Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!

Post by Admin on Fri Jan 01, 2016 3:43 pm



In the late 1800s, 4 conclusive experiments performed by the top scientists of their day proved that the Sun, Moon and stars revolve around us, and that Earth is the fixed, motionless center of the universe. The Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale, Airy's Failure and Sagnac experiments scientifically proved Geocentricity and nearly crushed the dying Heliocentric theory when agent Einstein came through with his Special Relativity denial of the proven aether and philosophically (not scientifically) banished the aether from study ever since. An incorrect interpretation of the Michelson-Morley results are now commonly taught and the other 3 experiments are never covered in any university courses. These conclusive peer-reviewed and repeated scientific results are nowhere debated or denied, merely suppressed and ignored. The fact of the matter is, however, that Geocentricity has been conclusively proven for well over a century! Thanks to Malcolm Bowden for the video, for more in-depth explanations of Airy's Failure and Sagnac's experiment click here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87M2i61N1cU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWmlimH7laY
avatar
Admin
Admin

Posts : 701
Points : 3448
Reputation : 2016
Join date : 2015-12-30

View user profile http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:08 pm

Post by jalvarez on Mar 8, 2015 at 1:31am

Doesn't geocentrism teach a round earth?
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1763
Points : 4936
Reputation : 2528
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:09 pm

Post by Admin on Mar 8, 2015 at 3:14am

Geocentricism just means "Earth-centered" cosmology, whereas Heliocentricism means "Sun-centered" cosmology. The Earth could be any shape and still be Geocentric or Heliocentric. Many people like Malcolm Bowden and Marshall Hall for example have figured out the truth of Geocentricism, but still haven't figured out the Geocentric Flat Earth.
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1763
Points : 4936
Reputation : 2528
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:10 pm

Post by Admin on Mar 8, 2015 at 3:17am

"Ignorant folk think that such minority opinions as Geocentrism are the 'conspiracy theories'... There is a real conspiracy for sure but the sad thing is it is mostly a conspiracy of willful and apathetic ignorance (for numerous reasons). The very people who would call Geocentrists 'quack conspiracy theorists' are either themselves completely ignorant of even modern cosmological axioms and principles of gravitation and mechanics or they are just 'playing stupid,' hoping that no one will notice or call their bluff. Most of those who pretend to be intelligent and/or knowledgeable about physics are just plain stupid, and a few are just ignorant but once you show them, if they are honest and will continue the dialogue, they say something to the effect of, 'Wow! I even got a PhD in physics X number of years ago and even taught it for X number of years... I did not think about it that way... but you can't ignore those facts.' You can go to any mental hospital and the population of wackos and inmates will outnumber the doctors and the sane folk, and moreover call them crazies. What’s even more hilarious is the fact that even folk like Steven Hawking and a few intellectually honest physicists and cosmologists who would read what we are saying and are capable of understanding it, know that what we have been saying is absolutely true (it is a philosophical not a logic and observational choice). Not only do they admit that but even 'snicker' about it to each other but they won't dare to address that too openly with the dumb, ignorant masses... best not to confuse the common folk with unnecessary information and facts. Even more sad are all the others out there who don’t have a clue what I’m saying here and shake their heads thinking they know something about physics that tells them that the Earth moves. If only they studied the text books and peer-reviewed papers a little closer, they would realize just how absolutely ignorant with a capital 'I' that argument really is." -Allen Daves

Geocentricism vs. Heliocentricism
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1763
Points : 4936
Reputation : 2528
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:11 pm

Post by Admin on Mar 8, 2015 at 12:36pm

Thanks for that great insight into the ignorant denial and apathetic, uninquisitive mind-set so prevalent nowadays. When you start to discover and speak the truth, you find out really quickly who your real friends are. Layers of egoic defense mechanisms and propaganda are so embedded, many people simply switch-off once they hear a conversation deepening beyond the superficial. My grandmother decided from thumbing through my Atlantean Conspiracy book that I have become "anti-American," refuses to read it or talk about it with me, and as a result we haven't spoken more than 5 minutes in the past 5 years. My father is totally on-board with all the work I do, reads all my books and articles, but wasn't always that way. I tried to wake him up to 911 back in 2007 which resulted in him not talking to me for a couple months (as you can hear in the video below). Now he's tried to show my flat Earth book/documentary to my grandfather (his dad) and now his dad has totally put up a ego-wall and refuses to watch, read or talk about the subject. My mom told him that's his karma for how he treated me back when I was teaching him about 911 truth Razz

avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1763
Points : 4936
Reputation : 2528
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:12 pm

Post by rinoni on Mar 24, 2015 at 12:47am

Newton brought a new ton of unneeded burden upon the science.

R.
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1763
Points : 4936
Reputation : 2528
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:12 pm

Post by schpankme on Apr 2, 2015 at 9:24pm

I imagine the name "Sir Issac Newton" was used to promote more Jesuit Bullshit, namely Theoria gravitatis.

Someone once told me that the Church used to burn people at the stake, for promoting Ball Earth; this too
flies in the face of reality and what is promoted as Science.
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1763
Points : 4936
Reputation : 2528
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:15 pm

Post by schpankme on Apr 27, 2015 at 3:52am

There's been lots of talk lately, over on Cluesforum, about the Flat Earth; Simon Shack the resident debunker on 911
and Fake Space, supports the Heliocentric Model, as sold by NASA. In his latest discussion he comments about being
at the "Palermo Airport (Punta Raisi), which is located on northern Sicily's seafront."  From this location he provides
one photo of his visual experience, and an Artist Composite showing how he sees the Curved Horizon.



Artist Composite



Now, for many it will come as no surprise, that what he claims to see through the fence, is exactly how the eyes focus
with curved edges.

What Simon could have shown, was his Original Photo, with a simple line showing the FLAT HORIZON.

It's time for CluesForum to Bust the Ball, after all, this is the only reason to Fake Space.
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1763
Points : 4936
Reputation : 2528
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:19 pm

Post by robert on May 20, 2015 at 5:22am



Galileo Was Wrong is a detailed and comprehensive treatise that demonstrates from the scientific evidence that heliocentrism (the concept that the Earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun) is an unproven scientific theory; and that geocentrism (the view that the Earth is in the center of the universe and does not move by either rotation or revolution) is not only supported by the scientific evidence but is admitted to be a logical and viable cosmology by many of the world's top scientists, including Albert Einstein, Ernst Mach, Edwin Hubble, Fred Hoyle and many more.

Robert A. Sungenis, Ph.D. is the president of Catholic Apologetics International and is the author of many books and articles on theology, science, culture and politics. Robert J. Bennett, Ph.D. has been an instructor of physics and mathematics for many years at various academic institutions.
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1763
Points : 4936
Reputation : 2528
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:24 pm

Post by aleksandar2015 on Jun 3, 2015 at 3:31am

Interesting how they teach children that earth is a ball in some projct called "The Round Earth Project"

www.evl.uic.edu/aej/papers/CGA99.pdf

"The concept of a round Earth isn’t a simple one for children to acquire. Their every- day experience reinforces their deeply held notion that the Earth is flat. Told by adults that the Earth is round, they often react by constructing a mental model of the Earth as a pancake, or a terrarium-like structure with people living on the flat dirt layer inside, or even a dual model with a spherical Earth and a flat Earth coexisting simultaneously. In effect, children attempt to accommodate the new knowledge within the framework of their existing conceptual models. Unfortunately, holding tight to the features of those prior models inhibits fundamental conceptual change.

The Round Earth Project is a col- laboration among researchers in computer science, education, and psychology. It investigates two alter- native pedagogical strategies for teaching children that the Earth is spherical and the implications of that fact."

"Young children believe the Earth is flat. More pre- cisely, their mental model of the world separates sky and earth into two parallel layers, one above the other; the two directions up and down are absolute."
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1763
Points : 4936
Reputation : 2528
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:27 pm

Post by The Modern Gnostic on Jun 13, 2015 at 4:08am

Pseudoscience is the one of the biggest deceptions foisted on humanity. Pseudoscience comes about when science and political science merge.

It’s about profit and political gain at the expense of the individual. It's modern day genesis was started by a Russian named Trofim Lysenko under the wing of Joseph Stalin.

www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/face/lyse-l.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/lyse-phot.html&h=284&w=198

Lysenkoism was adopted by the USSR as the official science despite being based on total nonsense. Stalin, a jesuit scholar backed Lysenko with force. Disagree and it's the gulags for you. I guess one could call it fascist science.

Throughout the fake cold war the USSR & U.S. we're collaborating at the highest levels especially with the Antarctica treaty.



The space race, the arms race, trillions dumped into black hole projects lining the pockets of the military industrial complex. As Reverend Al Sharpton would say..."it's all about the shakedown man".

All this brings me to Anders Bjorkman of Heiwa Co. heiwaco.tripod.com/index.htm

Anders thoroughly debunks space travel, the ISS and nuclear bombs. He has a $1,000,000 award for anyone that can prove the 9/11 towers could collapse top-down based on solid engineering and logic. To my knowledge the $1,000,000 is still in his pocket.

You'll find his scientific analysis of impossible space travel and nuclear weapons fraud quite compelling and his 9/11 work is top notch.
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1763
Points : 4936
Reputation : 2528
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:29 pm

Post by Admin on Jul 9, 2015 at 5:12am

Dear Mr. Dubay,
Greetings! I have ordered your book and watched your video and am pretty convinced now that the earth is flat and I already believed in Geocentrism thanks to the author of the book below. His name is Robert Sungenis and he is skeptical after watching your video completely. He wrote the following response/objection to me and gave me permission to write to you. He is also an addressee. Would you please respond to his objections and write back to the two of us. If you want you can move this to your blog.
Thank you and God bless you!

-

From Robert:
"I watched the whole video, and took notes, and posted them on the man's site, with no reply.

You don't seem to understand the argument, Brian. A flat earth would allow one to see for 25,000 miles, especially from a high perch. So how does a flat-earther explain that someone, somewhere claims they can see only 60 miles? He can't, so he doesn't. And that is his STRONGEST argument. In the end, he has a much bigger problem than we do. We only have to account for an extra 30 miles. He has to account for 24,940 miles. If he can't account for his, then the flat earth loses, and there must be another explanation for why one can see 60 miles at a certain place on the Earth.

To conclude that, because someone claims he can see 60 miles at some place on the Earth, and then conclude from that that the Earth is flat is not only unscientific, it is ludicrous. If one thought long enough about the problem, he could probably come up with a half dozen reasons why, in one particular place, a person can see 60 miles (e.g., the Earth dips in that particular place).

Yet even the claim to be able to see 60 miles is suspect. Where is the documentation? Where is the scientific study that this actually occurs? What is the name of the person who made the claim? Has he been cross-examined? Does this 60-mile sight always occur? What are the features of the Earth in that location? Have other people seen it, and has their testimony been documented and tested? A prosecuting attorney would have a field day with this issue."

-

Hey Brian, thanks for the message! That is very telling, I've always been suspicious of people like Robert Sungenis seemingly smart enough to figure out geocentricism but too dumb (or playing dumb) that they can't figure out the flat Earth. These geocentric non-flat-earthers are almost always Christians/Catholics too. My guess is that Robert and the people behind this new "The Principle" documentary are actually controlled opposition, otherwise they couldn't be so seemingly smart and pig-headed at the same time. Robert has attempted to refute one of HUNDREDS of proofs of the flat Earth and decided his one refutation is reason enough to overlook the entire subject. Not only that but his "refutation" is laughably incorrect. The curvature for a ball Earth 25,000 miles in circumference figures out to be 2400 feet after 60 miles. There exist however scores of examples of being able to see well over a hundred miles without any curvature. And your vision is not unlimited, so Robert saying you should be able to see 25,000 miles if the Earth is flat is ridiculous. Picture the haze over roads on hot, humid days. The air is not transparent especially at the lowest, densest level of the atmo'sphere' all telescopes will blur out long before you could see that far. You can, however, see MUCH farther than you could on a ball Earth and can bring a disappeared ship completely back into view using a telescope to zoom beyond the horizon. You can see these and many more example exposed in my latest interview here. Peace
~Eric
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1763
Points : 4936
Reputation : 2528
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:32 pm

Post by Admin on Jul 9, 2015 at 5:20pm

Hello Mr. Dubay thanks for your reply and now Robert is replying to you. I don't think he thinks the earth really is 25,000 miles circumference. Well would you please respond? He is a pretty good debater. Thank you.

-

Dubay: Robert has attempted to refute one of HUNDREDS of proofs of the flat Earth and decided his one refutation is reason enough to overlook the entire subject. Not only that but his "refutation" is laughably incorrect.

RS: Not quite. I asked a person who has a website on the Flat Earth to give me his BEST argument for a Flat Earth. His answer was the 60 mile line of sight.

Dubay: The curvature for a ball Earth 25,000 miles in circumference figures out to be 2400 feet after 60 miles. There exist however scores of examples of being able to see over 100 miles without any curvature.

RS: Really? I haven't seen one documented or experimentally proven case. All I see are observational anecdotes. That's not science.

Dubay: And, by the way, your vision is not unlimited, so Robert saying you should be able to see 25,000 miles if the Earth is flat is ridiculous. Picture the haze over roads on hot, humid days. The air is not transparent especially at the lowest, densest level of the atmo'sphere' all telescopes will blur out long before you could see that far. You can, however, see MUCH farther than you could on a ball Earth and can bring a disappeared ship completely back into view using a telescope to zoom beyond the horizon. Peace~Eric

RS: So Eric is trying to tell us that it becomes "hazy" after 60 miles? Bull feathers. If so, we would never be able to see out in space, since an atmosphere 500 miles up would be much thicker than the atmosphere at 60-100 miles. We also wouldn't be able to see the sun at sunrise or sunset, yet we do, but according to Eric's thesis, the sun would have to cut through 25000 miles of "hazy" atmosphere and therefore we would not be able to see it. So why do we, and so clearly? Lastly, go up to the Empire State Building and look east, west, north and south. You will see the horizon in less than 250 miles, and you won't see haze on a clear day. The only thing hazy here is Eric's reasoning.

-

So he asked "a person who has a Flat Earth website to give his BEST argument for flat Earth. His answer was the 60 mile line of sight." Who is this random flat Earther? Why is he only looking for his 1 "best" argument? William Carpenter has 100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe. My book has over 200 proofs the Earth is not a spinning ball. Robert's so game to debate but doesn't bother to do his due diligence in even researching this subject which should be so central to his life. He clearly doesn't bother because he's not a genuine truth-seeker and just part of the controlled opposition as I said. He's not "a pretty good debater" either, he's just using strawmen here saying, "so Eric is trying to tell us it becomes 'hazy' after 60 miles." No, that's not what I said. You keep parroting this 60 miles as if it means anything. You can see Mt. McKinley from 130 miles away. You can see the light from lighthouses up to 150 miles away! All your questions and more are answered at ifers.boards.net
~Eric
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1763
Points : 4936
Reputation : 2528
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:35 pm

Post by Admin on Jul 10, 2015 at 4:09pm

Hello again Mr. Dubay, I think Robert (below) is persuaded that the "problem" is that a strong telescope looking into space can see very far but why can't the same telescope see "a thousand miles" on a clear day from on top of a tall building? Also, why do pro-globe scientists say that the earth is a 25,000 mile circumference globe anyway? Do they just make that number up? Maybe it is a much bigger globe and so that would explain why you can see 150 miles but not one thousand miles. Thank you for both your time and I think this may be the main sticking point between you two geocentrists. Mr. Dubay I do not have your book yet it is coming but do you have any more insight into these two questions above or below? And Robert I can also see that Mr. Dubay wishes that you would interact more with his own proofs found in his book and those which are in the one by Carpenter. Thanks to you both. This is a treat for me as a Christian pastor.

-

Eric refuses to acknowledge the problem, namely, if the earth is flat, we should all be able to see thousands of miles, but we can't. He said nothing in this latest email to answer that challenge, except to flex his muscle and claim he has "200 proofs." If he can't answer the simple challenge of why we can't see even a thousand miles, much less 25000, then his proofs will fall on deaf ears. And I've seen the other so-called "proofs." They twist the evidence just like Eric does with the "60 mile" issue. This conversation is over.

-

See how Robert simply wants "this conversation over?" He is one of the leading Geocentrists in the world, but after hearing "some guy with a flat Earth website's one 'best proof,'" he's satisfied that the Earth is a big ball, has no desire to read the hundreds of proofs I linked him, and simply wants "this conversation over." The fact of the matter is the non-curvature of the Earth has been measured, it is the natural physics of water to always remain level, and the horizon remains flat and rises to the eye of the observer as high as you go. This is only possible over an extended flat plane, as the horizon of a ball Earth, no matter how big, could not rise to the eye of the observer, but rather stay where it was forcing the observer to tilt their head and look DOWN more and more the higher they ascended. As for supposedly seeing vast distances to the stars in "outer-space," this too is part of the illusion as the stars are in fact very close and not trillions of miles away as we've been told. If Robert were intellectually honest he would be following these links, engaging in a positive manner, and further researching the truth of our flat Earth, instead of insisting the conversation to be over after unsuccessfully refuting his own "60 mile" strawman argument he heard from some other alleged flat Earther. I just showed 130-150 mile examples in the last email, but instead of engaging with the material he just goes back to his "60 mile" strawman that he set up and knocked down in the first email. Also notice how Robert claims to have watched my entire 90 minute documentary full of dozens of flat Earth proofs but still pretends like his one 60 mile strawman is the only thing he needs to re-iterate to end the conversation. If you're not a controlled opposition agent Robert Sugenis, you do a perfect impression of one. Peace
~Eric
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1763
Points : 4936
Reputation : 2528
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:39 pm

Post by schpankme on Jul 10, 2015 at 6:06pm

Jul 9, 2015 at 5:12am Admin said:
Dear Mr. Dubay,
I am pretty convinced now that the earth is flat
I already believed in Geocentrism
thanks to the author of the book below.
His name is Robert Sungenis

"Robert Sungeni" is an American Catholic author of apologetic and polemical works critiquing the Protestant
doctrines of Faith Alone and Scripture Alone.

Robert Sungenis was raised in a Catholic family, but became a Protestant at age 19, he spent 18 years in several
different Protestant denominations, Sungenis returned to Catholicism in 1992 at the age of 37.

Education:

B.A. in Religion from George Washington University in 1979
M.A. in theology from Westminster Theological Seminary in 1982
Ph.D. in religious studies from the Calamus International University (CIU)

"His dissertation was on the subject of geocentrism and was then edited and self-published as the two-volume
set, Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right."

This man can no longer change his mind, about the shape of the Earth, he profits from Magical Ball Bullshit.
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1763
Points : 4936
Reputation : 2528
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:41 pm

Post by flatterus on Jul 11, 2015 at 7:42pm

Hi Eric,

I'm not sure if this is the place to put this, but I gotta put it somewhere... I know you're discussing flat earth with Robert Sungenis and he's really thick-headed. Possibly a geocentric shill (sigh). It would be extremely helpful to FErs if Robert were honest and dumped all the excess from his work regarding millions of miles away cosmic bodies and globular earth garbage.

Early (Catholic) Church Fathers stood firmly (no pun) on the flat earth and primum mobile view of the world as summed up by a sixth century monk on the subject: "We say therefore with Isaiah that the heaven embracing the universe is a vault, with Job that it is joined to the earth, and with Moses that the length of the earth is greater than its breadth." --Cosmos Indiocoplestes 550 AD

Besides Cosmas there are plenty of references from the big-name Church Fathers who insisted earth was flat and geocentric. If he asks you who, tell RS to go fetch. Cosmas is free to read online. One interesting source about what the Church taught is a protestant, Andrew Dickson White, who while defending heliocentrism in his book A HISTORY OF THE WARFARE OF SCIENCE WITH THEOLOGY IN CHRISTENDOM, shows that the Catholic Church Fathers were in collective agreement on this issue over the centuries and names names.

Commentary from Andrew Dickson White on Cosmas' statement: "The treatise closes with rapturous assertions that not only Moses and the prophets, but also angels and apostles, agree to the truth of his doctrine, and that at the last day God will condemn all who do not accept it."

RS knows that if the Church taught it way back, then the Church teaches it now. While under attack from within, the Catholic Church only appears not teach FE now because She has been infiltrated by shills of Her own. Robert knows the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church CANNOT change. Eric, if you continue discussions with RS, your argument must be that RS apostatize or hold to Catholic teaching, he can't do both. He must accept flat earth because the Church teaches it. Robert also knows that the Catholic Church teaches that scripture must be taken literally (unless provably metaphorical) so he must accept flat earth on that basis alone! He's horrified to be taught something this big from someone outside the Church. Its time RS found out that long ago obscured truth is out there whether he discovered it first or not.

Good luck Eric!
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1763
Points : 4936
Reputation : 2528
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:46 pm

Post by skillet on Jul 20, 2015 at 12:43am

Didn't occur to me that planetariums are designed from a geocentric point of view until I found this document.

Very interesting study from a geocentric perspective as well a new technology to deceive us.

link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11165-015-9460-3#page-1

We certainly wouldn't want our God given natural senses to convince us into believing in geocentricity. We now need to redesign planetariums to continue the global deception.


Last edited by lizardking on Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:58 pm; edited 2 times in total
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1763
Points : 4936
Reputation : 2528
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:51 pm

Post by vortexpuppy on Aug 8, 2015 at 5:21pm

From flat earth to globe

There are it seems to me, the following steps from the ancient flat earth plane, atop some sort of foundation (with a revolving canopy and luminaries), to the current globe model.
I’m not sure that the his-story and people are correct, but I wanted to summarize the steps.

1. Remove the foundation upon which it stands. The flat earth freely floats in space.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaximander

„Anaximander claimed that the cosmic order is not monarchic but geometric and this causes the equilibrium of the earth which is lying in the centre of the universe. This is the projection on nature of a new political order (yeah right, it's been coming a long time) and a new space organized around a center which is the static point of the system in the society as in nature.“

„He claimed Aperion was the source (kind of like Aether). Anaximander understood the beginning or first principle to be an endless, unlimited primordial mass (apeiron), subject to neither old age nor decay, that perpetually yielded fresh materials from which everything we perceive is derived. He postulated the apeiron as a substance that, although not directly perceptible to us, could explain the opposites he saw around him.“

„He is deemed the father of cosmology and the founder of Astronomy. Anaximander was the first to conceive a mechanical model of the world. In his model, the Earth floats very still in the centre of the infinite, not supported by anything. Its curious shape is that of a cylinder with a height one-third of its diameter. The flat top forms the inhabited world, which is surrounded by a circular oceanic mass.“

„Such a model allowed the concept that celestial bodies could pass under the Earth, opening the way to Greek astronomy.“

He introduced the ideas of the „celestial sphere“ to explain the mechanics of celestial bodies as well the Gnomon, Cartography, Geography and Cosmology.


A contemporary called Anaximenes seemed to be closer to the mark ... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaximenes_of_Miletus)

„He considered the moon and sun to be flat and floating on streams of air. In his theory, when the sun sets it does not pass under the earth, but is merely obscured by higher parts of the earth as it circles around and becomes more distant. Anaximenes likens the motion of the sun and the other celestial bodies around the earth to the way that a cap may be turned around the head.“

„In summary, Thales held that the Earth was floating in water. Anaximander placed the Earth at the center of a universe composed of hollow, concentric wheels filled with fire, and pierced by holes at various intervals, which appeared as the sun, the moon, and the other stars. For Anaximenes, the sun and the moon were flat disks traveling around a heavenly canopy, on which the stars were fixed.“

All in all this opened the door, for things to rotate or encircle the flat earth and the concept of „celestial spheres“. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres[/u]

„After Anaximenes, Pythagoras, Xenophanes and Parmenides all held that the universe was spherical. And much later in the fourth century BC Plato's Timaeus proposed that the body of the cosmos was made in the most perfect and uniform shape, that of a sphere containing the fixed stars. But it posited that the planets were spherical bodies set in rotating bands or rings rather than wheel rims as in Anaximander's cosmology.“

„Instead of bands, Plato's student Eudoxus developed a planetary model using concentric spheres for all the planets, with three spheres each for his models of the Moon and the Sun and four each for the models of the other five planets, thus making 26 spheres in all. Callippus modified this system, using five spheres for his models of the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, and Mars and retaining four spheres for the models of Jupiter and Saturn, thus making 33 spheres in all.“


→ Now we got the Geometry sorted ;-)

2. Make Earth a sphere too, (still motionless) with the „celestial spheres“ arranged concentrically and rotating around it.
This is the conventional Geocentric view with Earth still at the center of the universe.

- Aristotle
- Ptolemy
- Bacon, Grossteste
- Tacho Brahe
- etc

→ Now we got Curvature

3. Spin the Earth, remove it from the centre (Heliocentric - replace with the Sun - already a sphere of course)
- Copernicus
- Gallileo
- Kepler
- Newton

→ Now we're Spinning and Orbiting (with a wobble)

4. Move the whole shebang from the center of the universe, make a big bang and send it all spinning ...

- Einstein
- Sagan
- NASA

→ Now we have Space, Universe, Big-bang, Evolution, Aliens, Bla, bla..
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1763
Points : 4936
Reputation : 2528
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:53 pm

Post by vamsi108 on Aug 23, 2015 at 1:19pm

What is truth ?. Our senses deceive us everyday who knows how many people are deceived by global propaganda, say 99% maybe. You may have never been to Japan but we have met people who look japanese and seem real enough, we have seen pictures of japan so its safe to say japan exists right! even though we may have never been there or seen japan directly with our own eyes . So because we value sight among all the senses as a primary evidence then seeing is believing and valued above hearing in most cases. When we use sight to read or our ears to listen we use our minds eye to evaluate concepts,theories and descriptions , this is also a valid method for evaluating reality, especially if we trust the source and consider them an authority on a subject . So who do you trust ?.Oh it is not a question of trust but of truth isn't it ?. Well from a young age we trust our parents teachers and other protectors to teach us, nuture us and educate us, so we trust them .As we grow up we realize maybe santa claus was not real (or is he?lol) but thats ok it was all in good spirit, so we forgive such deceptions easily. Later on we may find out that everything is not as it seems that in fact there is no curvature of the earth and nasa cannot go into outer space, so the sky above is not actually an atmosphere it is more like an atmosplane.

So now we begin to realise that trust alone will not protect you from being deceived, if by mistake or out of innocence or even willingly thru naivety we were deceived by other sincerely deceived people then no harm, by the truth we will be able to discriminate our reality as it is in truth. Nevertheless due to limitation we may not be able to perceive the empirical universe, so we may have to rely on deduction, in fact because we are not omniscient, omnipresent or omnipotent how can we do anything but deduce the truth beyond our ability to see . Our truth only goes as far as our deductive ability allows us to see within the minds eye and as such we can only really speculate on any given truth outside of our range of perception .Thus We may be able to deduce that japan is real even though we have never really been there ourselves .

From real faith and blind faith, by Srila Sridhara Maharaja...

"In the beginning, we shall have to drive out the misconception of faith. That is, many people will say that, “Faith is superstition. What is faith? It is not something tangible.” Our civilization will accuse us, that we are required to be reduced to nothingness, to no worth – and this cannot have any good in it. This misconception of faith is blind. It is the worst type of superstition in our present civilization."

Yes that we are nothing, just a bunch of chemicals and that there is no Absolute Truth, after death there is nothing and we are nothing, .... That is truly Blind faith."

This is where trust and faith have its versatility in approaching subject matters outside of our subjective relative realms . In order to appreciate the absolute truth concerning cosmic matters such as creation and the purpose behind such creations, rather then looking through the microscope to try and decode the dna sequence of life, we may be better off looking through the macroscope of the absolute perspective as described by the creator himself . How will we understand the infinite truth unless the infinite truth reveals itself to us ?

The vedic cosmology has huge measurements of distance that contradict the zetetic astronomical calculations . This is easily explained by the refraction of light through a denser medium ie light through a block of glass . We essentially exist within a atmosplane of air and other gases at a certain ceiling there is ether(space) which does not contain earthly gases. Because of our immersion within that atmosplane of gases when the light from celestial bodies like the sun moon stars and other planets hit the atmosplane we get essentially the projection from the heavens above us, not necessarily as accurately as we would perceive them from above that atmosplane (if at all that is possible for someone on earth to go into outer space is something else ,the vedas describe that without the mystic siddhis to travel outside of our own karmic realm we will need a body that is suitable to the realm you reside in, to exist there) . Therefore the calculations for distances based on trigonometry will be subject to distortions by the atmosplane .That is my theory I have never been into outerspace to test the hypothesis, it is simply the observable nature of light here on earth, hence it is wise to take the property of light and its refraction into the atmosplane as a variable which effects the trigonometry of calculating the celestial bodies, distances from the earth plane .



We can see on this diagram how our perspective from the bottom of the glass would be massively distorted from the incident ray. Also when we see the sun spot below the sun on the clouds from a camera on a weather balloon the sun will look like its directly overhead of the sunspot due to the perspective of the point of view always being in a perfect line of sight between the sun ,the sunspot and the viewer/point. Whereas if it was possible to look at it from an objective point of view, from the side in comparison to the first point of view,then you would be able to ascertain if in fact the sunspot was at an angle to the sun compared to the first point of view and vice versa.

SB 5.23.3 — When bulls are yoked together and tied to a central post to thresh rice, they tread around that pivot without deviating from their proper positions — one bull being closest to the post, another in the middle, and a third on the outside. Similarly, all the planets and all the hundreds and thousands of stars revolve around the polestar, the planet of Mahārāja Dhruva, in their respective orbits, some higher and some lower. Fastened by the Supreme Personality of Godhead to the machine of material nature according to the results of their fruitive acts, they are driven around the polestar by the wind and will continue to be so until the end of creation. These planets float in the air within the vast sky, just as clouds with hundreds of tons of water float in the air or as the great śyena eagles, due to the results of past activities, fly high in the sky and have no chance of falling to the ground.

SB 5.24.4 — Below Rāhu by 10,000 yojanas [80,000 miles] are the planets known as Siddhaloka, Cāraṇaloka and Vidyādhara-loka.
SB 5.24.5 — Beneath Vidyādhara-loka, Cāraṇaloka and Siddhaloka, in the sky called antarikṣa, are the places of enjoyment for the Yakṣas, Rākṣasas, Piśācas, ghosts and so on. Antarikṣa extends as far as the wind blows and the clouds float in the sky. Above this there is no more air.
SB 5.24.6 — Below the abodes of the Yakṣas and Rākṣasas by a distance of 100 yojanas [800 miles] is the planet earth. Its upper limits extend as high as swans, hawks, eagles and similar large birds can fly.

So its important to note that the translation given above talks about air in different ways . In verse 5.24.5 there is an indication that there is no air above these realms . So what is the air that the celestial realms above talks about ?. From this we can understand there is different types of air discussed in the Vedas such as life airs etc. They may indicate magnetic forces or other inconceivable subtle energies that modern science is yet to discover , or can adequately describe. Hence the translator has described them as "air" a pervasive energy similar to what modern science calls or ascribes to gravity since it has never been proven to exist by material means either lol .

There are some yantras that have been recorded in puranas concerning the dimensions of Jhambhudvipa the first area surrounding Mount Sumeru within which there is 9 islands with a circumferance of 72000 miles .They are simply indications of the configuration of jambhudvipa and are not intended to be an accurate scaled map and are given in yojanas



So what is modern science with its theories of gravity, relativity,evolution and global propaganda why should we accept the gurus propounding these philosophies Newton,Einstein,Darwin or the Rothschilds,Rockerfellas and wealthy elites masonic media manipulation. It keeps the masses subservient and complacent like expendable worker drones till they can complete there NWO plans for total world domination. Religion is defined as follows -A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. . How is modern day science any different from a religion , it has its narratives we are fed in good faith , it has the selective history we are fed, it has its globe symbols and masonic icons all placed through the culture they have propagated in order to create a belief system. We come from nothing that exploded to create something that evolved from something this is proven by the background static in a radio,such is our education on the origin of the universe at school . That is the magic of our exploding big bang culture nowadays and we are so irrevocably tied to a material concept of life that we cannot conceive of a higher spiritual power that is not subject to the mundane material laws governing matter . Hence when we are presented with the much more logical explanation of a spiritual universe that was created by a higher power we simply say "That is all very nice and good but lets be scientific about this we cant accept myth as reality we will have to try and decode this in order to ascertain the real meaning behind it". Could it be that just like the earth cannot accurately be described by a globe model because it is in fact a plane that this reality cannot possibly be described accurately from a material scientific point of view because in fact it is simply a material reflection of a higher spiritual truth .Probably not lol as such a spurious logic would be inconceivable according to a material paradigm .

Chapter Fifteen: The Yoga of the Supreme Person
Bg 15.1 — The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: It is said that there is an imperishable banyan tree that has its roots upward and its branches down and whose leaves are the Vedic hymns. One who knows this tree is the knower of the Vedas.
Bg 15.2 — The branches of this tree extend downward and upward, nourished by the three modes of material nature. The twigs are the objects of the senses. This tree also has roots going down, and these are bound to the fruitive actions of human society.
Bg 15.3-4 — The real form of this tree cannot be perceived in this world. No one can understand where it ends, where it begins, or where its foundation is. But with determination one must cut down this strongly rooted tree with the weapon of detachment. Thereafter, one must seek that place from which, having gone, one never returns, and there surrender to that Supreme Personality of Godhead from whom everything began and from whom everything has extended since time immemorial.
Bg 15.7 — The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal fragmental parts. Due to conditioned life, they are struggling very hard with the six senses, which include the mind.
Bg 15.8 — The living entity in the material world carries his different conceptions of life from one body to another, as the air carries aromas. Thus he takes one kind of body and again quits it to take another.
Bg 15.9 — The living entity, thus taking another gross body, obtains a certain type of ear, eye, tongue, nose and sense of touch, which are grouped about the mind. He thus enjoys a particular set of sense objects.
Bg 15.10 — The foolish cannot understand how a living entity can quit his body, nor can they understand what sort of body he enjoys under the spell of the modes of nature. But one whose eyes are trained in knowledge can see all this.

If we were to believe Sri Krsna in his famous dialogue or the song of god Bhagavad Gita then we are divine beings within a spiritual paradigm rather then a material one. Then the so called myths of the vedas may indeed be more factual then the actual myths we are presented with by modern so called gurus such as Einstein and Copernicus, which suit our modern day masonic masters , afterall. I guess it all comes down to where you put your faith.Or not you decide lol.
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1763
Points : 4936
Reputation : 2528
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 01, 2016 9:57 pm

Post by planearth on Oct 30, 2015 at 7:15am

Found this here: www.biblicalscholarship.net/armillary.htm
More good stuff www.biblicalscholarship.net/geocentricity.htm

From the article:

I once heard that one military pilot instructor routinely told his new students something like this, "For this class, forget about everything that you've learned about the earth going around the sun." Well, today, Tuesday, 2-24-09 at about 8 am I was flipping through an encyclopedia* and the following graphic caught my eye. In it, the instructor at the United States Military Academy is using an ARMILLARY SPHERE to teach his class.

Many people may have never heard of an armillary sphere. It is a geocentric model of the heavens. I found out about it while browsing through a book by Jan Amos Comenius, 17th century educator extraordinaire. I purchased a brass armillary sphere to boldly sit on my shelf. The earth sits at the center of the heavens immovable, the sun circuits the earth through the ecliptic, and the fixed stars sit on a celestial sphere in diurnal (daily) rotation about the earth.

As I understand it, a number of heliocentrists (e.g., astronomers) continue to use this geocentric model because it is "useful". Actually, it is the truth and THAT is why it makes sense to the mind--that "apparent" motion of the sun is "actual".

I scanned in the picture. The caption for the picture reads as follows:

Left: An instructor uses a celestial-terrestial sphere in teaching earth, space, and graphic sciences.

avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1763
Points : 4936
Reputation : 2528
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 23
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!

Post by Schpankme on Wed Jan 13, 2016 4:44 pm

Posted by Admin

The sphere model taught to children in school shows a crust, mantle, outer core and inner core with a molten middle and layers of various substances going out. The truth is however that no one has ever drilled deeper than 8 miles down! The Russian drilling operation that tried spent decades getting down that far, then almost another decade trying to go a few hundred more feet before deciding the rock was too hard to continue:



So in reality, no one has ever drilled past the crust, let alone the mantle, outer or inner core they show us in text books, they're just making it up completely! There is clearly molten lava in/under volcanic mountains, but how much there is under the Earth or exactly where remains unknown. Peace! ~ Eric Dubay

avatar
Schpankme

Posts : 484
Points : 2083
Reputation : 1004
Join date : 2015-12-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!

Post by Beashambassador on Thu May 26, 2016 3:34 pm

As Above, NOT So Below... [Flat Earth / Zetetic Philosophy]

avatar
Beashambassador

Posts : 118
Points : 975
Reputation : 296
Join date : 2016-01-12
Age : 71
Location : USA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!

Post by Beashambassador on Sat Jul 16, 2016 4:40 pm

In 1931 Professor Auguste Piccard / Swiss Physicist, Inventor & Explorer took the first ever balloon flight high above the Earth to the stratosphere and discovered a flat plane with upturned edges. In his Pressurised aluminium gondola he reached 51.775 feet about 10 miles above the Earth.This is his story, a story which has been omitted from our education system.

For the magazine/article see page 23:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=...


avatar
Beashambassador

Posts : 118
Points : 975
Reputation : 296
Join date : 2016-01-12
Age : 71
Location : USA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A historical insight into "Space Balls in a Vacuum"

Post by vortexpuppy on Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:23 pm

Hi fellow researchers,

I'd like to introduce Leonard Euler.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler

Leonard Euler is considered by his peers to be (one of) the greatest mathematician who ever lived. A Swiss German who not only wrote double the volumes of work of his nearest competitor, but also filled them with the "biggest and best" mathematical discoveries, such as Euler(s): Identity, Line, Characteristic, Rotation, Angles as well as many Theories in Optics, Mechanics, Music, Astronomy, and on and on.

I guess he liked writing and he certainly had a way with words. He was no doubt a good story-teller as well?!
He tutored a princess in Germany, writing her frequent short letters on a great variety of subjects in natural philosophy.
Well worth a read. There is something of interest for everyone in this collection of private tutoring correspondence.
The letters can be found at the links below.

"These 233 little essays give a rare insight into Euler's mind, and to the state of physics in the 1760's."
http://www.17centurymaths.com/contents/lettersvol1.html
http://www.17centurymaths.com/contents/lettersvol2.html

The site is a great resource for 17th century mathematics and natural philosophy.
http://www.17centurymaths.com/

Leonard on Newtons theories

But let’s get back to Lenny. In two of these letters to the princess, he starts explaining the opposing views of the particle and wave theories of light.
At the current time this was Newton vs Descartes in the controlled opposition theater brought to us via London and Paris.

Lenny demonstrates the logical absurdities of the System of Emanation.
He shows how Newton contradicts his own theories with the “Space Balls in a Vacuum” bullshit. lol.

The humiliation of Newton is best left to Leonard himself in the letters below.


Letter XVII, 7th June 1760 – Of Light, and the Systems of Descartes and Newton

Having spoken of the rays of the sun, which are the focus of all the heat and light that we enjoy, you will undoubtedly ask, what are these rays? This is beyond question one of the most important inquiries in physics, as from it an infinite number of phenomena is derived. Everything that respects light and renders objects visible, is closely connected with this inquiry. The ancient philosophers seem to have taken little interest in the solution of it….

Do certain portions, inconceivably small, of the sun himself, or his substance come down to us? Or is the transmission similar to the sound of a bell, which the ear receives? Though no part of the substance of the bell be separated from it?

Descartes, the first of modern philosophers, maintained this last opinion; and having filled the whole universe with a subtle matter composed of small globules, which he calls the second element, he supposes the sun in a state of continual agitation, which he transmits to these globules, and pretends that they again communicate their motion in an instant to every part of the universe. But since it has been discovered that the rays of the sun take eight minutes to fly through that immense distance, the opinion of Descartes, which laboured beside under other difficulties has been given up.

The great Newton afterward embraced the former system, and maintained that the luminous rays are really separated from the body of the sun, and the particles of light thence emitted with that inconceivable velocity which brings them down to us in about eight minutes. This opinion, which is that of most modern philosophers, particularly the English, is called the System of Emanation – it being imagined that rays emanate from the sun and other luminous bodies, as water emanates or springs from a fountain.

This opinion appears at first sight very bold, and irreconcilable to reason. For were the sun emitting continually, and in all directions, such floods of luminous matter, with a velocity so prodigious, he must be speedily exhausted; or at least some alteration must, after the lapse of so many ages, be perceptible. This however is contradicted by observation. It cannot be a matter of doubt, that a fountain which should emit streams of water in all directions, would be exhausted in proportion to the velocity of the emission; much more the sun, whose rays are emitted with a velocity so inconceivable. Let the particles of which rays of light are formed be supposed as subtile as you please, nothing will be gained; the system will remain equally untenable. It cannot be affirmed that this emanation is not made in all directions; for wherever you are placed, the whole sun is visible, which proves incontestably that rays from every point of the sun are emitted towards the spot which you occupy. The case is very different from that of a fountain, which should emit streams of water in all directions. For one point in the fountain could furnish only one stream directed to a particular spot; but every point of the sun’s surface must emit an infinite number, diffusing themselves in all directions. This circumstance alone infinitely increases the expenditure of luminous matter, which the sun would have to make.

Another difficulty, and which appears equally insuperable, is, that the sun is not the only body which emits rays, but that all the stars have the same quality; and as everywhere the rays of the sun must be crossing the rays of the stars, their collision must be violent in the extreme. How must their direction be changed by such collision! This collision must take place with respect to all luminous bodies visible at the same time. Each, however, appears distinctly without suffering the slightest derangement from any other – a certain proof that many rays may pass through the same point without disturbing each other, which seems irreconcilable to the system of emanation.

Considering afterwards transparent bodies through which rays are freely transmitted in all directions, the supporters of this system are under the necessity of affirming, that these bodies contain pores, disposed in straight lines, which issue from every point of the surface, and proceed in all directions; it being inconceivable how there could be any line through which a ray of the sun might be transmitted with such amazing velocity, and even without the slightest collision. Here then are bodies wonderfully porous which have the appearance nevertheless of being extremely solid.

Finally, in order to enjoy vision, the rays must enter into the eye, and penetrate its substance with the same velocity. All these difficulties taken together will, I doubt not, sufficiently convince you, that the system of emanation has in no respect a foundation in nature; and you will certainly be astonished that it could have been conceived by so great a man, and embraced by so many enlightened philosophers. But it is long since Cicero remarked, that nothing so absurd can be imagined as to find no supporter among philosophers. For my own part, I am too little a philosopher to adopt the opinion in question.

7th June 1760


Letter XVIII, 10th June 1760 – Difficulties attending the System of Emanation.


However strange the doctrine of the celebrated Newton may appear, that rays proceed from the sun by a continual emanation, it has, however, been so generally received, that it requires an effort of courage to call it into question. What has chiefly contributed to this is, no doubt, the high reputation of the great English philosopher, who first discovered the true laws of the motions of the heavenly bodies; and it is this very discovery which led him to the system of emanation.

Descartes, in order to support his theory, was under the necessity of filling the whole space of the heavens with a subtile matter, through which all the celestial bodies move at perfect liberty. But it is well known, that if a body moves in air it must meet with a certain degree of resistance; from which Newton concluded, that however subtile the matter of the heavens may be supposed, the planets must encounter some resistance in their motions. But, said he, this motion is not subject to any resistance: the immense space of the heavens, therefore, contains no matter. A perfect vacuum, then, universally prevails. This is one of the leading doctrines of the Newtonian philosophy, that the immensity of the universe contains no matter in the spaces not occupied by heavenly bodies. This being laid down, there is between the sun and us, or at least from the sun down to the atmosphere of the earth, an absolute vacuum. In truth the further we ascend, the more subtile we find the air to be; from whence it would apparently follow, that at length the air would be entirely lost. If the space between the sun and the earth be an absolute vacuum, it is impossible that the rays should reach us in the way of communication, as the sound of a bell is transmitted by the means of the air. For if the air, intervening between the bell and our ear, were to be annihilated, we should absolutely hear nothing, let the bell be struck ever so violently.

Having established, then, a perfect vacuum between the heavenly bodies, there remains no other opinion to be adopted but that of emanation; which obliged Newton to maintain, that the sun and all other luminous bodies emit rays which are always particles, infinitely small, of their mass, darted from them with incredible force. It must be such to a very high degree, in order to impress on rays of light that inconceivable velocity with which they come from the sun to us in the space of eight minutes. But, let us see whether this theory be consistent with Newtons leading doctrine, which requires an absolute vacuum in the heavens, that the planets may encounter no manner of resistance to their motions. You must conclude on a moments reflection, that, the space in which the heavenly bodies revolve, instead of remaining a vacuum must be filled with the rays, not only of the sun, but likewise of all the other stars which are continually passing through it from every quarter, and in all directions, with incredible rapidity. The heavenly bodies which traverse these spaces, instead of encountering a vacuum, will meet with the matter of luminous rays in a terrible agitation, which must disturb these bodies in their motions much more than if it were in a state of rest.
Thus Newton, apprehensive lest a subtile matter such as Descartes imagined, should disturb the motion of the planets, had recourse to a very strange expedient, and quite contradictory to his own intention, as, on his hypothesis, the planets must be exposed to a derangement infinitely more considerable. I have already submitted to you several other insuperable objections to the system of emanation; and we have now seen that the principal, and indeed the only reason which could induce Newton to adopt it, is so self-contradictory as wholly to overturn it. All these considerations united, leave us no room to hesitate about the rejection of this strange system of the emanation of light, however respectable the authority of the philosopher who invented it.

Newton was without doubt one of the greatest geniuses that ever existed. His profound knowledge, and his acute penetration into the most hidden mysteries of nature, will be a just object of admiration to the present, and to every future age. But the errors of this great man should serve to admonish us of the weakness of the human understanding, which, after soaring to the greatest possible heights, is in danger of plunging into manifest contradiction.
If we are liable to weaknesses and inconsistencies so humiliating, in our researches into the phenomena of this visible world, which lies open to the examination of our senses, how wretched must we have been had God left us to ourselves with respect to things invisible, and which concern our eternal salvation? On this important article a revelation was absolutely necessary to us; and we ought to avail ourselves of it with the most profound veneration. When it presents to us things which may appear inconceivable, we have but to reflect on the imperfection of human understanding, which is so apt to be misled, even as to sensible objects. Whenever I hear a pretended Freethinker inveighing against the truths of religion, and even sneering at it with the most arrogant self-sufficiency, I say to myself – poor weak mortal, how inexpressibly more noble and sublime are the subjects which you treat so lightly, than those respecting which the great Newton was so grossly mistaken! I could wish your Highness to keep this reflection ever in remembrance; occasions for making it occur but too frequently.

10th June 1760



Here is my interpretation of what Euler is saying.

The argument goes something like this....

To describe the regular stellar and planetary motions, Newton’s model had to have no resistance to the movement of solid bodies (space balls) through the heavens. He needed a vacuum. So no dome, no spherical shells just lots of open, unbounded empty “space”, for the moving balls, far, far away.

Now if there was no matter in the “universe”, not even subtile ether, to vibrate or resonate with, then light must have its own method of transportation. It must propagate by its own System of Emanation. This particle stream of light, of matter, being continuously emanated at light speed in all directions, from all points on a surface, from all stars (also space balls), must mean that the space between heavenly bodies is full of such agitated light particles of matter.

Oops, but this is the worst situation from which to predict regular motion. An absolute static ether would be better, but neither are an alternative for Newton.
He needs the existence of the vacuum to describe the regular clockwork motion of heavenly “bodies”.  If there were a universal medium in which everything moves, then all bodies would be subject to resistance (from interaction with) depending on size, velocity, etc. This is not compatible with Newtons theories. He needs zero resistance, an empty space devoid of a medium, an absolute vacuum. Only then do his theories apply, and only then can they be used to calculate and predict.
Only when the space balls can hurl through empty space, rotating in any old direction, with no resistance whatsoever, can the theory be made to fit the observations. lol.

As we know the contradictions are eventually "solved" by photons and wave-particle duality, although unfortunately we can't measure anything, because we ruin the experiment by looking at it. lol. How convenient.

Leonard reminds us of Cicero's famous quote, that there is nothing absurd enough that won't be believed by someone.
At the end Leonard even cautions the princess never to forget how often this kind of bullshit actually happens.

Priceless :-)

vortexpuppy

Posts : 114
Points : 889
Reputation : 199
Join date : 2015-12-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!

Post by csp on Tue Jan 24, 2017 3:06 am

avatar
csp

Posts : 338
Points : 1708
Reputation : 798
Join date : 2016-01-04
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum