“Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…” Albert Einstein (“Relativity – The Special and General Theory,” cited in Stephen Hawking’s, A Stubbornly Persistent Illusion, 2007, p. 169)

“There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.” Henrick Lorentz (1886 paper, “On the Influence of the Earth’s Motion of Luminiferous Phenomena,” in A. Miller’s Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, p. 20.)

“The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the earth’s motion…” Arthur Eddington (Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11, 8)

[Author’s note:  I don’t have a bias in this domain or associated arguments.  I am Socratic in that I believe you follow evidence and then decide what makes sense.  This Socratic principle is absent in science, hence ‘Scientism’.] 

Introduction

Scientism has a few definitions.  In essence we can say that Scientism is the blind religious belief in the abstraction called ‘science’ and its dogmatic claims.  We saw this with the Coronavirus plan-demic and hear it every day with the inane cult of ‘Climate change’.  Scientism demands that you suspend critical thinking skills and the world of the 5 senses and submit to the Church of ‘The Science’ and its gospel.  The reality is that much of what we have been taught as ‘Science’ is simply wrong.  An example is ‘the proof’ that heliocentricity is a fact.  This is simply a lie.  When you start to analyse the myth of heliocentricity, many more myths begin to implode. 

Copernican Principle Defined

Heliocentricity as a theory is encased in what is now viewed as a ‘law’ or principle.  This principle is used by everyone in ‘science’ as a starting point.  Few if any question whether the principle comports with reality. 

In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle states that humans, on the Earth or in the Solar System, are not privileged observers of the universe, that observations from the Earth are representative of observations from the average position in the universe. Named for Copernican heliocentrism, it is a working assumption that arises from a modified cosmological extension of Copernicus' argument of a moving Earth.

Is there an uglier, more debased and anti-anthropic ‘principle’ than this one? 

Is there any proof to grant it ‘principle status’?

A bold Thesis

Very few people on this planet understand that in reality, no one in all of history has ever proven that the Earth moves in space.  From Aristarchus to Galileo no proof exists, just theories.  Can you imagine this?  We simply accept what we are told to believe.  Isn’t this the definition of Scientism?  Blind belief.  For example, everyone ‘knows’ the famous but apocryphal example of the ‘persecuted’ Galileo during the 17^th century, telling heliocentricity truth to unreasonable, fanatical, insipid, ignorant, superstitious, obnoxious, uneducated, dirty, toothless, priests and monks.  Hyperbolic and entirely wrong. 

Anyone who has studied this saga knows that the irascible, ego-centric Catholic was never persecuted, was in fact funded by the Church, feted, given 2 days of public honor and festival in Rome, yet when it came to heliocentricity possessed no proof for his assertions.  The better arguments are found with the monks and Jesuit astronomers.  What Galileo purported as proof, would today be dismissed with a chuckle and grin.  But he was quick at self-promotion, peacock strutting, slander and ridicule, a sure method not to win friends and allies.  Myths die hard.  We will look at the apocryphal Galileo case later always used by ‘The Science’ as a cudgel against the ‘religious’ as if the worship of ‘Science’ is not a religion.  

It will surprise many to learn that the Copernican model, including the ideas of Copernicus and Galileo, has more to do with philosophical worldviews than with hard science.  When you deep dive into the data and sources, you are shocked to uncover the Potemkin, Wizard-of-Oz reality of the ‘Copernican Principle’, pronounced as yet another ‘Scientific Law’ that you must obey, whether or not it is true, and whether or not you actually understand what it means. 

Worldviews

Modern ‘science’ is suffused with philosophical worldviews.  Modern scientists openly admit that heliocentrism is merely the preferred model of cosmology, a choice made purely on philosophical grounds, not scientific ones.  As Stephen Hawking queried,

“So, which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true….one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.”   (The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, 2010, pp. 41-42)

Hawking and modern ‘science’ philosophically use heliocentricity as their departure point, premised in part on an incorrect belief that the Copernican system is ‘simpler’ than the Ptolemaic.  This often-cited assertion is simply untrue.  To wit, the Copernican-Kepler model contains between 48-90 epicycles, or small, out-of-elliptical movements, digressions and retrograde motions, depending on how you want to count them.  Ptolemy’s has 40.  Ptolemy’s system is thus simpler and more elegant and as any astronomer and physicist past or present has admitted, admirably explains celestial phenomena and movements.  It is not an archaic model from half-naked idiots and illiterates. 

19^th century disproof’s

(Tycho Brahe’s Tychonic system which incorporates the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems and explains equally well the observed ‘phenomena’)

In previous posts we discussed many 18^th and 19^th century experiments which disproved the moving Earth hypothesis.  All of these men were avid ‘helio-centrists’ and were ‘shocked’ by the null or negative result.  You won’t get this information from ChatGPT but you can read it in their writings.  ‘It cannot be true!’ they moan.  ‘We know it moves’ they proclaim. 

Most people have never heard about these experiments, so we will list and summarise the most relevant here:

In 1810, François Arago sought to measure how light particles were refracted by a glass prism in front of a telescope.  He predicted that there would be different angles of refraction due to the different velocities of the stars and the motion of the Earth at different times of the day and year.  Contrary to his expectation, he found no difference in refraction between stars, time zones, or seasons.  All that Arago observed was normal stellar aberration – as evidenced previously by Bradley (Persson 2011).  Bradley’s stellar parallax of 1725 can be explained by both helio-or-geo centricity.  It does not prove the mobility of the planet.  Arago’s failure was a huge shock to heliocentricity.

Arago also observed one star through a telescope for the whole course of a year.  In the heliocentric system the Earth will move toward the star and then move away.  Arago reasoned that the focal length of his telescope would need to change when viewing the star since the limited speed of light must be compensated to accommodate both a receding Earth and an advancing Earth at six month intervals.  To his utter astonishment, Arago did not need to adjust the focus to see the star clearly.  This clearly told him an avowed heliocentricist that the Earth was immobile (François Arago, “Mémoire sur la vitesse de la lumière”, 1810. Académie des sciences (Paris)).

In 1851 Armand Fizeau (1821-1896), attempted to prove Fresnel’s “drag” theory to procure a physical, not a theoretical or mathematical, answer for Arago’s results.  Fresnel had attempted to explain Arago’s failure by describing an ether entrained around the Earth, which moves with the Earth and prevents a mechanical calculation of its movement.  Fizeau’s thesis was that if we on Earth are moving through ether, then the speed of the light in a water tube will be increased with the speed of the Earth’s motion (30 km/sec).  But the outcome was quite different than what Fizeau expected.  The speed of light was not a sum of the velocity of the light added to the velocity of the Earth.  Rather, the only effect Fizeau found on the speed of light was that which was induced by the water’s refractive index.  Again the Earth’s mobility was not detected.  This experiment had a great impact on Einstein. 

In 1868 the Dutchman Martinus Hoek, an astronomer at Utrecht, performed another type of experiment, by creating a variation of Fizeau’s experiment in order to test the nature of light. Hoek used an interferometer arrangement of a monochromatic light ray from a source of light, divided by a (weakly silver-coated) glass plate.  Even if the whole apparatus were at rest in the ether, such an arrangement would give rise to interference fringes in the telescope.  To his surprise, Hoek noticed no significant difference in the fringes, at least not in accord with an Earth moving at 30 km/sec.  He simply confirmed what Michelson and Morey would also witness in 1887 – the Earth was immobile. 

In 1871 Sir George Biddell Airy set out to record the change in the direction of light passing through a refracting medium that is moving.  This followed on from Fresnel (1818) and Fizeau (1851).  His experiments are replicable.  Airy demonstrated that stellar aberrations occur even when a telescope is filled with water and measurements are taken from the moving Earth (moving medium).  This is not what the theory predicts.  As with Fizeau, the Airy experiments suggest that light does propagate through dielectic or poorly conducting matter but at a reduced phase velocity.  The stellar aberration hypothesis seemed to be disproven, leading to the conclusion that the Earth is immobile. 

In 1872 Elie Nicolas Mascart devised an experiment in which he could detect the motion of the Earth through ether by measuring the rotation of the plane of polarization of light propagated along the axis of a quartz crystal.  Polarization is a phenomenon of white light, which propagates along the axis of forward movement at many different angles but is reduced to just one angle.  Mascart set up the experiment so that if the Earth were passing through the ether at the expected clip of 30 km/sec, then the light’s plane of polarization would be affected.  Mascart found no such results.   The Earth refused to reveal mobility. 

In 1881 the famous German physicist A. Michelson, using a highly sensitive interferometer tried to refute the Airy experiment but much to his amazement, failed.  He would try the same experiment again in 1887 with the American Morley – and produce the same failed result. With lament he wrote, “This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth moves.” (in, “The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125). 

Michelson found no evidence of the Earth’s mobility. 

Oliver Lodge tried to rectify Michelson’s failures and conducted experiments in the 1890s seeking evidence that light propagation was affected by being near large rotating masses but found no such effect.  Lodge still believed the ether existed but that it was difficult to find.  His 1925 book ‘Ether and Reality’ provides an overview of his experimental evidence for an ether, where he maintains that the ether accounts for the movement of light, gravity and even heat across a vacuum.  He did however refute the stellar aberration concept (Hunt 1986).  If the ether does exist Einstein’s STR is invalid. 

The above disprove the Sun-Worshippers precious theory. But you will never hear about them. In fact ‘The Science’ flips them around as proof of STR and heliocentricity. Lies are now truths.

More here