Deconstructing the History of Heliocentrism and Modern Physics

A fundamental idea in the geography of ancient China is "round sky and square earth." It first appeared, according to the Chinese scientists (I will not argue if they are correct or not... ;)) at least 2,000 years ago and has had a considerable negative and positive impact on Chinese topography. The history of geographical philosophy is a recent academic topic in China. This change first started in the 1980's and "The center of geographical history" has emerged (Yang 1989, p. 7; Wang 1982, p. 4).

The history of exploration, cartography, and the geographers themselves received more focus in earlier studies of ancient Chinese geography.The idea of a circular sky and a square earth was not given any consideration.


Chinese astronomy in antiquity was founded on this fundamental world view.

The Gnomon of the Zhou, a fundamental collection of writings composed during the Han dynasty, confirmed that the sky was a revolving umbrella located far above the square earth.

We shouldn't think that the Chinese were prevented from creating an advanced and precise astronomy by their view of the world.

All things considered, the calendar was an imperial prerogative. The Emperor also needed to be mindful of natural occurrences like eclipses since they served as a warning that the heavenly authorities were not happy with his rule. The Imperial Astronomical Bureau has been in charge of keeping an eye on the sky and establishing the calendar since ancient times.



It seems that for all these people everything is about taking advantage... Ricci understood that the Jesuits needed to be both necessary and non-threatening if his colleagues were to be permitted to publicly preach. He had the chance to demonstrate how useful he could be by studying European geography and astronomy. Late in 1595, Ricci wrote letters outlining what he had learned about the Chinese worldview.
He observed that they believed the earth to be flat and square and the sky to be a circular canopy. In private, he dismissed these opinions, but he was aware that he needed to use caution in his attempts to correct them. He chose his first project after observing how Chinese guests at the Jesuits' mansion would stare at a world map that was displayed on the wall.

Ricci was very influential which is why i hope to give http://library.lol/main/F25A4C4275F42DE62E68C59BED899A72 Manufacturing Confucianism a closer look. Jesuit influence on perceptions of Chinese perceptions.
 
Coincidentally or not, the modern pursuit of wisdom begins (and ends) with an examination of heliocentrism. The publication of Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962 alerted the world to the fact that basic paradigm theories are more sociological than scientific. Kuhn himself contended himself with instancing the Copernican Revolution and leaving it at that, academics have contented themselves with instancing Kuhn and leaving it that.

They are all terrified of going any further because the clear implication of Kuhn's work is that all basic paradigm theories are of their nature deeply suspect. Nobody minds people of the past being laughed at for believing risible things, everybody minds being laughed at for believing risible things themselves.
Leeds Uni 1993 course - History and Philosophy of Science - Kuhn's book was the primary text . Totally stunned to hear in the first lecture that the heliocentric model was introduced without any new evidence, observation or experiment. Plucked out of thin air.

Why the need to, or how do we deconstruct something that has no basis in reality ?
 
Leeds Uni 1993 course - ... the heliocentric model was introduced without any new evidence, observation or experiment. Plucked out of thin air.

Why the need to, or how do we deconstruct something that has no basis in reality ?
The quickie version. Heliocentrism - Wikipedia

Copernicus strung the pope along. His theoretical math supporting heliocentrism not published until a year after he died.

Like certain other manias...the new theory was backed by real or implied threats and force. Inquisition - Wikipedia

Why the need to?

... Forgive my language but they do some things "for the hell of it".
 
The quickie version. Heliocentrism - Wikipedia

Copernicus strung the pope along. His theoretical math supporting heliocentrism not published until a year after he died.

Like certain other manias...the new theory was backed by real or implied threats and force. Inquisition - Wikipedia

Why the need to?

... Forgive my language but they do some things "for the hell of it".
There is no mathematical heliocentric model as far as I can see. It is impossible to model the heliocentric model -it's known as the n-body problem . Science or maths cannot model a solar system moving through space . We cannot compute a rocket path from a rotating body travelling an elliptical orbit at 66000mph to the moon whizzing around that body. That is because we don't have a workable mathematical model. This part is not opinion.

That we can predict eclipses and planetary positions is down to observation . A mathematical model may then be built on these observations. Tycho Brahe did this and came up with his geocentric model . Explained all his observations.

This part is opinion .Wikipedia is basically written by nitwits , like heliocentrism - it's a tool used by the controlling fkn idiots to distort and rewrite history. Cox and deGrarse - I rest my case.
 
There is no mathematical heliocentric model as far as I can see. It is impossible to model the heliocentric model -it's known as the n-body problem . Science or maths cannot model a solar system moving through space . We cannot compute a rocket path from a rotating body travelling an elliptical orbit at 66000mph to the moon whizzing around that body. That is because we don't have a workable mathematical model. This part is not opinion.

That we can predict eclipses and planetary positions is down to observation . A mathematical model may then be built on these observations. Tycho Brahe did this and came up with his geocentric model . Explained all his observations.

This part is opinion .Wikipedia is basically written by nitwits , like heliocentrism - it's a tool used by the controlling fkn idiots to distort and rewrite history. Cox and deGrarse - I rest my case.
66000 mph - and there it is again. So do you believe that the likes of Brian Cox and De Grasse Tyson know they’re spouting garbage or are they useful idiots who believe all the crap they read?
 
This thread is exclusvely for deconstructing the mainstream model of astrophysics, including quantum physics, which is the foundation for the heliocentric model. There seems to be a lot of data indicating that humans always believed in the stationary earth, and only during the last hundreds years did the PTB manage to replace it with the belief in the exact opposite.

Questions for further research:

  • When did people start to believe in heliocentrism
  • Who was involved in promoting heliocentrism
  • Nature of the evidence of widespread historical belief in a stationary earth
  • cosmology in myths and religions supporting a stationary earth
  • Evidence showing that modern physics was solely created to support the heliocentric lie, to destroy our connecton to the truth, our own history, and creator

This thread is not for promoting a new belief system about the exact shape of the earth.

Previously, I wrote the following, which could offer a good start at thinking about ways to destroy the heliocentric paradigm:

130 years ago the Michelson and Morley experiment implied that the earth does not move, because in that time it was generally accepted that the aether exist. From that the PTB managed to twist the results, saying the experiment proves that if the earth is in motion, then the aether does not exist.

Einstein was called to the stage and managed to create an insane and absurd theoretical model that explained everything away that Michelson and Morley implied: Light-speed was now a constant, and the aether did not exist anymore. With light-speed as a constant, the michelson and morley experiment suddenly did not mean that the earth is stationary, but that the aether did not exist.

Without Einstein, there would have been no practical way of explaining the stationary earth away. He basically saved mainstream physics.

Einstein's gibberish theory came with the high price that everything since then in physics is utter bullshit, and it is so complicated even on the theoretical level that it doesn't even make sense to the people who come up with the models.

The NASA lies play into all of this to keep the fantasy alive.

Most of our true history is already lost, but if somehow enough people start to see through the fables of modern physics and NASA, it could lead to a mass realization of us not living on a convex globe. From that an entirely new way of interpreting history could start, with questioning the concepts of evolution/genetics, materialism, atheism, religion and other aspects the PTB have installed during the last 200 years.

It isn't likely that people wake up in regards to physics, but I think it's the most plausible catalyst for change, as history itself is too abstract to matter for people, and physics at least is the foundation for the entire space saga, and I am not sure the PTB will manage to keep up the lie for ongoing generations, even with the availability of CGI.
I am very glad to see this posting. I graduated in Engineering Physics many years ago and spent my latter years teaching math and physics until I could no longer due to my wife’s Alzheimer’s.
Frankly I have had my problems with the atomic theory for some time. I know you are dealing with QP but wonder if you go back further since helio’ certainly in a precursor to the revolution of electrons around a nucleus.
The heliocentric model was adopted after Kepler took over Tycho Brahe's work. Tycho Brahe was a proponent of the geocentric model and he was one of the leading scientists at the time and had done years of observations that he had kept to himself.
Tycho Brahe was poisoned, which is how Kepler allegedly got control of his data and research. Kepler took this research and reframed it in the context of the heliocentric model, which was then popularized. Anoher possibility is that Kepler simply made up the data and credited it to Tycho Brahe, who "had kept it hidden from everyone".

Reading Tycho Brahes work might be a good start.
In the 70’s I came across a publication called The Tychonian Society. A publication was produced —-until he died in the early 80’s—- by a Dutch Canadian. The objective was geocentrism not FE.
 
66000 mph - and there it is again. So do you believe that the likes of Brian Cox and De Grasse Tyson know they’re spouting garbage or are they useful idiots who believe all the crap they read?
66,600mph to be a bit more exact ha . They portray themselves as useful idiots and get well paid for doing so. I know they spout garbage but whether they believe that stuff I don't know.

HI Cgary, some very intriguing info on a new Tychonic system at this site :

Cluesforum—Exposing Mass Deception - Index page

Well worth a look
 
This is an interesting read, so I am sharing it with you!

BULLETIN OF THE TYCHONIAN SOCIETY
Number 44 — July, 1987​

When I first got interested in the flat-earthers more than a decade ago, I was surprised to learn that flat—earthism in the English—speaking world is and always has been entirely based upon the Bible. I have since assembled and read an extensive collection of flat-earth literature. The Biblical arguments for flat-earthism that follow come mainly from my reading of flat—earth literature, augmented by my own reading of the Bible.

To begin on common ground, readers of this journal already know that the Bible describes an immovable earth. The real essence of geocentricity is the fixity of the earth and its primacy as a reference. At the 1984 National Bible—Science Conference in Cleveland, James N. Hanson told me there are hundreds of scriptures that suggest the earth is immovable. I suspect some must be a bit vague, but here are a few obvious texts:

  • 1 Chronicles 16:30: *He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.*
  • 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: fixed it fast ..."who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself

Suffice to say that the earth envisioned by fiat-earthers is as immovable as any Tychonian could desire. Most (perhaps all) scriptures commonly cited by geocentrists have also been cited by fiat-earthers. Consider them subsumed. The fiat-earth view is geocentricity with further restrictions.Like more conventional geocentrists, fiat-earth advocates often give long lists of texts. Samuel Birley Rowbotham, founder of the modern flat-earth movement, cited 76 scriptures in the last chapter of his monumental second edition of Earlh not a Globe (1873, 364-395). Apostle Anton Darms, assistant to the Reverend Wilbur Glenn Voliva, America’s best known flat-earther, compiled 50 questions about the creation and the shape of the earth, bolstering his answers with up to 20 scriptures each (Darms, 1930). Rather than presenting an exhaustive compendium of flat-earth scriptures, I focus on those which are (in my view) the strongest. I also comment on some attempts to find the earth’s sphericity in the Bible.

Scriptural quotes, unless otherwise noted, are from the New English Bible. Hebrew and Greek translations are from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. A word about interpretation; Because the Bible is a composite work, there is no a priori reason why the cosmology assumed by its various writers should be entirely consistent. (Many Christians assume the Bible is without error, but that assumption is logically inadmissible in exploring questions of error.) As it is never explicitly stated, the Biblical cosmology must be pieced together from scattered passages.

As it happens, it is relatively consistent. The Bible is, from Genesis to Revelation, a flat—earth book. This is hardly surprising. As neighbors, the ancient Hebrews had the Egyptians to the southwest and the Babylonians to the northeast. Both civilizations bad flat-earth cosmologies. The Biblical cosmology closely parallels the Sumero-Babylonian cosmology, and it may also draw upon Egyptian cosmology.

The Babylonian universe was shaped like a modern domed stadium. The Babylonians considered the earth essentially flat, with a continental mass surrounded by ocean. The vault of the sky was a physical object resting upon the ocean’s waters (and perhaps also upon pillars). Sweet (salt-free) waters below the Earth sometimes manifest themselves as springs. The Egyptian universe was also enclosed, but it was rectangular instead of round. Indeed, it was shaped much like an old-fashioned steamer trunk. (The Egyptians pictured the goddess Nut stretched across the sky as the enclosing dome.) What was the Hebrew view of the universe?

The Order of Creation

We will start with creation, for it is the key. The order of creation makes no sense from a conventional perspective but is perfectly logical from a flat-earth viewpoint. The earth was created on the first day, and it was "without form and void (Genesis 1:2)."

On the second day, a vault - the "firmament" of the King James version - was created to divide the waters, some being above and some below the vault. Only on the fourth day were the sun, moon, and stars created, and they were placed "in" (not "above") the vault.

The Vault of Heaven

The vault, of heaven is a crucial concept. The word "firmament* appears in the King James version of the Old Testament 17 times, and in each case it is translated from the Hebrew word raqiya, which meant the visible vault of the sky. The word raqiya comes from riqqua, meaning "beaten out." In ancient times, brass objects were either cast in the form required or beaten into shape on an anvil. A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl. Thus, Elihu asks Job, "Can you beat out (raqa) the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?"
Job 9:8, "... who by himself spread out the heavens (shamayim) ..."

Psalm 19:1, "The heavens [shamayim] tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven [raqiya] reveals bis handiwork."

Psalm 102:25, *... the heavens (shamayim) were thy handiwork."

Isaiah 45:12, "I, with my own bands, stretched out the heavens [shamayim] and caused all their host to shine ..."

Isaiah 48:13, "... with my right hand I formed the expanse of the sky [shamayim] ..."

If these verses are about the illusion of a vault, they are surely much ado about nothing. Shamayim comes from shameh, a root meaning to be lofty. It literally means the sky. Other passages complete the picture of the sky as a lofty, physical dome.

God "sits throned on the vaulted roof of earth (chuwg), whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the skies (shamayim] like a curtain, he spreads them out like a tent to live in... (Isaiah 40:22|."

Chuwg literally means "circle" or "encompassed." By extension, it can mean roundness, as in a rounded dome or vault. Job 22:14 says God "walks to and fro on the vault of heaven (chuwg)." In both verses, the use of chuwg implies a physical object, on which one can sit and walk. Likewise, the context in both cases requires elevation. In Isaiah, the elevation causes the people below to look small as grasshoppers. In Job, God’s eyes must penetrate the clouds to view the doings of humans below. Elevation is also implied by Job 22:12:

"Surely God is at the zenith of the heavens (shamayim) and looks down on all the stars, high as they are.”

This picture of the cosmos is reinforced by Ezekiel’s vision. The Hebrew word raqiya appears five limes in Ezekiel, four times in Ezekiel 1:22—26 and once in Ezekiel 10:1. In each case the context requires a literal vault or dome. The vault appears above the "living creatures" and glitters "like a sheet of ice." Above the vault is a throne of sapphire (or lapis lazuli). Seated on the throne is "a form in human likeness," which is radiant and "like the appearance of the glory of the Lord." In short, Ezekiel saw a vision of God sitting throned on the vault of heaven, as described in Isaiah 40:22.

The Shape of the Earth

Disregarding the dome, the essential flatness of the earth’s surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11. Daniel "saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth ... reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth’s farthest bounds." If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tali tree would be visible to "the earth’s farthest bounds," but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, "Once again, the devil look him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world (cosmosj in their glory." Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: "Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him ..."

The Celestial Bodies

The Hebrews considered the celestial bodies relatively small. The Genesis creation story indicates the size and importance of the earth relative to the celestial bodies in two ways, first by their order of creation, and second by their positional relationships. They had to be small to fit inside the vault of heaven. Small size is also implied by Joshua 10:12, which says that the sun stood still "in Gibeon" and the moon "in the Vale of Aijalon."

Further, the Bible frequently presents celestial bodies as exotic living beings. For example, "In them (the heavens), a tent is fixed for the sun, who comes out like a bridegroom from his wedding canopy, rejoicing like a strong man to run his race. His rising is at one end of the heavens, his circuit touches their farthest ends; and nothing is hidden from his heat (Psalm 19:4-6)." The stars are anthropomorphic demigods. When the earth’s cornerstone was laid "the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted aloud (Job 38:7)." The morning star is censured for trying to set his throne above that of other stars:
You thought in your own mind, I will scale the heavens; I will set mythrone high above the stars of God, I will sit on the mountain where the gods meet in the far recesses of the north. I will rise high above the cloud-banks and make myself like the most high (Isaiah 14 :13-14 ).​
Deuteronomy 4:15—19 recognizes the god-like status of stars, noting that they were created for other peoples to worship.

Stars can fall from the skies according to Daniel 8:10 and Matthew 24:29. The same idea is found in the following snippets from Revelation 6:13-16:
... the stars in the sky fell to the earth, like figs shaken down by a gale; the sky vanished, as a scroll is rolled up ... they called out to the mountains and the crags, 'Fall on us and hide us from the face of the One who sits on the throne ..."​

This is consistent with the Hebrew cosmology previously described, but it is ludicrous in the light of modern astronomy. If one star - let alone all the stars in the sky - "fell" on the earth, no one would be hollering from any mountain or crag. The writer considered the stars small objects, all of which could fall to the earth without eradicating human life. He also viewed the sky as a physical object. The stars are inside the sky, and they fall before the sky opens. When it is whisked away, it reveals the One throned above (see Isaiah 40:22).​

And if you want more, feel free to read!

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org...Tychonian Society (Number 44 - July 1987).pdf
 
Well this is kinda off topic a bit but there's quite a lot of 'astrophotograpy' pages on fb and insta, this one caught my eyes because it has this alledged "historical" connection from 1000yrs lol

Screenshot_20230203-004309_Facebook.jpg

Screenshot_20230203-005255_Facebook.jpg

FB_IMG_1675395780256.jpg
 
As things stand right now, heliocentrists can demolish geocentricity in less than two minutes. Exactly what happened to Bob Knodel with his RLG. All they have to do is to present the MGX (not to mention all of the ring laser gyroscopes currently in use today). They have a formula and a very well defined experiment. All of the geocentrists are practically helpless, since they only have a working knowledge of the MGX, and of the issues involved. They do not even have the correct Sagnac effect formula. That is why all of the astronomers will reply: epurr si muove, using the results of the MGX (and of the RLGs).

If one desires to actually prove that the Earth does not revolve around its own axis, he/she would need to derive the correct Sagnac effect formula, something that Michelson, Einstein, Lorentz, Post were not able to accomplish.
 
66,600mph to be a bit more exact ha . They portray themselves as useful idiots and get well paid for doing so. I know they spout garbage but whether they believe that stuff I don't know.

HI Cgary, some very intriguing info on a new Tychonic system at this site :

Cluesforum—Exposing Mass Deception - Index page

Well worth a look
An interesting video clip shows Brian Cox being asked about flat earth - his response is disproportionately apoplectic. ‘The laddy doth protest too much methinks’ to murder a quote.
 
As things stand right now, heliocentrists can demolish geocentricity in less than two minutes. Exactly what happened to Bob Knodel with his RLG. All they have to do is to present the MGX (not to mention all of the ring laser gyroscopes currently in use today). They have a formula and a very well defined experiment. All of the geocentrists are practically helpless, since they only have a working knowledge of the MGX, and of the issues involved. They do not even have the correct Sagnac effect formula. That is why all of the astronomers will reply: epurr si muove, using the results of the MGX (and of the RLGs).

If one desires to actually prove that the Earth does not revolve around its own axis, he/she would need to derive the correct Sagnac effect formula, something that Michelson, Einstein, Lorentz, Post were not able to accomplish.
I have no idea about that , however I did manage to find your post on another forum where you give the "correct" formula for the sagnac effect and can see that it uses that imaginary constant c ,apparently representing the speed of light.

No one has ever measured the velocity of light at any time . Any formula containing the imaginary speed of light belongs in the Book of Nonsense. Bouncing light between rotating mirrors inside electromagnetic fields and God knows what else and pretending through the use of a totally imaginary constant that anything has been proven is not science.
 
This thread is exclusvely for deconstructing the mainstream model of astrophysics, including quantum physics, which is the foundation for the heliocentric model. There seems to be a lot of data indicating that humans always believed in the stationary earth, and only during the last hundreds years did the PTB manage to replace it with the belief in the exact opposite.

Questions for further research:

  • When did people start to believe in heliocentrism
  • Who was involved in promoting heliocentrism
  • Nature of the evidence of widespread historical belief in a stationary earth
  • cosmology in myths and religions supporting a stationary earth
  • Evidence showing that modern physics was solely created to support the heliocentric lie, to destroy our connecton to the truth, our own history, and creator

This thread is not for promoting a new belief system about the exact shape of the earth.

Previously, I wrote the following, which could offer a good start at thinking about ways to destroy the heliocentric paradigm:

130 years ago the Michelson and Morley experiment implied that the earth does not move, because in that time it was generally accepted that the aether exist. From that the PTB managed to twist the results, saying the experiment proves that if the earth is in motion, then the aether does not exist.

Einstein was called to the stage and managed to create an insane and absurd theoretical model that explained everything away that Michelson and Morley implied: Light-speed was now a constant, and the aether did not exist anymore. With light-speed as a constant, the michelson and morley experiment suddenly did not mean that the earth is stationary, but that the aether did not exist.

Without Einstein, there would have been no practical way of explaining the stationary earth away. He basically saved mainstream physics.

Einstein's gibberish theory came with the high price that everything since then in physics is utter bullshit, and it is so complicated even on the theoretical level that it doesn't even make sense to the people who come up with the models.

The NASA lies play into all of this to keep the fantasy alive.

Most of our true history is already lost, but if somehow enough people start to see through the fables of modern physics and NASA, it could lead to a mass realization of us not living on a convex globe. From that an entirely new way of interpreting history could start, with questioning the concepts of evolution/genetics, materialism, atheism, religion and other aspects the PTB have installed during the last 200 years.

It isn't likely that people wake up in regards to physics, but I think it's the most plausible catalyst for change, as history itself is too abstract to matter for people, and physics at least is the foundation for the entire space saga, and I am not sure the PTB will manage to keep up the lie for ongoing generations, even with the availability of CGI.
Correct. The earth doesn't move (revolve) except as a gyroscope!
 
I have no idea about that , however I did manage to find your post on another forum where you give the "correct" formula for the sagnac effect and can see that it uses that imaginary constant c ,apparently representing the speed of light.

Light interferometry is very precise. Let me briefly explain the Sagnac interferometer.

1. The turntable on which the interferometer is being placed is stationary.

http://www.wildheretic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/sagnac1.gif

Nothing out of the ordinary happens, both light beams reach the destination at the same time.

However, now, if we let the turntable rotate at a certain speed, something magical will happen, something so extraordinary that no physicist (no matter who it was, be it Michelson, Einstein, or Lorentz) could explain:

2. https://www.wildheretic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/sagnac-simplified1.gif

There will be a measurable phase shift/delay between the two beams, as the turntable rotates.

As for the speed of light, it is not imaginary at all, it can actually be measured within a reasonable error.

How is the speed of light measured?

Of course, if you personally choose not to agree with these measurements, that's something else.

The Sagnac effect includes another feature, a superluminal speed of one of the beams, c + v.

And it is directly related to the most mysterious question in biology today: the origin of biochirality of molecules (why are almost all of them laevorotatory).

The Sagnac effect proves directly and precisely that the Earth is stationary. What, then, is the nature of the Sun's precessional westward shift? How can we use this fact in order to prove the new chronology of history?

Here is the derivation of my global formula for the Sagnac effect:

New Global Sagnac Effect Formula
 
You posted that "heliocentrists can demolish geocentricity in less than two minutes." - well only with bullshit .

I don't doubt your prowess with Math. You know what your talking about that's obvious . "If the math don't fit use a constant" , some scientist said - can't be arsed digging for his name but it was something to do with the variable Hubble constant after undergoing yet another change.

Why no one has measured the speed of light — Veritasium

Astrophysicist explains why we have never measured the velocity if light. All else is smoke and mirrors to coin a phra.se.

Roemer deduced the speed of light according to the heliocentric assumption the the earth had moved millions of miles between his observations of the eclipses of Jupiters moons.

Science has also never measured the distance to any planet .

Of course motion of earth rotation along an orbital path belongs to the Jesuits. Science has no evidence of any motion and I am glad to see that you have come to that conclusion.

Science make a lot of assumptions concerning the nature of light and the planetary system.

By the way , it was really nice of you to call in again , and please don't take my criticism the wrong way.
 
You posted that "heliocentrists can demolish geocentricity in less than two minutes." - well only with bullshit .

I don't doubt your prowess with Math. You know what your talking about that's obvious . "If the math don't fit use a constant" , some scientist said - can't be arsed digging for his name but it was something to do with the variable Hubble constant after undergoing yet another change.

Why no one has measured the speed of light — Veritasium

Astrophysicist explains why we have never measured the velocity if light. All else is smoke and mirrors to coin a phra.se.
I think the source of the video is questionable:

"He has appeared live on stage with Neil deGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, Space station commander Chris Hadfield, and he co-hosted the 2017 March for Science on the Washington Mall."

This doesn't add credibility in my mind.

I will say that I do agree with your conclusions simply because the 'speed of light' is hyped so consistently by mainstream 'scientists' that it is most likely a deception serving some other agenda.
 
You posted that "heliocentrists can demolish geocentricity in less than two minutes." - well only with bullshit .

Bob Knodel used an expensive ring laser gyroscope to try to debunk heliocentricity. Of course he failed to do so. The disciples of heliocentrism really had a field day with his experiment. What Knodel did not understand was that the 15 degree shift shown by his RLG was actually the rotation of the ether field above the surface of the Earth. He was absolutely unprepared to deal with the heliocentrists.

Astrophysicist explains why we have never measured the velocity if light. All else is smoke and mirrors to coin a phra.se.

That research does not include the one way speed of light Sagnac effect experiments. It is a very specialized field of study:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266603262200014X (substitute the angular velocity of the rotating field of ether for the angular velocity of the Earth)

Science has also never measured the distance to any planet .

Science actually did much more than that, unintentionally. One day, some 90 years ago, Wolfgang Pauli had nothing better to do and performed a direct calculation, on the assumption that the ether does exist. The result he got was immediately censored and taken out of any textbook on astronomy.

https://i.ibb.co/0c3dbvm/31.jpg

"If the electromagnetic field would really have a non vanishing zero-point energy, 'the universe would not even reach to the moon'".

If the ether drift field (zero point energy, scalar waves) does exist, then the radius of curvature of the observable universe is 31 km.

ShieldSquare Captcha

C. P. Enz, A. Thellung : Nullpunktenergie und Anordnung
nicht vertauschbarer Faktoren im Hamiltonoperator ,
Helv. Phys. Acta 33, 839–848 (1960) pg 842

Walther Nernst: grandfather of dark energy?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0810.2213.pdf

J.C. Maxwell's original equations, which were invariant under Galilean transformations, had been modified by both Lorentz and Heaviside in order to eliminate the superluminal etheric component.

By the way , it was really nice of you to call in again , and please don't take my criticism the wrong way.

Your criticism is always welcome.
 
I think the source of the video is questionable:

"He has appeared live on stage with Neil deGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, Space station commander Chris Hadfield, and he co-hosted the 2017 March for Science on the Washington Mall."

This doesn't add credibility in my mind.

I will say that I do agree with your conclusions simply because the 'speed of light' is hyped so consistently by mainstream 'scientists' that it is most likely a deception serving some other agenda.
I don't really know about his credibility , thanks for pointing out his relationship to the other lunatics. The argument , not really an argument at all ,it is just basic physics concerning measurement of velocity of anything ,no theory involved.

Now and again the controllers reveal a grain of truth which will be roundly ignored by academia in my opinion. Academia will cling to the notion that the speed of light = c this wrongly having been elevated to a constant .
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266603262200014X (substitute the angular velocity of the rotating field of ether for the angular velocity of the Earth)



Science actually did much more than that, unintentionally. One day, some 90 years ago, Wolfgang Pauli had nothing better to do and performed a direct calculation, on the assumption that the ether does exist. The result he got was immediately censored and taken out of any textbook on astronomy.

https://i.ibb.co/0c3dbvm/31.jpg

"If the electromagnetic field would really have a non vanishing zero-point energy, 'the universe would not even reach to the moon'".

If the ether drift field (zero point energy, scalar waves) does exist, then the radius of curvature of the observable universe is 31 km.

ShieldSquare Captcha

C. P. Enz, A. Thellung : Nullpunktenergie und Anordnung
nicht vertauschbarer Faktoren im Hamiltonoperator ,
Helv. Phys. Acta 33, 839–848 (1960) pg 842

Walther Nernst: grandfather of dark energy?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0810.2213.pdf

J.C. Maxwell's original equations, which were invariant under Galilean transformations, had been modified by both Lorentz and Heaviside in order to eliminate the superluminal etheric component.



Your criticism is always welcome.
Thanks for those links Sandokhan . Will have to make time to read through those . Look very interesting.
 
The SUN and the MOON were commanded to stand still. Their standing still tells me that they are REVOLVING around a fixed point which is our GYROSCOPIC earth.

"Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel: SUN, stand thou still upon Gibeon and thou, MOON in the valley of Ajalon. And the SUN stood still, and the MOON stayed until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the SUN stood still in the midst of heaven and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it. Joshua 10:13

...and when they were smiting, the day was declining toward evening, and Joshua said in the sight of all the people. SUN, stand thou still upon Gibeon, and thou MIOON in the valley of Ajalon... ...and the Lord hearkened to the voice of Joshua, and the SUN stood still in the midst of the heavens, and the MOON also stood still and there was no day like that before it or after it... Book of Jasher, Chapter 88, Verses 63, 64, 65
 
Tips
Tips
Please respect our Posting Rules.
Back
Top