center. But they do not know that- they have never been anywhere else (anywhere in the solar system is our backyard). Stephen Hawking (In A Short History of Time) claims we make that assumption out of modesty (while verifying that there is no scientific evidence for it).
Frankly, we just do not know. Science has its theories (based in naturalism and materialism- i.e., excluding the possiblity of God's intervention). Until we can step outside the universe and look in we cannot know. See Geocentrism 101, parts I and II for discussion of some of these issues.
On the other hand, Scriptures, the Church fathers, and a number of popes do tell us that the earth is stable and that the sun moves [around the earth]. See Geocentrism 101, part III and the supplement for discussion of the religious aspect of geocentrism.
A Few Quotations
Note these are based on general relativity, but not all evidence for geocentrism requires general relativity. It must be pointed out that Einstein set out to include Mach's Principle in general relativity, and to some degree succeeded. Mach's Principle is a basic statement about inertia, which supports the possibility of geocentrism.

Max Born said in his famous book,"Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:

...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.




Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system

The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS 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.






George Ellis, a famous cosmologist, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995

People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “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.”



Sir Fred Hoyle,Astronomy and Cosmology - A Modern Course, (San Francisco:W. H. Freeman & Co.), p. 416,1975.

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.

Current Science Excludes Geocentrism Through Unproven Assumptions
by Mark Wyatt

April 10, 2008


Astronomy has not disprovevn geocentrism. In fact astronomy has provided a lot of evidence that supports geocentrism. Cosmology has created models, based on many unproven assumptions, that would make the observations of astronomy reject geocentrism. But if we took alternate assumptions, then those same observations would support geocentrism. What are some of those assumptions (let's look at 3)?

1. Isotropy- the universe looks the same in any direction (and from any place)

2. Homogeneity- The make-up of the universe is more or less the same everywhere.

Points 1 and 2 taken together are called the Cosmological Principle. Since it is a "principle", this means that pretty much all cosmologists, astronomers, etc. will make this assumption. Wikipedia simplifies that Cosmological Principle "on a large scale the universe is pretty much the same everywhere". What does Wikipedia call on for support?

Observed isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), combined with the Copernican principle

And what is the Copernican "Principle"? (again from the Wikipedia article on the Copernican Principle)

In cosmology, the Copernican principle, named after Nicolaus Copernicus, states the Earth is not in a central, specially favoured position. More recently, the principle is generalised to the simple statement that humans are not privileged observers. In this sense, it is equivalent to the mediocrity principle, with significant implications in the philosophy of science.

Sounds a little circular to me!

What does Stephen Hawking say about these principles (A Brief History of Time)? My emphasis:

Stephen Hawking

...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.

Let us continue on the assumptions.

3. The nature of redshift- two leading ones are expansion of the universe and gravitational interpretation. The big bang model of course chooses the first one.

Interestingly, a top 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.


Let's see what George Ellis, himself said regarding his theory.

George Ellis, a famous cosmologist, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995

People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. "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.”



Interstingly enough, what do you think the title of Paul Davie's piece regarding George Ellis' model was? Interesting New Interpertation of Redshifts? No. Unique New Model Supports Earth's Centrality? No.

It was titled:

Cosmic Heresy?
Nature, 273:336, 1978

When Marcus Chown investigated the apparent alignement of the CMB and our ecliptic, what did he title his article? CMB aligned with Earth? No. Apparent Correlation of CMB and Solar System? No.

He called it:

Marcus Chown,
Axis of Evil Warps Cosmic Background,
New Scientist, October 22, 2005

What did Edwin Hubble write when he first discovered redshifts moving away from the earth everywhere he looked? Wow, look, we may be in the center? No.Hey we appear to have a central position, but maybe there are alternate explanations? No.


He 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."

You have to underatand the history behind many of the observations and their interpretations, especially the Hubble quote. Edwin Hubble resisted general relativity for a long time. He also initially resisted the interpretation of redshift as expansion (or velocity to be more general). Recall an alternate interpretation of redshift is gravitation (as discussed in the Paul Davies quote).

What the Hubble quote implies is that rejecting general relativty (which allowed the "spatial curvature" and expansion) and redshift as expansion leads to an earth in a "unique position" (i.e., "centrally located"). an earth in a "unique position" is a "horror", "intolerable", etc., though "the hypothesis [of a unique position] cannot be disproved" (Davies and Hawking) and in fact "appears consistent with our astronomical observations" (Davies). So, rather than deal with an observationally (and also dynamically) viable option, so-called 'objective Science' chooses to "disregard this possibility".

The point is that the cosmology which excludes geocentrism is creatd by choosing certain of all the assumptions that need to be made (and cannot be verified). Making other assumptions turn our observations into us being at or near the center. Galileo Was Wrong has quote after quote where scientist after scientist state explicitly that they wll disregard observations of centrality (or non-movement). Galileo Was Wrong also demonstrates that it is dyanmically and kinetically possible.

Observations Indicating Geocentrism
by Mark Wyatt

April 10, 2008


There are a number of observations and experimental results which indicate that:

1. We are in a central location;

2. We are not moving;

After reading the section on Big Bang Assumptions, you should realize that our observations are shaped by our assumptions and our philosophy. The philosophical view that typifies the type of philosophy that shapes current cosmology and cosmogony is nicely summarized by Paul Davies, editor of Naturejournal in his comments on George Ellis' observationally accurate model with earth in a prefererd (central) position:

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,...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.

This philosophy has a direct impact on what cosmologists will and will not consider, and directly impacts how they create their models. As George Ellis said in his article (quoted in Assumptions):

...we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.

And as Hubble said regarding his apparent observations of centrality (again, see Assumptions):

...we disregard this possibility...

There are many more examples, but this will suffice to make the point. So, if we really want to get back to basics we should start with observations and basic experiments. Astronomers are constantly mapping and categorizing the skies. One phenomenon, which does imply centrality are isotropic distributions i.e., observations that some phenomenon surrounds us equally from all directions.

Redshift

On previous pages we have already commented on redshift. Hubble was one of the discoverers of redshift. He detected redshift isotropically distributed all around us.

He 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."
Science has disregarded the possibility of redshifts indicating that (as we observe) we actually are in the center. As Hubble indicated, instead, science has adopted general relativity to "escape" the possibilty. Amusingly, general relativity is one of the cosmological frameworks that allows geocentrism!
Stephen Hawking has stated that we disregard the possibility out of "modesty" (See Assumptions).
As we know, another interpretation of redshift is a gravitational phenomenon. As Paul Davies said in Nature, while discussing this very issue,
...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!...

Gamma Ray Bursts

Gamma ray bursts are distributed isotropically throughout our view. They show-up, roughly one per day randomly in the sky. The following figure shows 2704 GRBs detected by the BATSE satellite.



According to Jonathan I. Katz, in The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts, the Most Violent Explosions in the Universe (2002), GRBs are aCopernican Dilemna:

The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center (some other extremely contrived and implausible distributions are also possible). But Copernicus taught us that we are not in a special preferred position in the universe; Earth is not at the center of the solar system, the Sun is not at the center of the galaxy, and so forth. There is no reason to believe we are at the center of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts. If our instruments are sensitive enough to detect bursts at the edge of the spatial distribution, then they should not be isotropic on the sky, contrary to observation; if our instruments are less sensitive, then the N ∝ S-3/2 law should hold, also contrary to observation. That is the Copernican dilemma.

This dilemna has led science to propose that the GRBs occur billions of light years away, and are caused by stars collapsing into black holes producing astronomical amounts of energy. All because they cannot tolerate the alternative (we are in a central position).

More detailed discussion is availble on the gamma ray burst page of this site.
http://www.geocentrism.com/geo101.htm

Please follow the following links. Eventually I will port these articles over to this web site, and improve on them.

Geocentrism 101, Part I: Basic Principles

This article discusses the foundations of geocentrism. It introduces the concepts which will be built upon in Part II.

Geocentrism 101, Part II: Basic Physics
This article discusses the possibility of geocentrism from the perspective of physics.

Geocentrism 101, Part III: Scriptural and Church Position
This article discusses geocentrism from Scriptures and proclamations and actions of the Church.

Geocentrism 101, Supplement: Discussion of Scripture and Church Position
This article provides more detailed discussion on Scriptures and position of the Church.

http://www.geocentrism.com/gww.htm

Galileo Was Wrong
A Two Volume Set

By Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett


The Galileo Was Wrong book is now complete. Currently, there are two volumes available:

1. Galileo Was Wrong, the Church Was Right, Volume I: The Scientific Case for Geocentrism, by Dr. Robert Sungenis and Dr. Robert Bennett. 650 pgs.

2. Galileo Was Wrong, the Church Was Right, Volume II :

The Historical Case for Geocentrism, by Dr. Robert Sungenis. 400 pages.

The books are available in hardback, downloadable PDF, or on cdrom. The cdrom contains many extras, including animations of the geocentric and heliocentric system, including parallax, retrograde motion, the seasons, Newton's laws of motion, Greek and Indian systems, plus more. Purchase of the hardcover books will include a cdrom.


Vol. I (the Scientific Evidence) demonstrates through history, philosophy, and mainly through science itself that modern science has not demonstrated that the earth moves or is not in the center of the universe. It demonstrates that in fact observation after observation and experiment after experiment indicate that the earth does not move and is in the center of the universe. Scientist after scientist admit candidly that "it appears that the earth is standing still" or that " we appear to have a priviliged position" (i.e., are at center). Of course science offers complicated explanations as to why every observation indicates that we are at the center and not moving, yet somehow actually we are not at center and are moving. By studying the history of the observations and experiments the authors clearly show that the observations and experimental results, when they present themselves, are rejected out of hand by the scientists, without even considering one of the simplest explanations- THE EARTH IS AT CENTER AND IS NOT MOVING. Rather science becomes more complicated to reconcile the observations with the undemonstrated assertion that the earth is moving and not in the center. Now we must accept that the universe is a 4-dimensional hypercube or doughnut (in order to escape the possibility that we are at center) and that objects (and clocks) shrink in the direction of travel (to escape the interferometric evidence that we are not circling the sun at 30 km/second), etc.


The second volume contains sections on Scriptural support for geocentrism, the view of the fathers and theologians, and a very large section on the ecclesial case for geocentrism, amongst other things.

The second volume is very important. It clears up the statements of the popes, it explains what actually happened in 1822, it explains what John Paul II actually said in 1992, and much more, incuding the true extent of what occured at the Galileo trial. Volume II conclusively shows that the Church did support geocentrism solidly through at least 1833, then to some degree became ambivalent to it without reversing its earlier decrees. Volume II also presents the Scriptural and patristic consensus for geocentrsim, the basis of the action of the popes.

Both these books are a "must read " for serious students of truth. This topic challenges a basic consensus in our current world. Very few in the centuries since Galileo have taken the time, and done the research to present the case for geocentrism. Almost all commentators start with the presumption that the earth moves, then attempt to reconcile the evidence to the presumption.

All who read Galileo Was Wrong will be pleasantly suprised at what occurs when a researcher is open to the possibity of geocentrism. Things become more sraight forward and simple. There is no need to deconstruct Urban VIII's intent (i.e., he was insulted by Galileo), no need to read a condemnation of geoecentrism into John Paul II's 1992 speech (where none was stated). There is no need to ignore the fact that most observations place us in the center and not moving, then try to create more complex scientific theories to reconcile the observations with theory (i.e., making matter shrink, time contract, space warp, etc.).

What do you people think of this geocentrism advocacy website?
 

Sprig of Parsley

kiwifarms.net
I'm just so fucking amazed that something that was pretty well goddamn settled to the point of the fundie-est fundies not saying jack or shit to the contrary is being dug up and walked around again like it's some profound shit

Like, god damn, was Creationism just too fucking passe by now? Did Ken Ham manage to beat that horse beyond recognition? Was the Flat Earth movement a bit too much for them?

They just kind of looked at all the hills available to die on and said "Yup, that one there. That one that anyone with a decent grasp of mathematics, astronomy and sanity can turn into a smoking crater. That's where I'm going to die."
 

break these cuffs

pic related: its me and my bitch
kiwifarms.net
YOU KNOW WHAT!!! You are educated stupid as teachers lack intelligence. Truth is Cubic. Time is Cubic... Life is Cubic.... Form is Cubic.. Family is Cubic.. Village is Cubic.. Evil is cubeless. Self is cubeless. God is cubeless. Language is a human invention of an evil cubeless singularity.
 

Zeke Von Genbu

BRINGER OF CHAOS
kiwifarms.net
All of these things are wrong, the earth doesn't go around the sun nor does the sun go around the earth. It goes around me, if I were on Mars the sun would go around Mars. I have been told this by God himself, so BTFO libtards.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: PsychoNerd054

Iwasamwillbe

We are Legion. We are one.
kiwifarms.net
...Think you could find enough to give it a devoted thread in Community Watch? This shit is infuriating and hilarious. Infurilarious. I would say I'm surprised people like this exist, but I'd be lying.
Maybe, when I get the time.

Of course assuming there isn't a thread already of these (types of) people.
 

PsychoNerd054

Reporter of the Double Posts
kiwifarms.net
Flat Earth Theory and Geocentrism debates are the most vanilla things someone can stroke their neckbeard in.
 

Watcher

Cishet dudebro
kiwifarms.net
Like, god damn, was Creationism just too fucking passe by now? Did Ken Ham manage to beat that horse beyond recognition? Was the Flat Earth movement a bit too much for them?
The reason they’re doing it has more to do with their own feelings of inadequacy. They dislike how much information there is about a subject and prefer a simpler answer.

There’s a lot of comparisons to be made with conspiracy theorists (and significantly more research into the latter) where it’s shown it has far more to do with an individual’s desire for control over their life and their unwillingness to trust in authority.

The reason Creationism lacks the same spark is because it’s based around a literalistic interpretation of a religious belief and because there’s always ambiguity with religious belief there’s no feeling like “I was lied to my whole life you’re all sheep”. Most of the time it’s more “I was taught that the Bible was always accurate when I was 4 so fuck you for saying it isn’t”
 
  • Agree
Reactions: dannyfrickenp

MAPK phosphatase

Cell Death Regulator
kiwifarms.net
Rather than just say "lol this guy is an idiot", which we can do plenty of, lets also talk about how we know the earth goes around the sun.
The way science works is that you develop a model and test that model using observations. If the model doesn't agree with observations, it's wrong. This is the case for every scientific model. If a model cannot be tested in this way, it's not scientific. Doesn't mean it's wrong, just not in the preview of what can be tested by science.
The idea that the sun goes around the earth has it's roots in the simple observation that the earth doesn't appear to move, while the sun moves across the sky, rising in the east, and setting in the west and much to the shagrin of flat-earthers it maintains the same angular size in the sky at every point throughout the day. This would suggest that the sun moves around the earth. The same with the moon. It's a model that's supported by observations, or rather, isn't disprove by observations if we're going pure Karl Popper's philosophy of science. All good, right? Well, not quite. Because there's more than the sun, earth, and moon to worry about.
Introducing Venus. This image is a time-lapse, the telescope was not moved or zoomed in over time, it was just taken at the same time of day each day.
750903
Honestly I could be done right now. That image alone disproves geocentrism. But let me explain it.
The moon orbits around the earth, and we know this because it maintains the same angular size in the sky in it's orbit. Due to relativity we know that there is no absolute reference frame, so we know the same is true from the moon. Really they orbit each other, like how the earth and sun orbits each other, but the point of orbit is within the earth so we say that the moon goes around the earth, but not visa versa.
Back to the picture of Venus. This picture was taken from earth. The source is right there, TBGS Observatory. The website for the observatory should look like a highly reputable source of information to the geocentric guy. The picture shows the orbit of Venus over the course of 5 months. You can see clearly that Venus shrinks over time, telling us that it's moving away which is not something you see to this degree with the sun or moon you do see it just a bit because the earth's oribt is elliptical so the sun is slightly further away at some points in the year, but the sun doesn't shrink by more than half.
You can also see the shape of the light across the surface of the plant telling us where the sun it. That light is pointing to the sun, in fact, and it's telling us that Venus goes around the sun, not around earth.
But my argument wouldn't be very good if it depended on just one image. Behold, mars.
750910
Once again, a time lapse. Now this doesn't look very much like mars is going around earth. It does a loop, and grows in size. We're looking at the loop from the top. You can see mars is smaller on the "legs" and bigger at the center of the loop, where it comes towards us, then it shrinks away and heads off into the distance. What we're seeing is the result of the earth and mars both going around the sun at the same time. This behavior is what you would expect with earth and mars pulling an an elliptical orbit around the sun.
750929

However the most important piece of all of this is that it doesn't require the invention of extra forces and it doesn't require that we miraculously hold celestial bodies stable.
You could hold the earth stable and have the planets trace their loops through the sky around the earth. That looks something like this.
750924
or you could place the sun at the center and have a much more clean and usable model.
750926

As for the CMBR and redshift stuff, someone more experienced in the field is going to need to tackle that to break down exactly how it is wrong.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

We are on the Brave BAT program. Consider using Brave as your Browser. It's like Chrome but doesn't tell Google what you masturbate to.

BTC: 1EiZnCKCb6Dc4biuto2gJyivwgPRM2YMEQ
BTC+SW: bc1qwv5fzv9u6arksw6ytf79gfvce078vprtc0m55s
ETH: 0xc1071c60ae27c8cc3c834e11289205f8f9c78ca5
LTC: LcDkAj4XxtoPWP5ucw75JadMcDfurwupet
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino