![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/images/sp_en_6.gif)
Very interesting that you mention the epola. I just finished reading the book on it, and it seems very convincing to me.Originally Posted by JohnQPublic
Very interesting that you mention the epola. I just finished reading the book on it, and it seems very convincing to me.
JohnQPublic (13th August 2012)
To his utter consternation, however, in the 1930s and 40s, Hubble discovered an inordinate amount of evidence through his work with the 100-inch telescope at Mount Wilson, California, that Earth was in the center of the universe. As he examined the light coming from stars, Hubble concluded that the spectrum of light, particularly the shift toward the red end of the spectrum, indicated Earth’s centrality quite clearly. But since Hubble was an avowed Copernican, he dismissed the geocentric evidence and countered with the following obstinate alternative:
…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth.…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility...the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs... such a favored position is intolerable…. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape. [The Observational Approach to Astronomy- JQP]
Notice Hubble’s highly charged language. Although he admits it cannot be disproved, an Earth centered universe is not only “unwelcome” but “must be avoided at all costs” and, in fact, it is a “horror” that is “intolerable.” As noted earlier, one scientist even calls it a “depressing thought.”[Donald Goldsmith, the Evolving Universe- JQP]. Notice also Hubble revealing to us that “space curvature” was invented (by Einstein) in order to escape the geocentric implications from the evidence in his telescope of Earth’s centrality.
(excerpts from Galileo Was Wrong, pg. 61, footnotes and illustrations not included)
The most significant scientific evidence that is challenging Copernican cosmology hails from that gathered by astronomers themselves. In short, they are increasingly confronted with evidence that places Earth in the center of the universe. For example, in a 2008 paper written by three astrophysicists from Oxford, evidence for the centrality of the Earth was the simplest explanation for the practical and mathematical understanding of the universe, far superior to the forced invention of “Dark Energy” to support the Copernican model. ScienceDaily put it in simple terms for the layman:
Dark energy is at the heart of one of the greatest mysteries of modern physics, but it may be nothing more than an illusion, according to physicists at Oxford University. The problem facing astrophysicists is that they have to explain why the universe appears to be expanding at an ever increasing rate. The most popular explanation is that some sort of force is pushing the acceleration of the universe’s expansion. That force is generally attributed to a mysterious dark energy. Although dark energy may seem a bit contrived to some, the Oxford theorists are proposing an even more outrageous alternative. They point out that it’s possible that we simply live in a very special place in the universe – specifically, we’re in a huge void where the density of matter is particularly low. The suggestion flies in the face of the Copernican Principle, which is one of the most useful and widely held tenets in physics. Copernicus was among the first scientists to argue that we’re not in a special place in the universe, and that any theory that suggests that we’re special is most likely wrong. The principle led directly to the replacement of the Earth-centered concept of the solar system with the more elegant sun-centered model. Dark energy may seem like a stretch, but it’s consistent with the venerable Copernican Principle. The proposal that we live in a special place in the universe, on the other hand, is likely to shock many scientists.
...Clifton then shows that the tweaking required to get the Dark Energy model working is wholly unnecessary if one simply rejects the first principle of cosmology, the Copernican principle:
An alternative to admitting the existence of dark energy is to review the postulates that necessitate its introduction. In particular, it has been proposed that the SNe observations could be accounted for without dark energy if our local environment were emptier than the surrounding Universe, i.e., if we were to live in a void. This explanation for the apparent acceleration does not invoke any exotic substances, extra dimensions, or modifications to gravity – but it does require a rejection of the Copernican Principle. We would be required to live near the center of a spherically symmetric under-density, on a scale of the same order of magnitude as the observable Universe. Such a situation would have profound consequences for the interpretation of all cosmological observations, and would ultimately mean that we could not infer the properties of the Universe at large from what we observe locally.
Within the standard inflationary cosmological model the probability of large, deep voids occurring is extremely small. However, it can be argued that the center of a large under density is the most likely place for observers to find themselves. In this case, finding ourselves in the center of a giant void would violate the Copernican principle, that we are not in a special place…
New Scientist wasted no time in laying out the cosmological and historical implications of this study:
It was the evolutionary theory of its age. A revolutionary hypothesis that undermined the cherished notion that we humans are somehow special, driving a deep wedge between science and religion. The philosopher Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for espousing it; Galileo Galilei, the most brilliant scientist of his age, was silenced. But Nicolaus Copernicus’s idea that Earth was just one of many planets orbiting the sun – and so occupied no exceptional position in the cosmos – has endured and become a foundation stone of our understanding of the universe. Could it actually be wrong, though? At first glance, that question might seem heretical, or downright silly….And that idea, some cosmologists point out, has not been tested beyond all doubt – yet.
(excerpts from Galileo Was Wrong, pg. 70-72, footnotes and illustrations not included)
A truly magnificent work. There exists no better exposition of the history and science of geocentrism. Very highly recommended and a must for all those interested in the issues surrounding geocentrism today. The animations of the CD are excellent. They illustrate the daily and yearly motions of the sun and planets about the earth, the seasons, retrograde motion, and parallax in a uniform way. The authors have done a very admirable job all around.
Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D.
Astronomy
Author of Geocentricity
In their over 700-page book, Galileo Was Wrong, Drs. Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett make a convincing case for the special and central position of the earth in the cosmos, both physically and spiritually. This is, of course, radically at odds from what everyone is taught from childhood; everyone “knows” the earth revolves around the sun. However, from time to time, like the little girl in Hans Christian Andersen’s tale The Emperor’s New Clothes, accepted “wisdom” is challenged; and what everyone “knows” to be true turns out to be merely a concocted fantasy. Drs. Sungenis and Bennett make a powerful case that the “truths” of heliocentric and acentric cosmologies aiming to describe the “fabric” of spacetime may in fact be constructed out of the same type of “cloth” as the outfit of the Emperor. Admirably presented in a format accessible to a scientific layman, the authors dismantle “proofs” of the earth’s motion such as Foucault’s pendulum, stellar parallax, and stellar aberration. In exhaustive detail, the authors also present the results from modern physics (such as interferometer experiments) and astronomical observations, suggesting that in fact the position of the earth may be where it was held to be prior to the “Copernican revolution”; namely, the unmoving center of the universe. The authors provide quotes from eminent cosmologists admitting that this cannot be refuted by observation but is only rejected on philosophical grounds, and raise the disturbing possibility that part of modern cosmology and physics, including Relativity Theory, has been invented out of “whole cloth” precisely to avoid the philosophical implications of a universe with a motionless earth at the center.
While many of the arguments contained within Galileo Was Wrong have been previously presented by other geocentrists, it is unparalleled in the breadth and detail of the information presented supporting a geocentric cosmology and its accessibility to the lay reader. Galileo Was Wrong therefore stands as a unique reference and starting point for future debate among all who are searchers for the truth and willing to entertain the possibility that perhaps the little girl proclaiming the Emperor’s nakedness was correct.
Unfortunately Galileo Was Wrong is likely to be scorned not only by the mainstream scientific community but also by the mainstream creationist movement. But all who believe that man’s creation was not by “accident” would do well to consider the following questions, posed by the authors. Is the earth an insignificant rock, a mere chance artifact of the Big Bang, one out of many planets in one out of many solar systems, of no special position but hurtling with great speed through the cosmos towards no final destination in particular? Or has the earth been specifically designed by a benevolent Creator as the habitation place for man, the highest creation in the physical universe, and therefore placed in the central position in the universe? For an important corollary to the question of whether man came into being only by accident or via the design of an omnipotent and loving Creator is whether the place of his habitation in the universe likewise came into being only by accident or by design of a Creator, and whether its place in the universe has any importance or special significance. As others strive to restore man to his rightful role as the crown of physical creation as opposed to a mere assortment of molecules arising by chance, Drs. Sungenis and Bennett have made a powerful case for restoring man’s central physical position in the universe.
Vincent J. Schmithorst, Ph.D.
Physics
Imaging Research, Ohio
Galileo Was Wrong is an evocative book. It evoked memories which have lain dormant since my undergraduate days: things like the disturbing conclusions of the Michelson-Morley experiments; things like Leibniz’s critique of Newton’s system as shot through with appeals to occult properties; things like the fact that no one, least of all Newton, can explain what gravity is or refute the materialists’ conclusion that it is intrinsic to matter. In their new book, Sungenis and Bennett take no prisoners. They look all of the anomalies in the current cosmological system in the face without fear and come up with conclusions that will startle the followers of Carl Sagan out of their dogmatic slumbers. Truth to tell, Newton was turned into an idol to serve the political purposes of the Whigs, who used him to bring down the House of Bourbon across the English Channel. His cosmological system was used as a justification of the Enlightenment. Now that the Enlightenment is over, it was inevitable that the system upon which it was based should come in for the powerful critique which Sungenis and Bennett provide. Not inevitable, however, was the brilliant way they provide it.
E. Michael Jones, Ph.D.
Editor: Culture Wars
It takes some measure of discipline to collate and assemble, in cogent form, the relevant scholarship touching on the matter of geocentricity. The task is complicated in no small part by the diversity of viewpoint evident among the adherents to this admittedly dissident approach to astrophysics. Well-intentioned but poorly executed attempts along such lines have tended to discredit the geocentric model, and it is not without reason that the opposition focuses attention on such blatant misfires (if they focus attention on the issue at all). This volume, however, achieves a cumulative effect that is formidable. No one geocentrist, aside from the authors, will agree with every scientific tenet in this work, and many geocentrists might detect the absence of their primary concerns or preferred theoretical alternatives, myself included. How could it be otherwise? If the book were to be fully comprehensive, it could never enter print, its completion being diverted by continual data acquisition. It is right, then, that this effort storms the field in the powerful form it already exhibits, and it is my hope that it will become a living document, growing in value as new updated editions are issued.
I am not a Roman Catholic. Some may find it inexplicable that someone like myself, from the Protestant side of the aisle, would write an endorsement for this project. I believe that in the matter before us, we’d have to credit sectarian tunnelvision for giving rise to such perplexity. My appreciation for the monumental labors of Drs. Sungenis and Bennett does not entail my adopting their views concerning the weight of Patristic evidence, for instance (although the difference between us is one of degree), and my endorsement of their work does not imply my repudiation of sola scriptura, among other distinctively Protestant positions. The critical question involves the value of the specific scholarship being presented. Just as the Chalcedon Foundation, a Protestant Christian educational institution, published the work of Notre Dame University’s Prof. Edward J. Murphy due to the importance of his work, so it is fitting and right to extol this particular compendium for so clearly demonstrating that the emperor’s wardrobe is not merely diaphanous, it’s positively massless (or expressed more plainly, the emperor, modern science, is wearing no clothes).
It is with pleasure that I remand this volume into the hands of the reader, whether he or she is an atheistic scoffer, a Roman Catholic inquirer, a Protestant polemicist, an Evangelical skeptic, or is otherwise motivated to re-open an issue heretofore thought, wrongly, to have been settled nearly four centuries ago. I would recommend approaching this work with as open a mind as you can muster. More importantly, I would urge the Christian reader to come to grips with our built-in, and very human, “lust for credibility,” our desire to have “friendship with the world” and retain “the praise of man,” all of which have sapped our resolve and lead to slipperyslope compromises that continue to lead men into the ditch. This is all the more remarkable, insofar as the present volume exposes the dark, seamy underside of modern science and its Janus-like propensity for speaking out of both sides of its mouth simultaneously. For the critic consulting the volume with the sole intent of attacking it, Drs. Sungenis and Bennett have provided the right thing indeed: a big, fat, juicy target. Therefore, let the debate begin in earnest. With documentation this thorough, the opposition can be quickly called on the carpet for misquotation or taking points out of context. Such interaction with hostile critics can only strengthen future editions of this work. If more Christians would raise the bar like these two authors have done, we would more readily perceive that the Word of God is an anvil that has worn out many hammers ... and will continue to do so.
Martin G. Selbrede
Chief Scientist, UniPixel Displays, Inc.
Vice President, The Chalcedon Foundation
Following the rule of St. Augustine, the Catholic Church teaches that we are to interpret the Sacred Scriptures in their literal and obvious sense unless the interpretation is untenable or necessity requires otherwise. The Church also dogmatically teaches that it is not permissible to depart from the early Church Fathers’ interpretation of Scripture when they are unanimous (Councils of Trent and Vatican I). What does this have to do with cosmology? Everything, because in interpreting the plain meaning of Scripture, all of the Church Fathers believed in geocentrism (that the Earth is a motionless body in the center of the universe). Moreover, this view was endorsed by three popes in authoritative decrees which condemned Copernicanism as “heretical” and “opposed to Scripture.” From Quasars to Gamma-Ray Bursts, from Parallax to Red Shifts, and from Michelson-Morley to Sagnac, Drs. Sungenis and Bennett’s book Galileo Was Wrong meticulously applies the scientific mortar to the theological bricks of geocentrism, producing a compelling structure that brings Catholic teaching and modern science to a crossroads. If the Earth is really the center of the universe, then modern man must face his biggest fear – that there is a Creator who put it there, and man is subject to His rule and authority. This results in two more “frightening” consequences: Copernicanism (which was abandoned by Galileo before he died) is one of the biggest deceptions ever perpetrated upon mankind; and, modern man must retool his entire worldview by giving his primary allegiance, not to science, but to the Church, “the pinnacle and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).
John Salza, Esquire
Author: Masonry Unmasked
It's funny how putting a phd next to someone's name when they agree with you its ok but if they don't it's just another brain washed person
Mark - are you familiar with the exchanges between Gary Hoge/Ken Cole and Sungenis? I think both of them have proven geocentrism scientifically false.
In a nutshell, (Hoge) the center mass + rotation of stars and sun/planets doesn't jive. Sungenis did not address it accurately. (Cole) Newton's laws cannot exist in a geocentric universe.
I linked in a discussion where I demonstrated that one of Gary Hoge's arguments was wrong already.It's funny how putting a phd next to someone's name when they agree with you its ok but if they don't it's just another brain washed person
Mark - are you familiar with the exchanges between Gary Hoge/Ken Cole and Sungenis? I think both of them have proven geocentrism scientifically false.
In a nutshell, (Hoge) the center mass + rotation of stars and sun/planets doesn't jive. Sungenis did not address it accurately. (Cole) Newton's laws cannot exist in a geocentric universe.
Any comments on the starting point for the GPS discussion a page or two back?
I just wanted to show that a variety of people had taken an interest in this topic, including physicists and scientists.
I've just read that thread from the other forum. WRT GPS, general relativity can be used to explain away any argument I can make without access to some DoD files (gps was built and owned by DoD).
I will concede that proving geocentrism wrong is a difficult endeavor.
Thanks, DMac. This is at least a start. But there is enough known about the GPS in the public domain to discuss it intelligently. And it is claimed that the GPS does use general relativity and a special version of special relativity. And if "secret" knowledge is kept from us, then we can only discuss what we know.
On GPS specifically:
GPS requires a minimum of 3 satellites to triangulate position (really at least 4+ to achieve proper timing as proper timekeeping is super important to GPS). When it was implemented by the DoD, using 24 satellites for the GPS system, they said they used fixed points of stars to make initial calculations. Similar to the sun orbit/seasons explanation, the rotation of the universe under relativity can explain it how GPS works as well, so without seeing the secret DoD documents (on specifically how each initial satellite was configured - I've never seen them) we cannot accept what they say as fact to argue in favor of Heliocentrism. After all, this is the is the DoD we're talking about.
JohnQPublic (13th August 2012)
Does the Global Positioning System
Prove General Relativity?
The Global Positioning System (GPS), although invaluable in providing us with a very precise navigation system is, nevertheless, understood by science to be a large-scale version of Sagnac’s rotating interferometer, and thus a thorn in the side of Relativity theory. This was proven in 1984 when GPS technician D. W. Allan and a team of international scientists measured the same effect on light as Sagnac did in 1913...
...Allan and his colleagues found that microwave beams sent to an approaching GPS satellite take 50 nanoseconds less time to reach the satellite than beams sent to a receding satellite...
...the GPS requires frequent uploads of “clock corrections” to keep everything in synch. When the clocks are in synch, still, it is an inevitable occurrence that GPS signals directed to an approaching ground station arrive at least 50 nanoseconds prior to signals sent to a receding ground station. Even when making adjustments for the Doppler effect and gravitation redshift, there still remains a margin of error due to the Sagnac effect. If these factors are not taken into account, a GPS could be off by as much as 11 km (6.8 miles) in one day. Relativists, assuming their theory to be correct, explain these differences by claiming they are due to “relativistic” effects (e.g., “time dilation”) upon light moving in a non-inertial frame. This is precisely the explanation that D. W. Allan proposed in 1984. This explanation, of course, is simply begging the question, since one cannot use as proof that which has not first been proven. In any case, here is how one Relativist explains his methodology:
…the simplest approach is to use an approximate solution of the [General Relativity] field equations in which Earth’s mass gives rise to small corrections to the simple Minkowski metric of Special Relativity, and to choose coordinate axes originating at the planet’s center of mass and pointing toward fixed stars. In this Earth-centered inertial reference frame (ECI), one can safely ignore relativistic effects due to Thomas precession or Lense-Thirring drag. The gravitational effects on clock frequency, in this frame, are due to Earth’s mass and its multipole moments. [Neil Ashby, “Relativity and the Global Positioning System,” Physics Today, May 2002, p. 3.]
One wonders, with the assortment of intersecting theories described above, why the author thinks this is “the simplest approach.” Be that as it may, we notice that his proposed solution not only appeals to remedies that are themselves imprecise (e.g., “approximate solution of [GTR] field equations”) or speculative (“Minkowski metric of Special Relativity,” or “Lense-Thirring drag”), but also shows his dependence on an “Earth-centered” inertial frame in order to allow his “relativistic” theories to explain how the GPS functions. The author confirms his objective in another paragraph:
…the leading contribution to the gravitational potential Φ is the simple Newtonian term –GME/r. The picture is Earth-centered, and it neglects the presence of other Solar System bodies such as the Moon and the Sun. That they can be neglected by an observer sufficiently close to Earth is a manifestation of general relativity’s equivalence principle. In the ECI frame, the only detectable effects of distant masses are their residual tidal potentials. [ibid. p4]We notice here that the goal is to obtain an “Earth-centered” inertial frame, and thus he uses Newtonian formulas rather than Relativistic formulas since the latter are much more complicated. So far, the GPS technician has shown that he is partial to a geocentric map, but allows himself the prerogative of translating Earth-centered mechanics into a Relativistic framework to explain the same effects from a non-centered, non-inertial Earth frame. The reason he must do so is that it is next to impossible to make accurate measurements when the objects one is trying to measure keep moving, as the Earth does around the sun in the heliocentric system. Moreover, without giving his reader any details, the technician also allows himself to justify his use of a geocentric frame by employing the same “detectable effects of distant masses” and their “tidal potentials” from the sphere of stars surrounding Earth as geocentric scientists do. In other words, many geocentrists hold that the forces we experience on Earth (e.g., gravitational tidal effects, centrifugal, Coriolis and Euler forces, etc.) are due to the rotation of billions of stars around the Earth as they distribute theirenormous gravitational effects and angular momentum. In fact, in Ashby’s reference to “general relativity’s equivalence principle,” it is conceded by Relativists that a fixed-Earth around which the stars rotate (e.g., geocentrism) is precisely “equivalent” to a fixed-star system and a rotating Earth (e.g., heliocentrism). Thus, Ashby would have to admit that the “fixed stars” to which he referred in the above opening paragraph would not be fixed in an “Earth-centered inertial” frame since, if Earth is in the inertial position, the stars must be moving against that inertia. The author reinforces our analysis of his methodology in another revealing paragraph:
Computations of satellite orbits, signal paths, and relativistic effects appear to be most convenient in an ECI frame. But navigation must generally be done relative to the Earth’s surface. So GPS navigation messages must allow users to compute the satellite positions in a fixed-Earth, rotating coordinate system, the so-called WGS-84 reference frame.
That is, navigators working on the surface of the Earth would find it difficult to keep track of satellites moving against an inertial Earth because the satellite’s positions would constantly be shifting as the satellite orbited the Earth. Thus, the WGS-84
coordinate system was invented. This system makes it appear as if the satellites are moving precisely the same speed as the Earth’s rotation. In other words, the WGS-84 (World Geodetic System of 1984)1410 is the “coordinate system” which is fixed to the Earth. Thus, one could say that the satellites are moving in a one to-one correspondence with the Earth’s rotation, or, from the geocentric perspective, one can say that the Earth and the satellites are motionless. Ashby then explains the WGS-84 reference frame more specifically:
The navigation messages provide fictitious orbital elements from which a user can calculate the satellite’s position in the rotating WGS-84 frame at the instant of its signal transmission. But this creates some subtle conceptual problems that must be carefully sorted out…For example, the principle of the constancy of c [speed of light] cannot be applied in a rotating reference frame, where the paths of light rays are not straight; they spiral.
In reality, the orbits are “fictitious” because the satellites are not really going the same speed as the Earth’s supposed rotation. Along the way, the author has admitted one of the anomalies of Relativity theory, that is, that the speed of light is not constant in a rotating frame of reference. This is the salient fact that the 1913 Sagnac experiment demonstrated, but the author doesn’t seem bothered by the fact that he has no explanation why the constancy of light does not hold up in such cases, except to say that light has a problem staying at c when it is required to move in curved paths. Interestingly enough, in his famous 1905 paper, Einstein attempted to apply his Special Theory of Relativity to systems in rotation, as he did, for example, when he compared a clock at the North Pole with a clock circling the equator. But he found that his theory couldn’t explain how light moved in rotating systems, so the General Relativity theory was invented in order to answer Sagnac’s results. Since General Relativity incorporates the remaining universe, the Relativist could now appeal to the “distant rotating masses” (i.e., the “fixed” stars which suddenly were not so “fixed”) that produce “counter-rotation effects” upon Earth. This explanation, if one recalls, is the same one that Ashby proposed as an explanation for an “Earth centered inertial” system in “general relativity’s equivalence principle” in which the “detectable effects of distant masses are their residual tidal potentials”
[CONTINUED]
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote