the real universe

[neil_]

In this thread I present some of the evidence supporting the geocentric universe. There are so many such papers or articles, that not only I couldn’t find them all, but I couldn’t even remember all that I previously found, so this is only a partial.

 

Please note that (to my knowledge) with one exception (Hartnett) all the sources I use here are mainstream sources (i.e. evolutionary sources). In fact, in the last part, you would also hear from famous names such as Einstein, Hubble, Hawking, Dirac, etc. You would thus find out what they actually said about the topic – because teachers never speak about these things in classrooms...

 

Also note that each of the evidence presented here, while used here to support the geocentric universe, is also evidence against the formal universe (the big bang). Simply because those two cosmologies are mutually exclusive. So if you’re only interested in evidence against big bang, you should still read this thread.

[neil_]

Let’s start for example with this paper:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.4456.pdf
“A natural interpretation is that concentric spherical shells of higher galaxy number densities surround us, with their individual centers situated at our location. However, if this interpretation reflected the actual physical concentration of galaxies existing at certain distances from us, it would definitely be incompatible with the cosmological principle that presumes uniformity and isotropy of our space-time.”

The paper referred to in the abstract (Hartnett & Hirano):
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0711.4885v3
Page 13: “ there is visible evidence in the raw data for an apparent concentric shell structure [galaxy distributions] centered on the observer [Earth] ”
 

As I said in a different thread, CMBR, claimed as proof for big bang, actually clearly disproves the formal universe, and instead proves the geocentric universe right:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/PRESS/CMB_Huterer.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.5602v2.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.3793.pdf
“The alignment with the ecliptic and equinoxes is especially problematic”.

 

 

This idea of a geocentric universe is further enforced by preferential polarization pattern in quasars:

http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/bitstream/2268/81301/1/london_mar07.pdf


And by galaxy spin axis alignment:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.3793.pdf
page 10: “It is interesting to note that the spiral galaxy alignment implies that the universe has a handedness [direction of spin] as well as a unique axis”.
 

also: “a well-defined axis for the universe on a scale ~170 Mpc would

mean a small, but significant, violation of rotational invariance and thus of the underpinnings of special and general relativity.”

 

 

One of Tomozawa’s earlier papers also mentions the rotation of the Universe (referenced in another paper – follow the trail):

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701151

(the last paragraph before “Acknowledgments”)
 

The formal universe (the big bang universe) cannot rotate. Nor can it have a center.

Also about rotation:

http://news.discovery.com/space/do-we-live-in-a-spinning-universe-110708.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2815
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9708114
“Obhukov et al. claim that the correlation we observed could be caused by global rotation. Kuhne, and Bracewell and Eshleman have independently observed that the anisotropy axis extracted in Ref. [1] coincides tolerably well with the direction of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) dipole axis.”


Similarly, there are observations and scientific papers that show that Gamma Ray Bursts, Bl Lac objects, X ray sources, etc. are in concentric spherical shells around the Earth.


Even the Russians know that the big bang universe is terminated and an entirely different universe is true:
http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/20-04-2006/79383-universe-0/
The axis of evil “casts doubts on all contemporary concepts of the nature and development of the universe”, “even the Einstein theory of relativity seems obsolete now”, it means “a considerably smaller-sized universe” and a “scenario written beforehand” [intelligent design].
 

 

Ironically, if one throws away the formal entirely imaginary things (such as dark energy), what are they left with? Yes, a geocentric universe:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/PRESS/NG_news.Smoller.pdf
 

[neil_]

Hubble has been considered one of the most famous astronomers of all times. Also “the leading observational cosmologist of the 20th century” (wikipedia).

After several years of looking through his telescopes, Hubble observed Earth situated in a central position. And this was his reaction:

“The assumption of uniformity has much to be said in its favour. If the distribution were not uniform, it would either increase with distance, or decrease. But we would not expect to find a distribution in which the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions. Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance.”

“The true distribution must either be uniform or increase outward, leaving the observer in a unique position. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs.”

“The departures from uniformity are positive; the numbers of nebulae increase faster than the volume of space through which they are scattered. Thus the density of the nebular distribution increases outwards, symmetrically in all directions, leaving the observer in a unique position. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.”

(Edwin Hubble, “The Observational Approach to Cosmology”, 1937
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/Hubble3_2.html
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/Hubble3_6.html )


Now why when there’s a ”discrepancy with the theory” do we must escape the observational evidence (”unique position”)? Why not throw away the theory instead? Why is a privileged position for Earth ”intolerable” and a ”HORROR”? Why MUST we avoid it ”at all costs”, especially since it ”cannot be disproved”?

This is not SCIENCE. It’s not physics. It’s metaphysics. Claiming a different version of reality to make it fit the theory. Scientists should have an oath. Just like medical doctors. Scientists should follow the observations WHEREVER they lead them to, and not claim that it’s a horror, hide observations under the carpet, or imagine stuff (like the balloon) to keep their metaphysical assumptions going.

This is what they do with the evidence that they don’t like:
http://astro.uchicago.edu/cosmus/projects/fog/

Is that EDUCATION (.edu)? Or INDOCTRINATION?

If you don’t know what FOG is:
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf133/sf133p02.htm
“ A vast redshift survey of over 100,000 galaxies shows hundreds of superclusters and "Great Wall"-like structures, but also "the ends of the biggest structures in the universe". Vast clumps and dark voids are seen.
[[…] This phenomenon is called "the fingers of God" because galaxies seem to line up in filaments pointing at us. The simplest non-theological way out of this dilemma is to jettison redshift as a reliable distance indicator.] ”
 

As for the evidence (showing a privileged position for Earth) that they can’t remove, like the redshift quantization, they either ignore it, call it “coincidental”, or simply claim it doesn’t exist. In case of some evidence, like Gamma Ray Bursts, they again alter it: they forced those farther away (from Earth). Despite that independent measurements confirmed initial estimations of distance (that is, distance according to THEIR methodology).

 

So, there is something WRONG with mainstream science. They really DON’T WANT to consider a preferential location for Earth. Because then the entire evolution (including biological) goes into the trash.

But how does the bidimensional balloon avoid the “inescapable” conclusion that the Earth is in the center of the Universe? Well, don’t bother, because the claimed balloon doesn’t exist anyway:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.1148v1.pdf

 

 

 

But there have been other scientists as well. Unlike Hubble and the university of Chicago, they (have) said things for what they are.
 

For example, Einstein. What did he say?

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: "The sun is at rest and the earth moves, "or "the sun moves and the earth is at rest," would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems]"

The Evolution of Physics - Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rSg4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA212&lpg=PA212&dq=einstein+%22%22The+struggle,+so+violent+in+the+early+days+of+science,+between+the+views+of+Ptolemy+and+Copernicus&source=bl&ots=G00RRXy3ri&sig=BSWNZbwn-T-RqPTxiohuFqdMqYY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nLAkUtvPDszKsga4oIHADg&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=einstein%20%22%22The%20struggle%2C%20so%20violent%20in%20the%20early%20days%20of%20science%2C%20between%20the%20views%20of%20Ptolemy%20and%20Copernicus&f=false

 

 
And here’s what George Ellis, one of most famous cosmologists in the world, said:

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. […] For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. […] You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."
Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995


And Feynman:
“I suspect that the assumption of uniformity of the universe reflects a prejudice born of a sequence of overthrows of geocentric ideas.  [ … ]  It would be embarrassing to find, after stating that we live in an ordinary planet about an ordinary star in an ordinary galaxy, that our place in the universe is extraordinary… To avoid embarrassment we cling to the hypothesis of uniformity.”

Richard Feynman, Ph.D.; among the people present at Feynman's first seminar at Princeton were famous people like Einstein, or John von Neumann (famed for his mathematical game theory, upon which another famed mathematician, John Nash, constructed his Nobel awarded work)
 

[neil_]

And how do the rest of the evolutionists respond to all this?
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

“While this might suggest that the Earth is at the center of the Universe, the Copernican principle REQUIRES us to interpret it as evidence for the evolution of the Universe with time”

“The Copernican principle represents the irreducible PHILOSOPHICAL ASSUMPTION needed to justify this, when combined with the observations”
 

 

 

Oh, so evolutionists are REQUIRED to see the universe in a certain way. And they call those who see it AS IT IS as “crazy”, “nuts”, “uneducated” etcetera, because heliocentrism was proven centuries ago, wasn’t it? Wait… it wasn’t. It still isn’t. It’s only a philosophical assumption…

 

Well, that’s not SCIENCE. It’s only interpreting evidence according to one’s FAITH in naturalism (especially methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism).
 

 

This text (taken from famed physicist Lawrence Krauss) was on the same wikipedia page until very recently, when the atheistic wikipedia editors decided that telling the truth was too much for them:

 

“But when you look at [the CMBR, aka the cosmic microwave background] map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun - the plane of the earth around the sun - the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.”


Indeed we are.

 

Now, Krauss is the ONLY physicist who has received awards from all three major U.S. physics societies. Krauss, along with Ellis and others, is one of those VERY FEW physicists and cosmologists who occasionally tell the truth. Unlike the whole rest of them, who keep claiming that reality is how they say it is. For example, Stephen Hawking, who wrote:

 

“Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!”

 

http://sqentropy.dyndns.org/ebook/Stephen Hawking - A brief history of time/b.html

 

 

So, this is when “modesty” takes a grasp on fellows like Hawking: exactly when the entire Universe speaks about a special location for Earth. How about that…

 

Also, note that Hawking himself admits that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER FOR THE COSMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE. Therefore any cosmology built on such a principle, including the formal cosmology (big bang), is NOT SCIENCE. It’s only imagination.

 

 

 

Hannes Alfven (Nobel prize in physics):
“We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannes_Alfven

“Alfven believed the problem with the Big Bang was that astrophysicists tried to extrapolate the origin of the universe from mathematical theories developed on the blackboard, rather than starting from known observable phenomena.”
 

 

Paul Dirac (“On methods in theoretical physics”, 1968):

"One field of work in which there has been too much speculation is cosmology. There are very few hard facts to go on, but theoretical workers have been busy constructing various models for the universe, based on any assumptions that they fancy. These models are probably all wrong."

 

Indeed they are, starting with the very formal universe. Instead, when you keep following observations, you unavoidably reach a geocentric universe.

 

Or as, yet again, George Ellis put it:
“Theoretical prejudices as to the universe’s geometry, and our place in it, must bow to such observational tests. Precisely because of the foundational nature of the Copernican Principle for standard cosmology, we need to fully check this foundation.”

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.2335.pdf
 

In other words: inability to prove the copernican principle should automatically throw the big bang cosmology in the trash (no further evidence required).

 

Even such famed individuals (Ellis wrote with Hawking the famous book “The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time“) must bow to evidence.
 

Moreover, even fervent atheists like Bertrand Russell admitted that:
“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 held, the observed phenomena will be the same; a metaphysical assumption has to be made. 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."

quoted by Dennis W. Sciama, who was “one of the fathers of modern cosmology" (wikipedia), in "The Unity of the Universe" (1961)

What Russell said about Newtonian mechanics (although including Galileo’s relativity) is even more true within Einstein’s relativity - which by definition can’t tell the difference.


Now we know that modern science not only did not, but cannot provide any evidence against geocentrism. What about the old science, did it show heliocentrism to be true, from Galileo on - or rather Copernicus?

Well let’s see what people (honest people) thought half-way through the history to us:

“I have already known for a long time that we have no proof for the system of Copernicus ... but I do not dare to be the first one to attack it.”
Alexander von Humboldt, the founder of biogeography
 

[kwikphilly]

Hi neil,

    Welcome to Worthy!Correct me if I am wrong(well it doesn't really matter to me)but isn't Alfred Russel Wallace considered the founder of biogeograghy?I know that Humbolt was first but I thought that the theory of biogeograghy grew out of his work and Wallace was  actually attributed as founder?Well they are both brilliant minds as well as Candolle and Sclater....ooh and I almost forgot Watson!

   I was just curious,I suppose I can just go look it up but I'm not real good on the computer and  totally lazy today(lol)....and  although I used to share your enthusiasm for all the mysteries of our universe years ago....I lost interest....The only famous name you will really hear from with me is Jesus Christ,I just thought I would ask since I wanted to say hello and introduce myself

                                                                                                                                                God bless you,Kwik

[neil_]

  Correct me if I am wrong(well it doesn't really matter to me)but isn't Alfred Russel Wallace considered the founder of biogeograghy?  

 

One is considered the founder, the other the father of biogeography.

 

 

     although I used to share your enthusiasm for all the mysteries of our universe years ago  

 

There is no mystery: the universe is geocentric.

 

 

    The only famous name you will really hear from with me is Jesus Christ   

 

Actually, you could say that that’s the only famous name, since it’s the one that every knee will bow to… Soon, very soon…

 

 

     God bless you  

 

Thanks, but I think that’s too much. I’d settle for may God forgive me…

 

May God bless you.

[missmuffet]

Does the Bible teach geocentrism?No.Nowhere in the Bible are we told that the Earth is the center of the Universe.Scripture is not science but the ultimate test of all truth.I did not see one Bible verse supporting your claim.

[neil_]

  Does the Bible teach geocentrism?No.Nowhere in the Bible are we told that the Earth is the center of the Universe.

 

As shown in this very thread, science speaks loudly about the importance of Earth. So important that the entire universe rotates around it. Also the Bible speaks loudly about the importance of man (who lives on Earth, by the way). So important that the only way to save him was for God Himself (through His Son) to die to pay for his sins.

 

So not sure what kind of bible you’re reading. Because obviously your bible says that you’re nothing. A speck of dust that accidentally happened to come to life – a minor accident in a very large accident: the universe itself. So, apparently, you really want to be NOTHING…

 

But for you and all the other lazy & misdirected people, here’s what the real Bible says:

 

Gen.1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

So Earth is important: not just a place among trillion others. Moreover, it is differentiated from the rest of the universe. Still moreover, the Earth was created IN THE BEGINNING; so not only NO EVOLUTION WHATSOEVER, but Earth was among THE VERY FIRST things created – even prior to light…

 

Also Earth was created BEFORE the Sun, so you tell me: if Earth orbits the Sun, what did it orbit for 3 days in a row, before the Sun was created?

 

 

Genesis 1 also clearly says that the only purpose of stars and the sun and moon is to give light on Earth and to tell seasons etcetera. If that’s not geocentric I don’t know what is. Certainly not the formal universe, where not only Earth doesn’t matter but YOU don’t matter. At all.

 

 

More from the real Bible:

 

“And when the sun was going down” (Gen.15:12)

“where the sun goeth down” (Deut. 11:30 and Deut.24:13)

“and the sun went down” (Judges 19:14)

“the sun went down” (2 Samuel 2:24)

“The sun also riseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.” (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

“when the sun ariseth” (Nahum 3:17)

“from the rising of the sun” (Malachi 1:11)

 

 

Now you tell me: if the Sun doesn’t (a)rise, how can the Sun of righteousness arise

(Malachi 4:2)? You are simply claiming that Jesus would never rise…

 

 

 

Joshua 10:12-13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.

 

Habakkuk 3:11
The sun and moon stood still in their habitation.

 

 

We both agree that the Moon rotates around the Earth. However, these verse clearly say that the Sun also does that (the verses especially mention the Moon to reinforce the idea that the celestial bodies orbit the Earth, not the other way around).

 

Moreover, if the Sun doesn’t move, how can it then be made to stand still? It’s already standing still!

 

 

 

The Earth doesn’t move:

 

1 Chronicles 16:30

tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.

 

Psalms 93:1, 96:10

Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved

 

1 Chronicles 16:30

Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

 

 

Now you tell me: does the Earth move? Because the Bible says that it doesn’t!

 

 

  Scripture is not science

 

Indeed. However, it can only speak the truth WHEN dealing with material things (as with the spiritual things). So the Sun orbits the Earth, not viceversa. Just as when the Bible says that Jesus went to Jerusalem, then He went to Jerusalem (not an illusion !). Now you tell me: did Jesus go to Jerusalem, or not?

 

 

  but the ultimate test of all truth. 

 

Exactly. So why don’t you believe it?

 

 

  I did not see one Bible verse supporting your claim.  

 

Well, you’re trying hard not to. You’re trying hard to believe in men, instead of God. But why would you do that? Didn’t you read what Hubble said? So he WILLINGLY lied to us and constructed an imaginary universe (the big bang universe) to hide the truth from us. Just as the Bible says: willingly ignorant…

[neil_]

  I myself don't have the time to read a dozen or two articles and papers  

 

Of course you don’t. You had all the time in the world to be spoon fed an imaginary universe (the formal universe), but you don’t have the time to find that universe wrong. I can understand that. But please don’t think you’re either logical or scientific in any amount.

 

 

  and what little bit I did read from your posts I am having a hard time figuring out how any of it demonstrates geocentricism.   

 

Of course you do. I would be very surprised otherwise. I mean, that would show you to actually be scientific and follow the evidence where it leads you, and you wouldn’t want that, would you?

 

 

  Can you help me, and probably many others here as well, by summarizing what you mean by geocentricism and the basic evidence you use for it?   

 

I personally support this geocentric model:

http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.com

http://galileowaswrong.com/

 

I strongly suggest you buy that book (the first volume only; the second deals with Catholic theology) and also the DVD – it includes an animation that should settle all astronomical misunderstandings that you might have.

 

I tried to find that animation free somewhere on the web, and I failed (I wanted to show it to some of my friends). I’m sorry for that. While there have been some other free animations on the web (and I can’t remember now any one of them – sorry for this too), not a single one comes close to the one included on the DVD.

 

I am trying myself to put some money aside to get that book (actually many others, because I can’t decide between them, hence the long wait: a few years now). I read somewhere a few chapters (I can’t remember where, it was several years ago), and it’s certainly a good investment. I also saw, back then, a part of that animation.

 

Having said all that, I don’t completely agree with what I read from the book. For example, the authors keep, just like mainstream, gravity in play. And they shouldn’t do that: the universe is not gravitational. So they should look for alternative explanations.

 

However, even if you don’t agree with the science in that book (and I’m sure you won’t, for different reasons than mine), it’s nevertheless the most compelling volume EVER published about the history of science. Especially things behind the curtain (like what I showed here in this thread with the quotes from Hubble).

 

 

As for the basic evidence you asked about, I can’t be more basic than this:

I look at the sky and I see the Sun rotating around Earth. What do you see? And at night I see the stars (the entire universe) rotating around Earth. What do you see?

 

 

  In the other geocentric thread you mentioned the idea that the planets revolve around the Sun and the Sun revolves around the Earth, is this your view?  

 

Yes.

 

 

   Do you think the galaxy revolves around the Earth or Sun? 

 

Neither. I think you should really try to think outside the constraints of your (wrong!) cosmology.

 

 

  What about other galaxies and large-scale structures; do they revolve around the milky way, the Sun, or the Earth?  

 

The entire universe rotates around Earth.

 

Now that’s it. I won’t say to you anything more until you read those links I already gave. I find your laziness inexcusable. Moreover, before you’re going to attack my universe (as I’m sure you will), make sure you have for yourself a defendable universe.

[~candice~]

Enough.

Please, no more geocentrism threads.

There is no fruit to be seen in any of them.