Gab@StFerdinandIII - https://unstabbinated.substack.com/
Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Corona, 'The Science' or Scientism, Islam, the State, the cult of Gender Fascism, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion...
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
There is a severe paucity of proof for heliocentricity. The theory is simply accepted as fact, without mechanical and observational verification. There is voluminous evidence from the 19th and 20th centuries which contradicts and disputes both heliocentricity and its apologist framework, the Special Theory of Relativity. The errors and lack of mechanical proofs are covered extensively in a previous set of posts.
In this post we will have a hard look at what is incorrectly forwarded as Newton’s key ‘law’ that smaller bodies always orbit larger. This is usually offered as ‘proof’ of heliocentricity, but as we will see when discussing the greater universal forces at work, this is not the case. In fact, this supposed ‘law’ provides more evidence for geocentrism than Copernicanism, a consideration that is anathema to ‘The Science’.
Newton neither said nor proved that a smaller object must always orbit the larger. Newton merely stated that when we have two or more bodies in a rotating system, all bodies will revolve around the center of mass (also known as the center of gravity). It is a natural effect and phenomena that the ancients probably well understood:
“That the center of the system of the world is immovable: this is acknowledged by all, although some contend that the Earth, others that the sun, is fixed in that center” (Isaac Newton, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Book 3: The System of the World, Proposition X, Hypothesis I)
Our own solar system and ‘milky way’ galaxy is not a closed system. It is open and a part of a far larger universe. This is one of the problems with Einstein’s thought experiments - he assumes a closed system. If we did have a closed system and there were only 2 planets namely the Earth and Sun, then the corrupted Newtonian claims that the smaller object or Earth would orbit the larger body the Sun, would likely be sensible and valid. But that is not our reality. There is a little factor called ‘the rest of the universe’ which Newtonians and Copernicans often ignore. The universe is estimated to contain five sextillion stars. Quite a mass of weight one would imagine.
In Newtonian physics the center of our solar system must find its location at the ‘center of mass’, which would consider all the bodies and masses within our solar system (ignoring for the moment the rest of the universe). The displacement of this center within our solar system would of course not be the Sun itself, but would find its locus at quite an appreciable distance from the Sun. Now add in the rest of the universe beyond our solar system. The ‘center’ would need to migrate and be displaced even further from our Sun. There is no proof that the center of universe is located with our Sun. Such a claim, if ever made, has no empirical evidentiary support.
As Fred Hoyle the famed physicist and astronomer (who believed in panspermia, and space-travelling ‘viruses’) stated: “If a new body is added to the set from outside, or if a body is taken away, the “center” changes” (Hoyle, p. 85). This makes perfect sense. We should take into account the weight within our solar system, our own galaxy and other galaxies (new planets, comets, collisions causing destruction etc) when assessing mass attraction, gravity and the impact on inertial motion.
If we add in the ‘weight’ of the universe there must be an enormous impact on bodies within our solar system. This implies that there is no ‘law’ that the Earth must revolve around the Sun given the displacement of this center. It might well be that the Sun and planets revolve around the Earth in a Tychonic or Ptolemaic system, which current scientific observations would support as easily as they would support a Sun-centric view. Or it might imply a completely different model not yet considered by ‘The Science’.
Given the size and mass weight of stars and bodies in our universe, there will be many local centers of mass. These federated and local systems do not impinge or supersede the center of mass for the universe itself. This means that each galaxy will have its own center of mass. This seems logical. While the constellation of planets in our solar system will have a center of mass near the Sun; and while the moons of the planets have a center of mass near their respective planet, these are only local centers of mass.
When we consider all the mass of the universe, there is only one place where the universe’s center of mass exists. Newton’s principle given above that the ‘center of the system of the world is immovable’ does not mean that heliocentricity is proven. There are many models which fit the observational data. If for example, the universe was in rotation, Newton’s laws would demand that it rotate around its singular center of mass. This could be the Earth (or not). As Hoyle states it, the equivalence between heliocentricity and geocentricity was recognized not only in geometry, but also in the gravitational and inertial dynamics:
“…we can take either the Earth or the Sun, or any other point for that matter, as the center of the solar system. This is certainly so for the purely kinematical problem of describing the planetary motions. It is also possible to take any point as the center even in dynamics, although recognition of this freedom of choice had to await the present century” (Hoyle, p. 82)
Most physicists accept the concept that, “Mass there governs inertia here.” Newton never took the mass of the universe into account, and this is a primary inadequacy of his theory of motion (Misner, et al pp. 543).
Newton failed to consider the gravitational and inertial forces found in the rest of the universe when he composed his laws of motion. The missing parts of his theory directly affect the choice one makes for either Copernicus, Ptolemy or Tycho Brahe. As the Brazilian physicist, Andre Assis, puts it:
“Leibniz and Mach emphasised that the Ptolemaic geocentric system and the Copernican heliocentric system are equally valid and correct…the Copernican world view, which is usually seen as being proved to be true by Galileo and Newton…Despite the gravitational attraction between the sun and the planets, the earth and other planets do not fall into the sun because they have an acceleration relative to the fixed stars. The distant matter in the universe exerts a force…..on accelerated planets, keeping them in their annual orbits.” (Assis, pp. 190-191)
This is an important point, ‘The distant matter in the universe exerts a force…..on accelerated planets’. Without such forces, the Earth would indeed be swallowed by the Sun.
The principle of ‘equivalence’, based on Kepler and Mach’s maths, was enunciated by Einstein to explain uniform acceleration in an ‘inertial system’. The Special Theory of Relativity does not account for acceleration, nor non-linear motions. There are no absolutes in STR, and everything must be relative (many posts have gone through the proofs of why STR is unscientific).
But if we accept at face value Einstein’s incorrect model of the universe, we can see that heliocentricity is just a theory as given by this principle of equivalence. STR has never proven heliocentricity, nor has it done much to fix the gap in Newton’s laws of inertial motion. Einstein uses 2 systems, one called ‘A; and the other ‘I’ to explain:
“Let A be a system uniformly accelerated with respect to an “inertial system.” Material points, not accelerated with respect to I, are accelerated with respect to A, the acceleration of all the points being equal in magnitude and direction. They behave as if a gravitational field exists with respect to A, for it is a characteristic property of the gravitational field that the acceleration is independent of the particular nature of the body. There is no reason to exclude the possibility of interpreting this behavior as the effect of a “true” gravitational field (principle of equivalence) (Einstein, p. 14.)
A is a system in uniform motion with respect to another system within a defined grid or system. Within A but outside of I, objects are accelerated whose movement will not only be impacted by the gravitational attraction within system A, but also from the total mass of attraction which includes I. This indicates that within our own solar system, not only the Sun but the planets and every other moving object in our system (comets, asteroids, moons), are controlled by the galaxies and the collective attraction and weight. This ‘true gravitational field’ or principle of equivalence removes the mystery out of inertia and why the planets travel in precise orbits.
“Kepler’s standpoint is particularly interesting, since he was deeply impressed by Tycho Brahe’s ‘demolition’ of the crystal spheres. Kepler posed the problem of astronomy in the famous words: “From henceforth the planets follow their paths through the ether like the birds in the air. We must therefore philosophize about these things differently.” (J. Barbour, p. 9.)
Kepler, the Protestant astronomer whose maths were the first theoretical proofs to support Copernicanism, came up with a rather ‘Machian’ solution. Kepler’s maths suggested that the planets could not possibly follow such precise orbits by a mere inspection of empty space. The elliptical and complicated journeys must be guided and driven in their motion by the real masses in the universe, namely, the Sun and the sphere of the fixed stars. This insight by Kepler pre-empted that of Mach by some 300 years and is perfectly aligned to what most physicists believe today, namely that the mass of the universe is an essential ‘force’ which accounts for the observational data on planetary motions.
This supports Mach’s principle which was in large measure a restatement of observations by the English astronomer George Berkeley in the 1700s:
(Encyclopedia Britannica) “Mach’s principle, in cosmology, hypothesis that the inertial forces experienced by a body in nonuniform motion are determined by the quantity and distribution of matter in the universe. It was so called by Albert Einstein after the 19th-century Austrian physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach. Einstein found the hypothesis helpful in formulating his theory of general relativity—i.e., it was suggestive of a connection between geometry and matter”
The Kepler-Berkeley-Mach ‘principle’ means that there are absolutes including mass and gravitational attraction. Even Newton admitted that this was valid.
(Galileo (1564-1642), facing the inquistion)
We have all heard the story of Galileo from the early 17th century. The honest, independent, objective, ‘scientist’, trying to drag the superstitious post-medieval world into light and knowledge. Attacked, tortured, and demonised by the Catholic inquisition for ‘proving’ that the Sun was the centre of our solar system and the true object of worship. His truths ignored due to Biblical ignorance and rank stupidity. Lesser mortals, debased by religion, unable to comprehend his proofs and genius, refused to enter the door of science he was opening, closing it. The hairshirt wearing, idol-worshipping, cowering and despairing Church with its unclean, unkept, illiterate monks had declared war on ‘The Science’. We all know this to be true. Teacher say, TV say, books say, ‘The Science’ say. Twas the Dark Ages before the ‘Enlightenment’.
But the truth is that Galileo was never accosted, tortured, beaten or even demonised for his views. In fact, he lived a long, salubrious life, entirely funded by the de Medici’s and the Church.
According to our modern education hagiography, the following is ‘true’ about Galilei Galileo:
1. Proved heliocentricity (it took some 200 hundred years after Galileo, before some proofs were offered, namely stellar parallax and light aberration which can also be explained by the Tychonic model, as covered in other posts)
2. Invented the telescope
3. Discovered Sunspots
4. Identified comets
5. Dropped weights from the leaning tower of Pisa proving the ‘law’ of accelerated gravity
6. Invented the incline plane to prove that an object falling down an incline will roll up an incline for the same distance as the declination
7. Discovered the important properties of a pendulum
8. Based on the pendulum discovered time keeping
9. Was the first to push ‘experimental science’
Busy guy. Except that none of the above is true (Kuhn, p. 10). Galileo did not invent the telescope and his customised production was largely inferior to that of Kepler’s. He did not prove heliocentricity whatsoever (more below). It is unlikely he performed the weight dropping experiment, nor did he discover the attributes of a swinging pendulum, the incline motion of an object proceeding from a declination; nor did he uncover secrets leading to time keeping or navigation.
Christopher Scheiner discovered Sunspots. Jesuits long before Galileo had traced and explained the life cycle of comets, contrary to Galileo’s claim that they were ephemeral. Scientific experimentation using defined methods dates to at least the 12th century. Galileo was the same character who yelled and pounded his desk that the moon had an atmosphere. It doesn’t and if you landed on it, you wouldn’t survive more than 10 minutes due to radiation exposure.
Regarding the fictitious Tower of Pisa-weight dropping, Galileo said that the heavier object fell fastest in contravention of the supposed ‘law’ attributed to him:
“Experience shows….in the beginning of its motion the wood is carried more rapidly than the lead; but a little later the motion of the lead if so accelerated that it leaves the wood behind…I have often made a test of this.” (Lane Cooper, Aristotle, Galileo, and the Tower of Pisa, 1935)
‘The Science’ claims that Galileo invented the law of accelerate gravity or the equation d = ½ g (t2) + v*t, where d = distance, g = gravity, t = time and v = velocity. He didn’t. Observations date back to the 6th century with Philoponus and include many experiments from the 16th century, including one from Simon Stevin from the Tower at Pisa in 1586. There is no evidence that Galileo performed any such experiment at Pisa, though he claims to have done so many times. If he had bothered, he would not have written the above.
Galileo was born in the late 16th century and performed his work during the early 17th. He was an educated man and much of what he ‘discovered’ was already known. In fact, he was taught about objects, motions, pendulums, and time. He did not invent any of these concepts. Yet as with so many – Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and countless other ‘great scientists’-- Galileo never bothered to reference the work, nor the efforts of others. As with Einstein, you won’t find more than a few tangential attributions by Galileo to those who did the hard work of experimentation, or who discovered the theorem in question.
Galileo admits the paucity of his experimentation, and like Einstein was more interested in philosophy and abstractions than actual proof:
“…in order to demonstrate to my opponents, the truths of my conclusions, I have been forced to demonstrate them by a variety of experiments, though to satisfy myself alone I have never felt it necessary to make many.” (J.H. Randall, The Making of the Modern Mind, 1976, p. 235)
There are little extant proofs which confirm that Galileo did much in the way of mechanical experimentation.
It is necessary to put the Galileo myth in the context of its era. The Protestant revolt, beginning in 1517, had sundered Western Christendom in two. State powers viewed the Protestant church as a convenient entity to subsume into the secular political structures. The ‘reformation’ was more about national power and control than about religion. Catholic dogmas and received wisdom were under attack in every sphere. In many countries it was against the law to be Catholic. The Church had been forced to retreat from much of northern Europe and felt itself surrounded by the heresy to the north, and the Muslims to the east and south. The early 17th century was a time of flux and real danger. The Church had little interest in more internal convulsions generated by ‘science’.
Einstein’s doubt:
Einstein: “I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards.” (Letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 in Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 400).
Einstein to astronomer Erwin Freundlich in 1913: “If the speed of light is in the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false” (ibid., p. 207).
Einstein: “My whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false.” And so, they are Einstein. Miller was right pace the first quote, and Sagnac was right confirming the second quote
.
Georges Sagnac’s experiments, which disproved the constancy of the speed of light, and proved an ether, were rather miraculously, incorporated, and consumed by ‘The Science’ to support time dilation and STR! Sagnac’s effect, which is used in GPS, measurement, and gyroscope technologies, disproved STR of course. Sagnac proved there are absolutes when measuring light speed and the ether which STR does not support. Experiments using Sagnac’s method which followed his 1913 effort, also found the same. Not a single Relativist can point to an experiment disproving Sagnac.
Sagnac never confronted Einstein and his fantasy-world directly. But Dayton Miller did. Miller like those before him who registered negative results when trying to prove STR and the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, was a Copernican Sunworshipper. He was a very well-known American physicist and a key figure in the US science establishment. He was not a man to be ignored.
Dayton Miller’s biography in summary:
· PhD in science in 1890 from Princeton University
· President of both the American Physical Society (1925-1926) and Acoustical Society of America (1913-1933)
· Chairman of the division of Physical Sciences of the National Research Council (1927-1930)
· Chairman of the physics department of Case School of Applied Science (aka: Case Western University)
· Active member of the National Academy of Sciences.
During a 31-year period from approximately 1902-1933, Miller produced over 300.000 experimental tests which confirmed the 19th and early 20th century’s interferometer measurements including Sagnac’s, that no mechanical mobility or motion of the Earth could be detected, and there appeared to be an ether. Miller’s experimentation is the most thorough and detailed study in history of trying to prove heliocentricity and the Earth’s movement through an ether. All he found was that the Earth appeared immobile and that an ether acted on the Earth.
So, what did Miller do?
Dayton Miller constructed (to paraphrase Joe Biden), the most extensive and sophisticated interferometer experiment in history. Miller built the largest and most sensitive collection of equipment ever devised to record and measure the ‘interference’ readings of light beams. As a devout Copernican he was simply trying to prove the theory of heliocentricity and STR.
(Miller’s Interferometer machine on Mount Wilson)
Miller took great care with his creation. At extraordinary cost he floated the interferometer device on a pool of mercury to eliminate friction. He employed different bases including, wood, metal and concrete. Miller performed tests at different times of the day, different seasons of the year, different altitudes, including the Mount Wilson observatory near Pasadena California, and at different latitudes with differing light sources. He produced his observations over a 3 decade long period.
Miller also took precautions against thermal distortions by insulating the apparatus in one- inch cork and by applying uniform parabolic heaters and taking account of human body heat. He covered the interferometer in glass so that drift would not be inhibited. He used a 50x magnification telescope to observe the fringes, which allowed him to see down to the hundredth scale. Miller even switched to an interferometer made of aluminum and brass to eliminate possible effects from magneto-constriction.
It was a comprehensive and largely incorruptible setup. Beyond reproach or critique.
The first round of testing ensued from 1902-1916, when Miller performed over 200,000 different readings. By contrast, the 1887 Michelson-Morley had a total of 36 readings on an apparatus that was much smaller and less accurate. The second round occurred between 1921 and 1933, when Miller performed over 100,000 trials (D. C. Miller, “The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth,” Reviews of Modern Physics 5, 352-367, 1933).
In total we have some 300.000 measurements.
Albert Einstein
“Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.’’ [quoted in “What Life Means to Einstein: An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck” Saturday Evening Post, October 26th, 1929, p. 11]
Imagination is the basis of much of modern ‘science’. Two previous posts outlined the lack of evidence for a mobile Earth, both pre-and-post 1905, which is the year ‘The Science’ issued Einstein’s opus magnus on Relativity. The Special Theory of Relativity’s main purpose was to remove the inconvenient relevancy of studies which could not find a mobile Earth. Einstein through the abstraction and ‘imagination’ of STR sought re-impose the accepted dogma of heliocentricity.
STR achieves this by erecting a universe with no fixed absolutes, no rules, and in essence, no logic. In this fantasy world, no mechanical measurement is needed to prove that the Earth moves, because none can be made. This is because pace STR, a moving Earth which is an unproven assumption, negates the ‘law of inertial reference’ and makes any calibrated measurement impossible. This is called an illogical tautology. What they are saying is that the Earth moves and we don’t need to have mechanical, physical proof. We should just accept the premise.
For 500 years our world-views have been irrevocably impacted by the purported fact that the Earth is moving at the astonishing pace of 108.000 km / hour through the universe. Yet the proofs are simply not in evidence. As Einstein and all physicists and astronomers have admitted, there are no mechanical proofs detailing and confirming that the Earth is hurtling along at 30 km per second.
The few who have thumbed through Copernicus’ 1543 exposition on the revolution of the orbits, will know that maybe 20 pages try to explain the idea. The rest, some 180 pages is filler, full of tables and observations that don’t prove heliocentricity and could as easily prove geo-centricity. The Copernican model was first and foremost a philosophical exercise, yet has been assumed since the late 16th century to be ‘correct’. Newton’s entire system, which Einstein energetically tried to uphold, is based on Copernican acceptance, but like Einstein, Newton provided no proof.
Since the late 16th century ‘The Science’ has never bothered to verify the Copernican claim. This is not a scientific approach and is based on what is called an ‘appeal to authority’. The reality is that every physicist and astronomer since the 17th century has assumed Copernican veracity, appealing to various scientific figures as sources of proof. This includes Einstein, who wrote that Copernicanism should be taken as the starting point. This is a philosophical a priori belief, not a fact establshed from scientific measurement.
[An example is Gailelo. Any who have studied Galileo know that he did not prove heliocentricity. Indeed Galileo may have recanted his Copernican faith. At the end of this post is provided an interesting letter that no one knows about, dictated by Galileo in which he apparently apostasies from the Copernican theology (see footnote A)].
Even though no mechanical proof exists that the Earth is mobile, Einstein demanded that we still believe it moves at the astonishing pace of 108.000 km / hour, an incomprehensible velocity (speech Kyoto Japan, Dec. 14 1922, ‘How I created the theory of Relativity’). Relativity cannot be interpreted unless one understands that it is far more a philosophical and imaginative framework, than a scientific endeavor.
By 1905 Einstein and a small group within ‘The Science’ had to save the heliocentric-phenomena which was being assaulted by interferometer calculations, which showed that the Earth’s movement, as measured by these light-sensitive machines, is about ~5 km per second, not the purported or expected 30 km / second. Many other 19th century experiments also failed to confirm diurnal rotation. In fact all of these experiments called into question heliocentricity, suggesting that the Earth was immobile.
Scope of this post:
Keep the length down
Outline the post-1905 experiments which attempted to prove heliocentricity
The implications of their greater-than-null results
How ‘The Science’ reacted
Next posts: The ground shaking experiments of Georges Sagnac and D. C. Miller
Edwin Hubble:
"…there must be no favored location in the universe, no center, no boundary; all must see the universe alike. And, in order to ensure this situation, the cosmologist postulates spatial isotropy and spatial homogeneity.…" (Edwin Hubble, The Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, p. 63)
A very religious declaration from an icon of ‘The Science’.
‘Do you believe in a flat earth’? will be the response if you ask someone, ‘can you provide for me, physical proof to support the Copernican principle or heliocentricity’? An exasperated interlocutor might also reply with, ‘are you stupid and one of those religious idiots? Of course it flies around the Sun, everyone knows this, Galileo say, Einstein say, BBC say, NASA say, and you are not smarter than Einstein chud’.
You can do your own poll. Ask anyone to give you the speed of the Earth’s journey around the Sun. Add the bonus question of ‘diurnal’ or daily rotational speed. I doubt 1 in 10 could answer both. The average person has no idea that the assumed speed of the mobile Earth is 30 km / second, 1800 km per minute, or a rather astounding 108.000 km/hour. That is pretty quick.
One would think that such a speed might be noticeable and measurable. Supposedly, pace ‘The Science’, it isn’t. You believe; therefore you spin around. For the record the diurnal motion is purportedly and roughly, 1600 km per hour. So here we are, spinning at 1600 km per hour in a tight turn, traversing the universe around the Sun at a sedate canter of 108.000 km per hour. If that is not a miracle of something or other, I don’t know what it is.
The previous post discussed the lack of evidence for heliocentricity pre-1905. This lack of evidence led directly to Einstein and Relativity. To save the Copernican theories and phenomena, the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) had to be invented. Few know this. Few know that there is no hard evidence for STR and that STR behind scientific closed doors has long been dead. Its public burial and the rubbishing of its great apostle Einstein, is just too emotional a consideration for the great unwashed mass.
The previous post which can be extended into a book, was intended only as an introduction to a topic that rolls people’s eyes. ‘You can’t be serious?’ will be the standard head-shaking comment. However as this post will summarise, it gets even more difficult for the Sun-worshippers, post 1905. There are literally dozens of experiments that you have never heard of, which do not support STR nor heliocentricity. The brave explorer can find none that support the theories, ChatGPT and textbooks using their illogical and tautological claims notwithstanding.
Albert Einstein
“I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the sun.” (Speech titled: “How I Created the Theory of Relativity,” delivered at Kyoto University, Japan, Dec. 14, 1922, as cited in Physics Today, August, 1982)
(The very religious declaration of a devout Copernican)
1905 is of course a watershed year in ‘The Science’, when Einstein published his theory of relativity, on September 26 entitled “On the Electrodynamics of Bodies in Motion” in the Annalen der Physik. As a mental concept Relativity has a long history, including Galilean, Descartian, Newtonian and Lorentzian relativity. Einstein’s theory built on these antecedents and took them to their logical end point. He postulated that physical, observational, and rational investigation could be replaced by models and maths.
In Einstein’s universe there is no absolute reality, and all objects are moving relative to each other. It is the imposition of Kant into science, via Ernst Mach who was probably the key inspiration for Einstein, which saturates the absurdity of the Special Theory of Relativity. Relativity as a theological principle and abstract idea, simply means that there is no single point of reference, anywhere, any place at any time.
Because there is no single point of reference or a ‘frame of inertia’ (a grid, a reference point, e.g. a stationary Earth) it means that we can use maths and models to contort the universe into any theory we find pleasing. Or, to paraphrase Einstein, if we look at the phenomena around us, we could as easily explain what we see in the universe by assuming that the Earth is immobile, or the Sun, or even the moon. Everything we see could be explained by any number of ‘relative’ models. This means that there is no fixed reality. By extension, the only way to make sense of it all is to describe this fluctuating relativisation with maths.
(A simple summary of the fantasy world of STR, a make believe world of maths, where you can move the ‘observer’ to any location to prove your theory)
Philosopher and scientist Bertrand Russell:
“Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east, as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west, as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption, which can never be proved or disproved by observation.” (Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus: An Essay on his Life and Work, p. 82
Einstein’s fantasy world is based on an ‘observer’ in a ‘frame of reference’ (a location, or a grid). From an ‘observers’ position Einstein can create a make-believe world. Depending on where the ‘observer’ is sited, Einstein and his friends can declare that when an observer views a moving object or objects (eg a star, an electron, a train), that object’s length, width, velocity, motion, and even mass are all ‘relative’ and subject to endless change, or apparent transformation (contraction, recession). Einstein can move the ‘observer’ around, or in many cases, get rid of him altogether if that suits the purpose. Within a frame of reference, and based on where you place the observer, two clocks can be both slower and faster than each other - a logical impossibility (see Dingle’s complaint).
The above for Einstein et al means that light based measurements or ‘mechanical’ experiments, are therefore by definition invalid (e.g. the Michelson-Morley experiment which disproved the Earth’s movement). A measurement of time or velocity using light waves or particles (‘The Science’ does not know what makes up light), could be invalid relative to the moving object if you move your frame of reference and the ‘observer’. Mechanical measurements for example on a mobile Earth (their assumption) means that the law of inertia is violated and the experiment nullified. How convenient. In this fantasy world, objects, time, speeds and relationships are not absolute and nothing can be reliably measured.
Within STR objects can appear from nowhere (eg anti-matter or positrons) and disappear into nowhere (violating the First Law of Thermodynamics). Objects can change shape, form, utility and composition at any time for whatever random chance reason. All relationships between objects are relative, even with light. This means there is no absolute anything. If needs arise, I can conjure up Dark Matter to balance Newtonian equations and save the phenomena, or invoke Dark Energy to explain the supposed endless acceleration of the universe, whilst contradictorily disproving the existence of an ‘ether’ (what then is ‘dark matter’ or ‘dark energy’?). I don’t need to prove that any of this really exists, as long as they reveal themselves in my infinitely inscrutable equations as constants or variables, giving form to calculations that no one will understand.
As Einstein wrote, imitating the earlier relativity of Galileo and his ships, if I stand on a platform and see a train travelling at 50 mph rush past and crash into a mountain, it is ‘relatively’ true to state that an ‘observer’ travelling on the train could claim that the train station and Earth moved into the train and that the train was crashed into. It depends on the ‘observer’ and their ‘frame of reference’. In times past we put such people into mental asylums.
In essence STR means nothing. For Newton, a committed Copernican, ‘space’ not the Earth, was the absolute point of reference. For Einstein who needed to erase the ether, in order to invalidate the failed experiments of Fizeau and Michelson-Morley, not even space would be tolerated as an absolute frame of reference. In Einsteinian relativity there is no absolute frame of reference, no absolute motion, no absolute rest, no absolute medium, no absolute material, no absolute shape, no absolute time, no absolute space, and certainly, no absolute center of anything.
Space is for Einstein a vacuum, curved by gravity, a curvature that is unexplained and unproven. Yet the emptiness of space can be filled by Einstein when he wants his General Theory of Relativity maths to balance, and then suddenly an ‘imponderable ether’ (meaning something with no attributes) arrives and fills space with some ‘material’. Anything to get the magical and miraculous maths to balance.
As astrophysicist and critic of STR Fred Hoyle wrote,
Let it be understood at the outset that it makes no difference, from the point of view of describing planetary motion, whether we take the Earth or the Sun as the center of the solar system. Since the issue is one of relative motion only, there are infinitely many exactly equivalent descriptions referred to different centers – in principle any point will do, the Moon, Jupiter….So the passions loosed on the world by the publication of Copernicus’ book, De revolutionibus orbium caelestium libri VI, were logically irrelevant… (Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus: An Essay on his Life and Work, p. 1)
Importantly for the Sun-Worshippers the relativising of reality means that the Earth cannot be the center of creation or the universe, because pace the underlying philosophy and Relativity’s complex ‘tensor calculus’ maths, no center exists. This is the major purpose of STR.
’The Science’ can now use this philosophical premise to concoct many pages of maths to merge time and space into a new dimension which contradicts quantum mechanics (if that suits its purpose), creating an entirely fictitious reality, or write more maths which ‘prove’ that the universe is ‘curved’, or maybe not, depending on the philosophical disposition or what is needed to be ‘proven’. The main point however, is that there is no need for physical, observational proof. As Einstein remarked, the models and theory will tell us what reality should be. In this make-believe world, maths and models, not experimental evidence are the arbiters of ‘truth’.
The entire philosophy and theology of Relativity gives ‘The Science’ free reign to employ complicated, arcane models no one understands, to create all varieties of imaginable theoretical constructs on how the universe, or the thousands of purported multiverses, operate. The underlying theme is that these maths ‘prove’ the Copernican principle that the Earth is not the center of anything and is just an unimportant sphere in a remote galaxy of no great importance.
This philosophy, dressed up in maths and maths only, is of course faithfully echoed with breathless admiration by the controlled media who demand veneration of these demi-gods of abstraction if not outright worship. ‘The Science’, starting in the 17th century, took a wrong turn and decided that models usurped common sense, objective proof and the world of the 5 senses.
(Sept 1887, Report on the Michelson-Morley failure, now turned upside down by ‘The Science’ as a signal victory for STR and heliocentricity….)
Charles Lane Poor: “The Michelson-Morley experiment forms the basis of the relativity theory: Einstein calls it decisive…if it should develop that there is a measurable ether-drift, then the entire fabric of the relativity theory would collapse like a house of cards.” (Poor, Gravitation versus Relativity, p. 261.)
A few posts have discussed the importance of the 1887 experiment by Michelson-Morley to prove the Earth’s mobility, using an advanced ‘interferometer’ machine, which is a highly sensitive and complex instrument, and very difficult to assemble (in fact Graham Bell provided the funds to build the technology used in 1887). The failure of the 1887 attempt to prove heliocentricity and mobility, which followed the failures of Fizeau, Airy and many others had a great impact on ‘The Science’ and Einstein. Pre-1905 more than a dozen experiments proved that the Earth was immobile, and that no one could detect the 30 km / second movement of the Earth in the ‘ether’.
Expected result from Michelson’s interferometer if the Earth was moving:
Actual Result:
Even worse for ‘The Science’, the results of 1887 and other attempts were not null or zero. They recorded on average, a mobility of around 3-8 km / second. This movement can only be explained in 3 ways:
1) The Earth is moving in the ether at ~5 km / second, not 30 km / sec; or,
2) The Earth is immobile and the universe’s ether is acting on the Earth with a centrifugal force of ~5 km / second; or,
3) The Earth is immobile and its diurnal (daily) rotation is ~5 km / second (unlikely and can be dismissed).
A fourth claim might be that the experiment or machinery was flawed, however the interferometer experimentation was done so many times, by so many different people with literally hundreds of thousands of collective readings that suggesting that all the experiments and all the equipment were flawed is insensible (R. Sungenis, Galileo was wrong, 2017, chapter 5).
One can imagine why ‘The Science’ was so terrified by these results, all measured by devout, earnest, religiously devoted Copernicans. They were not shirtless, toothless, illiterate, superstitious Catholics or Protesters, foaming at the mouth about geo-centricity. They were Copernicans.
What is interesting is that the 1887 experiment simply confirmed Michelson’s own 1881 experiment. In both cases, however, the results were not accepted at face value. Instead of admitting the 5-8 km / second mobility reading, in both experiments the result was put down as ‘null’, or no movement. But this is a lie. Why would ‘The Science’ lie? They would lie to give themselves ‘time and space’ to come up with a reason why the 30 km / second could and would not be detected, but a ~5 km / second was detected. Null meant that the scope for rationalising the failure could be made much broader.
This mendacity was well known in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In 1902, Physicist W. M. Hicks analysed the numerical data published in Michelson-Morley’s paper and proved that there was distinct evidence of an expected effect (i.e., ether drift). This data was also reflected in countless other results showing the same range of movement (W. M. Hicks, “On the Michelson-Morley Experiment Relating to the Drift of the Ether,” Philosophical Magazine, Series 6, vol. 3, 1902, p. 34). This evidence was of course ignored by ‘The Science’.
Physicist G. J. Whitrow, a Copernican who like so many of his ilk admits that the results prove immobility, happily reports that such results can be ignored because after all, we the moderns, are much smarter than the medieval and early-moderns, and we just ‘know’ that the Earth is thundering around at 108.000 km per hour. He finds it all so amusing and obvious.
It is both amusing and instructive to speculate on what might have happened if such an experiment could have been performed in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries when men were debating the rival merits of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. The result would surely have been interpreted as conclusive evidence for the immobility of the Earth, and therefore as a triumphant vindication of the Ptolemaic system and irrefutable falsification of the Copernican hypothesis. The moral of this historical fantasy is that it is often dangerous to believe in the absolute verification or falsification of a scientific hypothesis. All judgments of this type are necessarily made in some historical context which may be drastically modified by the changing perspective of human knowledge. (G. J. Whitrow, The Structure and Evolution of the Universe, 1949, 1959, p. 79)
“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’.]
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.
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’?
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 17th 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.
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.
(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 18th and 19th 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