Earth is Not a Planet

In the heliocentric model, Earth is just one of 8 “planets” in our “solar system,” all of which are said to be huge spherical Earth-like habitations or globular gas giants millions of miles away.  They claim the Earth under our feet along with these 7 other planets all revolve concentric circles/ellipses around the Sun - hence the term “heliocentric.”  The previously prevailing “geocentric” model had placed the Earth as the immovable center of the universe with the Sun, Moon, stars and “planets” all revolving around us, just as they appear.  In the heliocentric model, however, which would be more appropriately titled the “Acentric” model, the Sun is only the center of our “solar system,” while itself supposedly simultaneously revolving 500,000 mph spirals around the “Milky Way galaxy” which itself is constantly shooting 670,000,000 mph away from an alleged “Big Bang” creationary explosion at the beginning of time!

In the geocentric model, the 7 “planets” were known as “wandering stars,” with the multitude of other stars known as “fixed stars.”  The wandering stars were so called because they can be seen meandering their own unique paths around the heavens while all the other stars remain fixed in their steady group-rotation around Polaris.  The wandering stars also happen to be among the brightest in the night sky, and just as heliocentrsits falsely claim the Moon to be a mere reflector of the Sun’s light, they claim the bright starlight of these “planets” is merely them reflecting the Sun’s light back at us!  This has already been shown to be geometrically impossible, however, as convex bodies do not and cannot reflect light in this way.

In the heliocentric model, the wandering stars are all supposedly spherical Earth-like places several million miles away from us, while the fixed stars are all allegedly super-distant “suns,” similar to our own, but several trillion miles away, complete with their own “solar systems” and accompanying planets, perhaps even populated with sentient alien beings like ourselves!  NASA’s current “official” astronomical statistics state that there are upwards of 10 trillion such “planets” in our “galaxy” alone, and at least 200 billion galaxies in the universe!  Therefore, they claim, Earth is only 1 of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or one septillion planets in the universe!



“Our Modem Astronomers imagine the Stars to be immense worlds or suns, some of them many thousands of times larger than our own, and at an enormous distance. Sir Robert Ball, in his ‘Cause of an Ice-Age,’ p. 77, says of Sirius - that it is ‘a million times as distant from us as the Sun’ - that is, that it is ninety-two millions of millions of miles from the Earth! It is thought that Stars are in a more or less advanced state of development, and that probably some of them may be already inhabited by beings suited to their spheres. Their distance from us they calculate to be so immense, that, according to Sir William Herschel, the light from some of them will take a thousand years to reach this world of ours!”  -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (153)



“Again, these stars are assumed to have positions so far from the earth that the distance is almost inexpressible; figures, indeed, may be arranged on paper, but in reading them no practical idea is conveyed to the mind. Many are said to be so distant that should they fall with the velocity of light, or above 160,000 miles in a second of time, 600,000,000 of miles per hour, they would require nearly 2,000,000 of years to reach the earth! Sir William Herschel, in a paper on ‘The power of telescopes to penetrate into space,’ affirms that with his powerful instruments he discovered brilliant luminaries so far from the earth that the light which they emitted ‘could not have been less than one million nine hundred thousand years in its progress!’"  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (376)

“The fixed stars are so called, because except for very long periods, they do not appreciably alter their relative positions; and they are mere points of light, so small that the most powerful telescopes cannot magnify them into discs.  Yet they are supposed to be suns of immense size, removed by the astronomers to immeasurable distances away from us, for the credit and convenience of their theories.”  -Albert Smith, “The Sea-Earth Globe and Its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions” (32)



NASA even claims to have sent several remote-controlled flying-telescopes, like the popular “Hubble” camera into outer-space, transmitting back to Earth pictorial “proof” of the validity of their model!  These Hubble pictures show that the wandering stars are all in fact spherical Earth-like planets, just as the heliocentrists claimed all along!  The Hubble pictures show that the fixed stars are also in fact distant suns, trillions of miles away, just as the heliocentrists claimed!  These Hubble pictures and videos, all of which are indistinguishable from a good photoshop or Hollywood production, completely confirm for hypnotized heliocentrists the truth of NASA’s claims and the existence of various celestial phenomena which only NASA and their advanced cameras can show, like planets, galaxies, black holes, quasars, etc.



Using even the most advanced non-NASA telescopes, however, the fixed and wandering stars appear to be nothing more than tiny dots of multi-colored light.   It cannot be ascertained whether fixed stars are actually distant suns, whether wandering stars are actually Earth-like planets, or whether any of NASA’s claims hold any validity outside of their alleged pictorial evidence from these supposed remote-controlled flying space-telescope images!  Outside of NASA, what evidence do we have that stars are actually distant solar systems?  What evidence do we have that planets are Earth-like places in space?  They are certainly interesting and plausible ideas, but there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support them.  In fact, if NASA hadn’t implanted such ideas into their heads, very few people would ever look up at the night sky and assume those little pin-pricks of light were all Earth-like objects millions of miles away, or suns trillions of miles away, complete with orbiting planets and moons just like ours!  The only reason people believe wandering stars are Earth-like planets and fixed stars are distant suns is because of NASA propaganda.

“The planets are not solid, opaque masses of matter, as is believed. They are simply immaterial, luminous and transparent discs.”  -Gabrielle Henriet, “Heaven and Earth” (23)

“By the aid of the telescope have been discovered in the starry vault in the celestial fields which light traverses, as in the corallas of our flowering plants, and in the metallic oxides, almost every gradation of prismatic colour between the two extremes of refrangibility.  In a cluster near the Southern Cross - red, green, blue, and bluish green - appear in large telescopes, like gems of many colours, like a superb piece of fancy jewellery.”  -Alexander von Humboldt



If stars are all distant planets or suns, how is it that various phenomena have often been observed including stars changing color, intensity of light, sudden appearance, disappearance, or shooting quickly from one place to another?  I have watched single stars changing their colors as regularly as a disco ball, others shooting through the sky and disappearing, and stranger still, I once saw a star shoot quickly straight upwards through the sky for two seconds and then stop again!



Back in the late 16th century, when the heliocentric theory was starting to take hold over the imaginations of an unsuspecting public, Danish Astronomer Tycho Brahe famously argued for geocentricity, positing that if the Earth revolved in an orbit round the sun, the change in relative position of the stars after 6 months of orbital motion could not fail to be seen.  The stars should seem to separate as we approach and come together as we recede.  In actual fact, however, after 190,000,000 miles of supposed orbit around the Sun, not a single inch of parallax can be detected in the stars!

“In the time of Tycho Brahe it was said that the earth revolved around the sun, but he argued that if the earth revolved around the sun, the relative position of the stars would change very much, and the matter must, in the nature of the case, be easily detected.  Accordingly, experiments were tried at intervals of six months, and the result showed that the stars were in exactly the same position as they had occupied six months before, thus proving that the earth does not move at all.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (122)

“If the earth is at a given point in space on say January 1st, and according to present-day science, at a distance of 190,000,000 miles from that point six months afterwards, it follows that the relative position and directions of the stars will have greatly changed, however small the angle of parallax may be. That this great change is nowhere apparent and has never been observed incontestably proves that the earth is at rest - that it does not move in an orbit round the sun.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (67)



When Tycho Brahe demonstrated that after 190,000,000 miles of supposed orbit around the Sun, not a single inch of parallax could be detected, heliocentrists desperate to patch the glaring hole in their theory, pushed their hypothetical distances to the stars into the trillions of miles, claiming the closest one, Proxima Centauri, was a ludicrous 25 trillion miles away, and thereby making all the stars so conveniently far that no appreciable parallax could be detected!  This expedient explanation, which heliocentrists have clung to ever since, has proven satisfactory to silence the manipulated minds of the masses, but still fails to adequately account for several issues.

“It is found by observation that the stars come to the meridian about four minutes earlier every twenty-four hours than the sun, taking the solar time as the standard. This makes 120 minutes every thirty days, and twenty-four hours in the year. Hence all the constellations have passed before or in advance of the sun in that time. This is the simple fact as observed in nature, but the theory of rotundity and motion on axes and in an orbit has no place for it. Visible truth must be ignored, because this theory stands in the way, and prevents its votaries from understanding it.”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (321)

“Considerably more than a million Earths would be required to make up a body like the Sun -the astronomers tell us: and more than 53,000 suns would be wanted to equal the cubic contents of the star Vega. And Vega is a ‘small star!’ And there are countless millions of these stars! And it takes 30,000,000 years for the light of some of those stars to reach us at 12,000,000 miles in a minute! And, says Mr. Proctor, ‘I think a moderate estimate of the age of the Earth would be 500,000,000 years!’ ‘Its weight,’ says the same individual, ‘is 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons!’ Now, since no human being is able to comprehend these things, the giving of them to the world is an insult - an outrage. And though they have all risen from the one assumption that Earth is a planet, instead of upholding the assumption, they drag it down by the weight of their own absurdity, and leave it lying in the dust - a proof that Earth is not a globe.”  -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (75)



Several experiments have since been performed and repeated by notable scientists like Albert Michelson, Edward Morley, George Airy, and Georges Sagnac proving that it is the stars that revolve around a stationary Earth and not the other way around.  The conclusive results of their experiments are not contested or even mentioned in modern astronomy books; rather they are conveniently swept under the carpet to keep prying minds from seeing through the lies.  For example, the experiment known as “Airy’s Failure” (since it failed to prove heliocentricity) involved filling a telescope with water to slow the speed of light inside.  Usually telescopes must be slightly tilted to get starlight down the axis of the tube supposedly due to “Earth's speed around the sun.” Airy discovered that actually the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so no change was necessary. This demonstrated that the stars move relative to a stationary Earth and not the other way around, because if it was the telescope moving he would have to change the angle.



“All the planets, including the sun, revolve round the earth. These circumstances cannot be denied since they are plainly visible, either in the ordinary way with the naked eye, or with the help of the telescope. It can be said, in this connection, that in the case of a science which should be based exclusively on observation and not on speculation such as astronomy, the evidence of the senses is the only factor upon which conclusions can, and must be, based. If the planets can be seen revolving round the earth, it is for the decisive factor that they do revolve in such a way. It is asserted that this is not so, and it is maintained that the earth and the planets revolve round the sun. We note with astonishment, however, the bizarre and definitely suspicious fact that these planetary movements are not visible. They cannot be seen and yet they are called real! How then can these movements be proved and their speed be ascertained since they are invisible? On the other hand, the existing geocentric planetary motions which can be observed and measured, and which, consequently, constitute a perfectly valid system, are condemned as unreal and apparent! A pertinent remark may, incidentally, be made on the subject. Why do the astronomical tables which are published year after year, give the so-called apparent movements of the planets in the zodiac? Why take the trouble of calculating and putting them on record at all if they are not real? Why is it also that no mention is made of the so-called real movements of the planets?”  -Gabrielle Henriet, “Heaven and Earth” (15-16)



“Trust your eyes and your cameras! They have no reason to deceive you about whether the stars are going around nightly! Then get it in your mind: This single fact surrounding star trails that has been photographed thousands of times and cannot be denied must be explained away by the Theoretical Science Establishment. All of the factless allegations - a rotating and orbiting Earth; billions of light year distances to the stars; a 15 billion year old universe; the whole Big Bang Paradigm; all of the alleged evolution of the universe, earth, and mankind; that is to say: all of modern evolution-based cosmology controlling ‘knowledge’ today, all of it, is completely undone if the stars are doing what cameras show they are doing, namely, going around the Earth nightly ... If you can do so for a few minutes, just lay aside the Copernican indoctrination that accompanies such pictures and take a good hard look at these photographs of something that really, really happens every single night. Do you see what I see? I see all the visible stars in the northern skies going around the North Star in perfect circles. In other words, I see all the stars which these time exposures have recorded actually going around that navigational star that God put there for us in the Northern Hemisphere.”  -Marshall Hall, "The Size and Structure of the Universe"

“The plurality of worlds is based on assumptions so contrary to known possibilities, that the ‘grand idea’ must be thrown into the waste-paper basket.  The supposed great distance of the sun from the earth is the main cause of the delusions of the learned as to the so-called worlds above us being inhabited.  This distance is based on a fictitious idea, that of the revolution of the earth round the sun, which I have already shown to be unconditionally false.  The sun is a small body of light and near the earth, therefore all the star distances are wrong, their sizes and all other suppositions.  The plurality of worlds is only the logical sequence of belief if the earth be a rapidly revolving globe.  But this has been shown to be ridiculous in the extreme.  Evidence, apart from any theory has been presented which entirely nullifies such an assumption, and renders it absurd; showing that such an unnatural idea has not a vestige of natural fact to support it.  The grand doctrine of the plurality of worlds, therefore, like all the other grand doctrines of modern astronomy, must be consigned to oblivion.  When it can be shown that this world is a globe and by what known principle the inhabitants can hang on to the swinging ball, like the house fly crawls along the ceiling, it will be quite time enough to talk about the plurality of worlds.”  -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (103)

http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2016/03/earth-is-not-planet.html

Great work as usual Eric!

Another fantastic post!!!!

Excellent connections with other videos, Eric.
Complete explanation.

You have them on the ropes! Great work. The evidence is piling up. You've done so much already; but keep going. The dam is breaking.

BEST FLAT EARTH VIDEO deniers pull hair out with both hands
by vhsjvc

Newtonian spheres cannot exist
"Nothing can oppose centrifugal force, no such thing as gravity, just buoyancy, 'gravity' can't even stop a tiny air bubble from rising, moreover, don't be fooled by angular velocity arguments used as excuses as to why you can't feel the fake spin, this is based on rpm which is based on radius and is totally irrelevant, mph and rim velocity is what determines the destruction of spinning objects, case closed welcome to flat earth."

Eric, The flat moon over the flat earth video at 3:27 there aren't any stars visible but at 4:00 after the orator zoom out the moon at same size as shown at 3:27 all three stars are visible. and then fades away. These are pictures thus should not show such kind of behavior.
Chandan here.

I just wanted to propose an experiment we could do relatively easily; we create a computer generated 3D model of the globe earth to scale according to the size they say it is. Then we zoom down to ground level and see what it looks like. We could raise up slowly and determine exactly when we should see the curve. And if the horizon drops below eye level as we predict. And a number of other possible anomalies. According to Neil degrasse Tyson you can’t see the curve at the height of our highest weather balloons. Well, let’s see if this is correct! If in the computer model we CAN see the curve then that would indicate their model is wrong.. if we can’t it doesn’t really prove either way.

We could also create a FE model to compare it to. See how the horizon differs. When it drops. Does perspective work like we assume. Etc. Other anomalies.

Here’s a write up I created:




Not to pass the work on this but I don’t really know how to create 3D models (I’m guessing something like blender or autocad?) and I don’t have a computer capable of running it (I have a tablet) but if someone wants to create this who does know how you’re welcome to. I could provide feedback or some sort of support!

Tree wrote:I just wanted to propose an experiment we could do relatively easily; we create a computer generated 3D model of the globe earth to scale according to the size they say it is. Then we zoom down to ground level and see what it looks like. We could raise up slowly and determine exactly when we should see the curve. And if the horizon drops below eye level as we predict. And a number of other possible anomalies. According to Neil degrasse Tyson you can’t see the curve at the height of our highest weather balloons. Well, let’s see if this is correct! If in the computer model we CAN see the curve then that would indicate their model is wrong.. if we can’t it doesn’t really prove either way.

We could also create a FE model to compare it to. See how the horizon differs. When it drops. Does perspective work like we assume. Etc. Other anomalies.

Here’s a write up I created:



Not to pass the work on this but I don’t really know how to create 3D models (I’m guessing something like blender or autocad?) and I don’t have a computer capable of running it (I have a tablet) but if someone wants to create this who does know how you’re welcome to. I could provide feedback or some sort of support!

Your image was too small for me to see, but this has been done a few times that I know of, and it's always the same.

Neil, the ass, as usual, was wrong.

At just one mile, the difference is already obvious:


At five miles, where planes fly, it would be unmistakable:


If the iss was where they claim, they wouldn't need a gopro to make their point:

Tree wrote:I just wanted to propose an experiment we could do relatively easily…

Here’s an interesting video talking about the fake interpretation of 2 Sphere and 3 Sphere math. Earth would be considered a 2 Sphere. He talks about how 2 Sphere math holds no substance in a globe model. My research on 2 Sphere and 3 Sphere: A 2 Sphere is defined as a 2 dimensional surface embedded in a 3 dimensional space. However 2 Sphere math applies to both a flat plane surface or a ball surface. So if anyone inquires why are we using 2 dimensional or flat surface math on a ball earth… there’s your answer. How convenient. Earth is considered not to be a Euclidean space or non-Euclidean because there are no parallel lines on a supposed “sphere” therefore Euclid’s 5th Postulate doesn’t apply. It only applies in small flat sections so they say. Intuitively, Euclidean geometry is flat. Upon further research there’s been several attempts in academia to distance Euclid’s Fifth Postulate from his work in geometry. As a matter of fact his first 4 postulates is referred to as, “absolute geometry.” I read another paper calling his 5th Postulate Euclid’s only blemish. It looks like the Fifth Postulate doesn’t agree with their ideas. Not a mathematician but the video is very interesting. Link:

https://youtu.be/2xX2qtdPCHk