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
It was known 100 years ago that the 1905 Special Theory of Relativity or STR was wrong. Many contemporaries of Einstein eviscerated his make-believe world of flux and change, a universe with no fixed absolutes in which reality itself was optional, subject to endless unproven ‘dimensions’, untestable but necessary to support Copernicanism and the Big Bang. Einstein admits that his theory of Special Relativity is bunk by creating his General Theory of Relativity (1915-19), which included the ‘ether’, a ‘medium’ identifying absolute space, which he absolutely detested pre-1905. The insertion of an ether in his GTR is more than enough to kill off STR. If STR is bunk, then the Big Bang theory is also junk and invalidated. Copernicanism remains just a theory, still unproven regardless of confident expostulations and online apologia to the contrary.
As many other posts have detailed if there is an ether, or if the speed of light is inconstant or not confined to 186.000 miles per second velocity, or is impacted by the medium not the velocity of the ‘observer’, then STR is destroyed. Indeed, all these suppositions are true. Since STR is just a mathematical concept and lies at the heart of both heliocentricity and Big Bang theology, they too must be jettisoned or at the very least, be coerced to provide some real tangible evidence for their claims.
In 1905, in his STR paper, ‘the greatest scientist in world history’ declared:
“The introduction of a ‘light ether’ will prove to be superfluous, because the view here to be developed will introduce neither a ‘space at absolute rest’ provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity vector to a point of empty space in which electro-magnetic processes take place.” (Einstein, 17, Sept. 26, 1905).
As this post and the next will outline, space is not empty. What Einstein was really attempting to do was refute the Fizeau (1851) and Michelson experiments (1881, 1887) which had inadvertently disproved heliocentricity and Earth mobility, as well as diurnal rotation. To do this, he needed to remove all absolutes from ‘The Science’. The absolutes of space and time were for Einstein, the core reasons why Earthly mobility was not measurable.
As a diehard Copernican faithful, Einstein’s religious-philosophical outlook was paramount in his abstract mental experiments. Only Relativity could explain why we can’t measure the Earth’s 108.000 km per hour trot around the Sun, or why we can’t mechanically prove the Earth’s rotation. No absolutes were to be allowed including space and rest (an example being the Earth’s immobility). All objects must be in relative motion in a ‘vacuum’ or ‘absolute’ nothingness. A vacuum does not mean an absence of material reality. It means the absolute nothingness of no material or physical reality.
Relativity and its pseudo-make-believe world of maths and theories would therefore come to the Copernican rescue and save ‘The Science’. But it was mandatory for Einstein that no absolute ether was to be allowed. Ether or the medium of space, was however central to Maxwell, Lorentz and Poincare’s mathematics and theorems and an indispensable foundation for electromagnetic theory and physics.
Einstein consumed and reused Maxwell and Lorentz’s maths almost in toto within his STR and GTR frameworks, without bothering to reference his debt to their theories or affirming his reuse of their hard work. His disciples and cheerleaders praise this lack of referencing as ‘saving time’ because the annotations are ‘so obvious’. Or maybe it simply denotes laziness, a capacity to mislead and hints of fraud. Such attitudes and actions were typical of Einstein as they were with Galileo.
Eleven years later in 1916, the acclaimed ‘greatest scientist in history’ wrote:
…in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical, as we will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity. It does remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states…once again “empty” space appears as endowed with physical properties, i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to special relativity. One can thus say that the ether is resurrected in the general theory of relativity….Since in the new theory, metric facts can no longer be separated from “true” physical facts, the concepts of “space” and “ether” merge together. (Einstein, “cited in Kostro, p. 2).
So, in 11 years, the ‘greatest scientist who ever existed’, the massive brain which overshadows all others, completely overturns his own personal theory and the attempt to save Copernicanism and embraces the ‘absolute’ reality that space is not a ‘vacuum’ and is not ‘nothing’. And how many people know this? The cheerleaders of ‘The Science’ praise this of course as ‘science correcting itself’. No. It has nothing to do with real science, but with trying to ‘save the phenomena’ of Copernicanism and its misanthropic ‘principle’.
As a committed Copernican Einstein was horrified by the litany of failed 19th century experiments which disproved the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, and its diurnal rotation (many posts on this substack outline these). Such redounding failures led Einstein and ‘The Science’ to believe that perhaps the ether had no effect on objects because, as these experiments had apparently proved, a light beam traveling with the Earth’s velocity of 30 km/sec against the ether (the purported speed of our planet as it races around the Sun), experienced no reduction in its speed when compared to a light beam that was not traveling against the ether.
Given that light speed seemed independent of an ether, perhaps it was possible to jettison the concept altogether? The underlying assumption for Einstein and ‘The Science’ was always that the Earth was mobile. The possibility of immobility was dismissed. This bias left only 2 suppositions for Einstein and ‘The Science’ when looking at the litany of failed 19th and 20th century experiments which could not prove the Earth’s mobility.
(a) that ether traveled with the Earth in its revolution around the Sun; or
(b) there is no ether, and light itself is an absolute
Einstein decided that the ‘ether train’ around the Earth, dragged by the Earth in its sprint around the Sun, could not exist. It would be too close to Newton’s ‘absolute space’. He therefore plumped for option b, that there is no ether, and the speed of light is an absolute.
Einstein could now rewrite physics and history. He could reference the failed heliocentric experiments from Arago and Fizeau, to Michelson and Sagnac, as supportive of his Relativity theory, based as it was on the constant speed of light and ignore that these experiments did not prove the constancy of light speed (Sagnac proved that light was inconstant) and ignore that they disproved Earth mobility.
Very convenient. More here
Previous posts have looked at the paucity of real evidence for heliocentricity. Remarkably these failures in experimentation or evidence, are always turned into ‘proofs’ by ‘The Science’. Other models which can explain the same phenomena are dismissed out of hand due to the philosophical-world or universe-view that heliocentricity ‘must be right’. The reality is that there is not a single mechanical proof to support Copernicanism. This post will look at 3 standard text-book proffered ‘proofs’ for heliocentricity, namely, star streaming, the Doppler effect and geocentric (and Tychonic) geometrical complexity.
The standard textbook list of ‘proofs’ for heliocentricity usually include this list:
1. Newton’s theory of gravitational attraction
2. The Stellar Parallax
3. Stellar aberration of the Sun
4. The Foucault Pendulum
5. The bulge at the Equator
6. Geosynchronous satellites
7. Space probe measurements
8. Retrograde motion
9. Star-streaming (this post)
10. The Doppler effect (this post)
11. Geometric complexity of geocentrism (this post)
Star-streaming is the optical phenomenon occurring when stars seem either to spread apart from each other or come closer together. Streaming can include a clustering of stars, or the ‘shredding’ of stars within an area of a galaxy. Astronomers have been uncovering the stellar remains of ripped clusters and galaxies, since the first streams were discovered in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (another interesting future topic which also upends Copernican theory). Recently a star stream supposedly 10 times longer than the milky way, was discovered and named the ‘Giant Coma stream’.
(CGI representation of streaming stars)
The concept of star-streaming is due at least in part to an optical illusion. If you ride in a car that is moving parallel to a forest, you will notice as you move past, that some trees seem to spread out from each other, whilst others converge. This is due to the relative motion between you ‘the observer’ and the trees as objects. The effect is only optical, not real.
The first astronomer to notice this effect in the heavens was William Herschel who in 1783, discovered that the Sun appears to move through the stars. He isolated thirteen such stars and found that as the Sun moved through them, they were spreading apart from a point in the constellation Hercules. He then isolated thirty-six stars and found similar results. Friedrich Argelander, an assistant to Friedrich Bessel, found similar results with 390 stars in 1830. In 1842 Otto Struve confirmed the results. The Doppler effect is real and has been verified since 1842.
As in the case of parallax discovered in 1838, these star-streaming results were invariably touted as proof of the heliocentric system. Star-streaming, however, provides no proof of anything. The reason is simple. The optical illusion of the separation of the stars can be caused either by the Earth moving past the stars or the stars moving past a fixed Earth. Both will produce the same phenomenon of star-streaming. This is akin to the example above, with a car moving past the forest analogy and the observer’s optical impression of clustering and separating trees.
If we look at the ‘Giant Coma stream’, which is an intergalactic cluster of stars, the identification of star-streaming has no relationship to heliocentricity. No one knows why stars cluster or are torn apart, or are randomly clustered, with most in science ascribing the destruction or attraction to larger galaxies acting on smaller.
(The intergalactic stellar stream (highlighted) was spotted in galaxy cluster 231 million light-years from Earth. (Image credit: William Herschel Telescope/Román et al.)
The Giant Coma stream, however, is apparently a very fragile structure, composed of mutually attracting and repelling galaxies. Modern science would expect such a constellation to be torn apart by a larger galaxy, but this has not occurred. Observing such a phenomenon stretching across galaxies does not prove that your platform (the Earth) is moving. It simply means you are observing a phenomenon that modern science cannot explain and that your platform might well be immobile and the star stream, pace Mach and Einstein, in relative motion.
The Doppler Effect (or Doppler Shift) was discovered by Christian Doppler in 1842. This effect occurs when the source of wave emission moves closer or farther away from the observer. The waves are compressed when the source moves closer and stretched when the source moves farther away. This phenomenon does not occur, however, when the receiver moves closer or farther away from a stationary source since the waves coming to the receiver are the same in both cases.
Light acts in a similar manner. If the source of light is moving closer to the observer, the light waves are compressed or ‘blue-shifted’; while if the source of light is moving farther away from the observer, the light waves are stretched or ‘red-shifted’. More
The standard textbook list of ‘proofs’ for heliocentricity usually include this list:
1. Newton’s theory of gravitational attraction (this is false)
2. The Stellar Parallax (is a false claim)
3. Stellar aberration of the Sun (ibid)
4. The Foucault Pendulum (proves nothing)
5. The bulge at the Equator (this post)
6. Geosynchronous satellites (this post)
7. Space probe measurements (this post)
8. Retrograde motion (this post)
9. Star-streaming
10. The Doppler effect
11. Geometric complexity of geocentrism
Previous posts have looked at the paucity of real evidence for heliocentricity. Remarkably these failures in experimentation or evidence, are always turned into ‘proofs’ by ‘The Science’. Other models which can explain the same phenomena are dismissed out of hand due to the philosophical-world or universe-view that heliocentricity ‘must be right’. The reality is that there is not a single mechanical proof to support Copernicanism. This post will look at 4 textbook proffered ‘proofs’, namely, the bulge at the equator, geo-synchronous satellites, space probes, and retrograde motions.
Like your average middle-aged man, the Earth has a noticeable bulge around its waist. Arthur Eddington, the English Quaker, who did more than anyone else to make Einstein a world-wide celebrity, discussed two possible causes for this phenomenon:
“The bulge of the Earth’s equator may be attributed indifferently to the Earth’s rotation or to the outward pull of the centrifugal force introduced when the Earth is regarded as non-rotating” (Eddington p. 24)
‘The Science’ has no quibble with Eddington’s explanation from a century ago.
The above means that the Earth will be subjected to both centrifugal gravitational pulls, and centripetal Coriolis forces, when it is rotating in a fixed universe (Copernican); or if the universe is rotating around a fixed Earth. (Tychonic, geo-centric). These two forces create the ‘oblation’ of the Earth, regardless of the model in question. These forces are what induce a flattening at the poles, and the paunch around the stomach or equator. It has nothing to do with either a spinning Earth, or a mobile Earth.
Such an explanation is similar to that of the Foucault pendulum, another non-proof of heliocentricity which ignores centripetal forces and the Coriolis force. Given that other models can easily explain the Earth’s oblation and bulge at the equator, this cannot be considered proof of anything. In fact, the Tychonic model with its emphasis on the Coriolis force and the Euler force, is likely a more elegant and reasonable explanation than that offered by Copernicans (source, Britannica 3).
A geosynchronous satellite is usually defined as:
“…an orbital period the same as the Earth’s rotation period. Such a satellite returns to the same position in the sky after each sidereal day, and over the course of a day traces out a path in the sky that is typically some form of analemma. A special case of geosynchronous satellite is the geostationary satellite, which has a geostationary orbit – a circular geosynchronous orbit directly above the Earth's equator. Another type of geosynchronous orbit used by satellites is the Tundra elliptical orbit.”
Does an object orbiting a complete cycle within a sidereal day (star time, 23 hours 56 minutes, 4 seconds), really prove heliocentricity?
At about 22,242 miles from our planet’s surface there is a balance of forces between gravity, the inertial forces of the Earth, the Sun, the Moon, and the stars. At this altitude the satellite will be in a geostationary orbit, remaining indefinitely in the same position in space. In the heliocentric view, the satellite needs enough speed to keep up with Earth’s rotation.
In the Copernican vision, given that the Earth rotates on its axis at 1054 mph at its equator, the geosynchronous satellite must be given a velocity of about 7000 mph in the west-to-east direction to keep up with Earthly rotation. Since space is virtually frictionless, the 7000-mph speed will be maintained mainly by the satellite’s inertia, with additional thrusts interspersed as needed to account for anomalies. If the satellite keeps the 7000 mph, it will remain at 22,242 miles above the planet and not be pulled down by the Earth’s gravity.
This follows the Newtonian model in which the inertia of the geosynchronous satellite causes it to move in a straight line, or its inertial path, but the Earth’s gravity seeks to pull it toward Earth. The result is that the satellite will move with the Earth in a circular path.
In the Tychonic-geocentric version, the Earth and the satellite are stationary while the universe, at the altitude of 22,242 miles, is rotating at 7000 mph east-to-west. Identical to the heliocentric version, the satellite must be given a velocity of 7000 mph (west-to-east) to move against the 7000-mph velocity of the rotating space (east-to-west). The combination of the universe’s centripetal force (centrifugal plus Coriolis) against the satellite’s speed of 7000 mph, along with the Earth’s gravity on the satellite, will keep the satellite hovering above one spot on the fixed Earth (source Britannica 3).
The satellite’s altitude above the Earth will determine the velocity needed to keep the satellite at this chosen altitude. Due to the pull of gravity, the closer the satellite is to Earth the faster it must move to counteract gravity and maintain its altitude.
The heliocentric system explains this phenomenon by viewing the Earth as rotating with a 24-hour period, while the geostationary satellite remains motionless in space. Newton’s law of gravitation provides a mathematical framework to explain the locus of the balance. In the Copernican model therefore, at a specific location on Earth right over the equator, one will see the satellite directly overhead at one specific time during the day.
In the geocentric system, however, the Earth is not rotating; rather, the whole of space is rotating around the Earth, which carries the satellite with it (Wikipedia, geocentrism entry). In this case we might call it a stellar-stationary satellite instead of a geostationary satellite. For some, this is a puzzling phenomenon since it appears that the satellite should just fall to Earth, but this can be explained in both the heliocentric and geocentric systems. More
(The former medical student Foucault, at the Pantheon in Paris in 1851, with his 200 foot bobbing block)
The standard textbook list of ‘proofs’ for heliocentricity usually include this list:
1. Newton’s theory of gravitational attraction (this is false, previous post deals with this)
2. The Stellar Parallax (ibid)
3. Stellar aberration of the Sun (ibid)
4. The Foucault Pendulum (this post)
5. The bulge at the Equator
6. Geosynchronous satellites
7. Space probe measurements
8. Retrograde motion
9. Star-streaming
10. The Doppler effect
11. Geometric complexity of geocentrism
This post will look at the mighty Foucault pendulum. Across the world, there are probably thousands of shrines in secular buildings and desacralized churches, which show a replica of Foucault’s apparatus. Museums, the UN, laboratories, university labs, and former churches offer a chapel to the ‘great man’ Foucault and his machine, which in the mid-19th century, ‘proved’ heliocentricity and made a mockery of those geocentric religious ignoramuses and their mystical dogma. A fine story which sadly does not stand up to scrutiny.
Foucault was a mid-19th century French Catholic medical school dropout and part-time photographer. He has been historically repositioned as a ‘physics researcher’. Maybe ‘opportunist’ is a better career description.
At the ripe age of 32 he performed a public experiment which delighted the Sun-worshippers. In 1851 he suspended a 61-pound ball from a 200 foot wire at the pantheon in Paris and set it swinging. He drew a line in the sand below the apparatus and predicated that the pendulum would move 11.25 degrees in 60 minutes, which it did. Applause all around. This apparently proved the Earth’s motion. So, we are told.
The logic is the following:
1. Foucault’s first and primary assumption is that the Earth rotates itself once per 24 hours, moving west to east
2. In one day based on this assumption, the pendulum should swing between 0, or not moving (which would be equivalent to the equator) and 360 degrees (the poles), meaning that at the poles the pendulum should rotate the full 360 degrees
3. If we draw lines in the sand for this swinging pendulum, n would be the intersection angle between the first line witnessed after the swinging begins, and a line drawn 24 hours later (in reality the specific day time is 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds– this is a sidereal day or star time, slightly different than the solar time of 24 hours)
4. Another assumption is that there is no relative motion. This means that if we swing the pendulum north to south it won’t affect the plane it moves in, this is due to the underlying assumption that the Earth rotates west to east and cannot ‘twist’ itself underneath the pendulum
5. Foucault’s equation predicts the Earth’s movement based on the object’s latitude, with n=360°sin(θ), where θ is the latitude
Long before Galileo, medieval naturalists and scientists had studied the pendulum and time keeping. Mechanical clocks were first built in the 14th century and were complex instruments. In these clocks the pendulum is anchored in one plane, it does not move, it is stationary. Foucault’s contraption allowed the anchor to rotate, which allowed the pendulum to move and rotate over a given time.
Using Foucault’s apparatus, we could start swinging it between the 12 and 6 o’clock position, rotate the anchor and within one hour the pendulum should move to swing between the 1 and 7 o'clock position. Over 12 hours and 24 hours, the pendulum should again be swinging back at the 12 o’clock to 6 o’clock position.
To be fair, if you have tried a Foucault pendulum replica, they often don’t work (personal experience), but let’s assume it can work.
What ‘convinced’ the heliocentrists was the rather obvious fact that at different latitudes, there should be different effects on the pendulum. At the North Pole or 90 degrees, the plane of the pendulum will rotate a full 360 degrees each 24-hours, or about 15 degrees per hour. As one moves farther from the North Pole in a southerly direction, the pendulum will slow down its rotation.
In Paris, Foucault found that the plane of the pendulum rotated 11.25 degrees in the first hour – just as he predicted. At the equator there would be no movement of the pendulum, given it is at ‘0 degrees’. Below the equator the rotation begins anew but in the opposite direction to that observed in the northern hemisphere.
There are many models to explain these observations, by themselves they don’t prove anything. More here
“If, therefore, under all circumstances, and especially in the comparison of days when the sign of aberration has changed, the apparent value of the geographical latitude [i.e., column (B) - (A)] is sensibly constant, it proves that the True Aberration is the same as the Received Aberration, or at least that one is not a multiple of the other.” (George Airy, 1871, p. 37)
Simply put, Airy could not confirm Stellar aberration. And he is far from alone.
There are 11 commandments which are deployed as proof of Copernicanism. The observed phenomena used as proofs are however, cogently explained from another viewpoint and model. If another explanation can be applied, than Copernicanism with its attendant scientific theology and observational support is just a theory, and cannot be accepted as proof.
The standard list, used in textbooks and by online gatekeeps of what constitutes ‘proofs’ for Copernicanism beyond the ‘law of gravitational attraction’ includes:
1. Newton’s theory of gravitational attraction (dealt with in 2 previous posts)
2. The Stellar Parallax
3. Stellar aberration of the Sun
4. The Foucault Pendulum
5. The bulge at the Equator
6. Geosynchronous satellites (this post)
7. Space probe measurements (this post)
8. Retrograde motion (this post)
9. Star-streaming
10. The Doppler effect
11. Geometric complexity of geocentrism
This post will cover points 1 and 2, namely the Stellar parallax and aberration. Further posts will go through the rest of the standard list of supposed proofs for heliocentricity.
George Airy in 1871, could not prove Stellar aberration, a claim that had gone unchallenged by that time, for almost 150 years. Using a water-filled telescope, Airy proposed to confirm both Bradley’s 1725 claim of stellar aberration, and that of the German Klinkerfues in 1867. As with Arago’s attempt in 1810, along with many others who tried and failed, Airy could find no proof of stellar aberration or light aberration (Antonello, 2014) . Airy was a committed Copernican who was dismayed at his own findings.
Many experiments have since reconfirmed Airy’s findings as other posts here have outlined (Michelson, Sagnac, Miller etc). Unfortunately the flat-earthers enthusiastically refer to the Airy experiment, giving ‘The Science’ a convenient and easy target to disparage the reality of what he and others discovered. We should not conflate factual evidence from real experiments with the non-science that the Earth is a pancake surrounded by an ice wall.
This valid cosmological phenomenon has been consistently advocated as the vindicator of heliocentrism. Science textbooks and online apologia will usually declare that Friedrich Bessel (1784–1846) discovered heliocentrism’s long-awaited proof when in 1838, he observed a very slight shift in the position of the nearby star Cygnus against the background of a more distant star.
There are some who claim that Giovanni Pieroni, a friend of both Galileo and Kepler, may well have discovered the parallax in the early 17th century or 200 years earlier. Copernican astronomers usually praise Bessel as the great proof-giver of heliocentricity ignoring Pieroni (he was a Catholic after all). However, the ugly reality is that parallax does not prove heliocentrism.
A standard definition of a stellar parallax is:
Parallax is the apparent displacement of an object because of a change in the observer's point of view.
This concept is of course central to the theory of Relativity which has been well savaged in other posts. A parallax is used to measure the distance to a star.
From this image, using the heliocentric view of a parallax, we can describe how a parallax measurement would work (Ostlie and Carrol, pp. 57–59).
1. In this model, the Earth is orbiting the Sun;
2. In December, whilst on one side of the orbit, we pull out our telescope and observe 2 stars which are viewed at the same time;
3. One star is near to the Earth, and the other appears further away;
4. For simplicity let’s assume that both stars are aligned vertically in the same plane, that is, one star is at a higher position in our telescope lens than the other, but both are on the same vertical line;
5. Six months later in June we take another look at these 2 stars;
6. If the stars are not in a vertical alignment any longer, and have deviated from the y axis, than we have a ‘parallax’;
7. The parallax motion means that the closer star appears to have shifted to the right off the vertical plane;
8. The shifting of the nearer star is due to the mobile orbit of the Earth around the Sun, since we have viewed this star from 2 different orbital locations, one in December, one in June, now separated by 186 million miles (the diameter of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun);
9. Since stellar parallax can now be detected among a select few stars, most astronomers have generalized this interpretation to include all Stars, and offer this as proof for the Earth’s movement around the Sun.
Sounds pretty good. When analysing Copernicanism, I found this to be a somewhat convincing argument.
Note that this evidence was proferred almost 300 years after Copernicus issued his theory, or in the case of Pieroni 80 years post-Copernicus, and was never referenced by Galileo in his dispute with the Church over evidence for heliocentricity. Stellar parallax is the second reported ‘observational proof’ in support of heliocentricity if we follow the standard narrative and credit Bessel in the mid-19th century. Stellar aberration (below) was the first reported proof, some 200 years after Copernicus if we ignore Pieroni. When the Church asked Galileo for proof, this is what it meant. The evidential proofs took hundreds of years to develop.
Yet when you look into the stellar parallax as with the Galilean phases of Venus, you will quickly uncover that the Tychonic geo-helio-centric system explains the same phenomenon quite nicely. This information will never be given to you, nor is it discussed within ‘The Science’ and its ‘educational systems’. This is called a bias. More here
(The gallant Copernicus leading mankind to insignificance and irrelevance)
“Most scientists refused to accept [Copernicus’s] theory for many decades — even after Galileo made his epochal observations with his telescope. Their objections were not only theological. Observational evidence supported a competing cosmology,the “geo-heliocentrism” of Tycho Brahe. The most devastating argument against the Copernican universe was the star size problem. Rather than give up their theory in the face of seemingly incontrovertible physical evidence, Copernicans were forced to appeal to divine omnipotence.”
(The Case Against Copernicus by Dennis Danielson and Christopher M. Graney)
The ‘star size problem’ was an early objection to Copernicanism, given that the stars must be far away, yet they are visible and defined. This implies a massive size, hundreds if not thousands of times bigger than our Sun for example. Yet their appearance in the sky is small and uniform. The only way to explain this is by invoking a divine presence, or appealing to the distortion of light and optical illusions.
Optical explanations were not forthcoming until the mid 18th century though even now there is dispute about the validity of these claims. Stars are still seen as ‘points of light’, and very few adequate explanations exist which satisfy the ‘star size’ issue, though it is generally ignored in modern science, which views the ‘optical illusion’ explanation as sufficient.
Putting this issue to the side, we can list the standard textbook ‘proofs’ for heliocentricity which will be discussed and analysed in sequence:
1. Newton’s theory of gravitational attraction (this is false, see the previous post and this post below)
2. The Stellar Parallax (#2-11 covered in future posts)
3. Stellar aberration of the Sun
4. The Foucault Pendulum
5. The bulge at the Equator
6. Geosynchronous satellites
7. Space probe measurements
8. Retrograde motion (this post)
9. Star-streaming
10. The Doppler effect
11. Geometric complexity of geocentrism
Previous posts have looked at the paucity of real evidence for heliocentricity. Remarkably these failures in experimentation or evidence, are always turned into ‘proofs’ by ‘The Science’. Other models can explain the same phenomena but are dismissed out of hand due to the philosophical-world or universe-view that heliocentricity ‘must be right’. The reality is that there is not a single mechanical proof to support this theory (posts outlining this are shown at the end). This deposition follows from the problems with Newton’s law of gravitation which cannot explain how planets and constellations behave and why it does not support heliocentricity.
‘The Science’ and its heliocentric model explain that within our solar system the planets revolve around the Sun, and our milky way galaxy revolves around a center of the Universe whose location has never been identified. In this theory, which is a part of the discredited Big Bang dogma, gravitational attraction between smaller and larger bodies ‘holds’ the patterns of orbits and the relationships between planets. There are many issues with this theory. A simple one is the following question.
Problem Statement: Given that approximately 1 million Earths fit into the Sun, why doesn’t the Sun simply consume our Earth?
Related to this we can ask, why doesn’t the Earth consume the moon given that the Earth’s diameter is 4 times that of the moon? The answer is that there are issues with the ‘laws’ of gravity, given they don’t explain the observed phenomena nor answer the simple question above. Gravity is a weak force, so some other ‘forces’ must be at work.
A second model which offers an answer to the above question is the Tychonic-Ptolemaic concept, where the Earth is immobile at the center of the universe and the planets in our solar system either revolve around the Earth (Ptolemy), or the planets revolve around the Sun and this collection revolves around the Earth (Tychonic). Tycho Brahe’s model is thus a mixture of heliocentricity and geocentricity, based on thousands of observations and calculations. Mathematically, even using modern scientific standards and observations, both the Ptolemaic and Tychonic models are valid, though no one is told this.
Video, summary overview of the Heliocentric, Tychonic and Ptolemaic models
In the Tychonic model the entire universe revolves around the Earth. The Earth may still rotate (the neo Tychonic or semi-Tychonic model) or be immobile as Tycho Brahe believed. The massive force used to generate the phenomenal speeds to rotate the universe around the Earth is a logical objection to this model of planetary movement. These objections, as outlined below, can however be answered using the standards and principles of modern science (Assis, pp. 190-191).
I am not suggesting that the model is right or wrong, but as will be shown, mathematically using modern science’s own postulates there is no argument against this model. The model also explains phenomena that Newtonian and standard Copernicanism cannot. I am only looking at Socratic proofs to resolve the problem statement:
‘Why doesn’t the Sun consume the Earth?’
The point is that the observational evidence, the universal forces which are confirmed by modern science including the Coriolis force, the Euler force and centrifugal forces (which are discussed below), the existing mathematics and models, and the affirmed principles and ‘laws’ of modern science, do not disprove the Tychonic system, but actually confirm much of what it postulates. The Tychonic model addresses the problem statement posted above, whilst heliocentricity does not provide an answer, hence the use of Dark Matter (a made up never-found constant to balance equations akin to Einstein’s steady-state model constant) and extended maths to Newton’s and Einstein’s equations.
In the neo-Tychonic model, the gravitational attraction of the Sun with the Earth is balanced by a real gravitational-centrifugal force generated by the annual rotation of distant masses around the Earth (with a component having a period of one year). In this model the Earth can remain at rest, a constant distance from the Sun. Modern science can have no objection to this idea of geo-helio-centrism due to the duality of its own force laws and the theory of Relativity.
Using Mach’s Principle and Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity which employs the same; we can see that the neo-Tychonic model where the Earth is at rest in the center of the universe and has the Sun revolving around it, is not madness. Universal distant matter (e.g., galaxies) which rotate around the Earth could create a centrifugal force, which is like gravity, but actually counteracts the force of gravity, keeping the Sun a certain distance from the motionless Earth, namely, 91-94 million miles. These forces would be the ‘Coriolis force’ (more below). This could help explain why the Earth does not fall into the Sun, or why our moon does not missile bomb the Earth (Popov, 383-391).
As Einstein admits:
“We need not necessarily trace the existence of these centrifugal forces back to an absolute movement of K' [Earth]; we can instead just as well trace them back to the rotational movement of the distant ponderable masses [stars] in relation to K' whereby we treat K' as ‘at rest.’…On the other hand, the following important argument speaks for the relativistic perspective. The centrifugal force that works on a body under given conditions is determined by precisely the same natural constants as the action of a gravitational field on the same body (i.e., its mass), in such a way that we have no means to differentiate a ‘centrifugal field’ from a gravitational field….
This quite substantiates the view that we may regard the rotating system K' as at rest and the centrifugal field as a gravitational field….The kinematic equivalence of two coordinate systems, namely, is not restricted to the case in which the two systems, K [the universe] and K' [the Earth] are in uniform relative translational motion.” (Einstein’s October 1914 pp. 69, 71).
Einstein has confirmed that a Tychonic or Ptolemaic universe is certainly feasible and possible. It is as least as credible as the Copernican faith which has the Earth moving through the ether (a medium largely denied by ‘The Science’) at 108.000 km per hour. Quite a clip. Many posts have discussed that no mechanical proofs for this have ever been presented (listed at the end). It is only 500 years since the days of Copernicus. Take your time. More here