[*Author’s note: There will be 11 or 12 pieces of evidence against heliocentric theory when this article gets revised in a few months. I’ve deleted the erroneous path of the Sun one.]
There are four pieces of solid evidence that heliocentric theory is wrong (that I know of). The first one requires a bit of visualization but is very difficult to explain otherwise. Three others are 99.99% certain bordering on the ridiculous. You would literally have to make stuff up to try and counter them (and they have!). So without further ado, let’s begin.
Exhibit A – Where is the constant wind?
Exhibit B – Hovering, flying and falling
Exhibit C – Hardly any stellar parallax
Exhibit D – Scientific experiments
A denser solid object does not carry a less dense gas along with it when it moves. This is self-evident as it is the basis of aerodynamics as shown in the video below.
A moving solid object (100km/h car) leaves a gas (air) behind, creating a 100km/h wind in the perceived opposite direction of the moving car.
When the solid planes are more perpendicular, it will push gas (such as air) away from the solid object, such as a fan. The Earth, although a spinning squashed globe, would push a little air out into space due to its slight undulations but by and large it would be very aerodynamic, as this man spinning a basketball shows.
A very aerodynamic globe.
Heliocentric theory states that the Earth rotates at 1675km/h at the equator, 1049km/h in London, and 231km/h in Alert, northern Canada. This rotation would cause winds of almost equal speeds on the Earth’s surface… constantly.
The fastest wind speed known to man is a F5 Incredible tornado with wind speeds of 420-511 km/h. The tornado in Oklamohma in 1999 which killed 38 people and destroyed 8000 homes traveled at 486km/h; the devastation of which we can see below.
If 486km/h winds did this, what would 1675km/h do?
There is nowhere on Earth that has a constant wind speed of between 1675km/h and 231km/h. If there were, nobody living below Greenland could venture outside. We would be all living underground in caves.
Sometimes there are days of no wind, sometimes a mild breeze. The wind travels in all kinds of directions, sometimes changing by the second. Clouds move with the wind and can travel in any direction, but mostly go from West to East. This contradicts heliocentric theory as the Earth is supposed to rotate West to East, which would create winds going in the opposite direction East to West. Oops!
Another piece of self-evident incredulity. There’s more.
Even more obvious is the fact that the Earth does not rotate under hovering objects. A helicopter which hovers above the ground at ANY height from 1 meter all the way to its upper limit of around 8000 meters NEVER experiences the ground traveling 231km/h to 1675km/h West to East, or in any direction in fact.
Nope, the Earth is not moving.
Still not moving. Who’d a thunk it.
The same applies to those machines which traverse the sky, such as airplanes. The only differential between a one-way and return flight is changes in wind speed and direction.
the rotation of the Earth has no effect on the travel time of an aircraft… it is the headwinds and tailwinds that cause the change in travel times… a mere 65 mph wind is more than enough to cause a difference in travel time of five hours when you are traveling long distances!
Let’s check a flight along the equator just to be sure. Maldives to Singapore and back fits the bill. Singapore Airlines has two flights come up. Maldives to Singapore (West to East) takes 4 hours 45 minutes for both flights and Singapore to Maldives (East to West) takes 4 hours 30 minutes and 4 hours 25 minutes respectively.
Flying from Singapore to the Maldives would take about an hour (including take off and landing) if the Earth were rotating under the plane. Going the other way, it is worse as the plane can only fly half as fast as a rotating 1675km/h Earth and so you would have to continue flying all the way around the globe East to West just to get back to Singapore. This is an obvious fallacy.
Singapore to Maldives is a one-way trip with a rotating Earth.
So, we have gone from 8000m to 10,675m altitude and still the Earth does not move under our feet. If we go any higher there won’t be many air molecules left to be magically Velcroed to the solid Earth’s surface by a mystical and yet unknown force which there must be for heliocentric theory to exist. But let’s go higher anyway.
As mentioned in my first post on the mysterious disappearing stars at high altitude, amateurs can now send weather balloons up into the stratosphere as high as 36,000m. At these heights only about 1% of the air is left, but these few air molecules must also magically stick to the solid surface of the Earth. All these different densities and all somehow staying with the Earth.
Look at the time these balloons are in the air and the difference in distance between landing and take-off. Here’s the first one: Launched at 13:07:38, hit the ground at 16:04:40, highest altitude 29.78Km, distance from launch 108.4 Km! Launched in Maine, USA would give a rotating Earth speed of 1181km/h (45° latitude). That means the Earth should have moved 3500km under the balloon making it land in the middle of USA, but it did not. (The second example on that website page is even worse!)
Let’s go higher. Felix Baumgartner on his world record free-fall jump reached 38,969m altitude and spent 2 and a half hours ascending, 4:19 minutes falling to the ground, and 7 minutes parachuting the rest of the way down. His distance from launch:
So, the 1% of surface air density and all the other air densities on the way to the ground and Felix himself being obviously heavier than air all moved with the rotating Earth in tandem, by some magical mystical force unknown to man. At what height would Felix have experienced the Earth rotating below him? 50km? 70km? 100km? The heliocentric advocates will have to make up a magic number. Why not, it is all fantasy after all.
The stars revolve 360° in 24 hours in an anti-clockwise fashion around the north polar star in the northern hemisphere, and clockwise around the southern star in the southern hemisphere. Photographers take photos with very long shutter speeds to show this effect.
Rotating stars in the sky at night.
This, you may think, is a good case for a rotating Earth; but on it’s own it is also a good case for a geocentric one, as it demonstrates that either the Earth is moving or the heavens.
However, after 6 months, those EXACT same stars are at the EXACT same location, as can be seen with the naked eye, at which they had been 6 months previously. The annual change in the position of stars in the sky is called stellar parallax. You can demonstrate this lack of parallax by following this experiment devised by Samuel Rowbotham of Zetetic Astronomy.
Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube and the moment the star appears in the first tube let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the second tube when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the second tube towards the first tube would be required for the star to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results–the star will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the Earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube which the difference in position of one yard had previously required. But as no such difference in the direction of the tube is required, the conclusion is unavoidable, that in six months a given meridian upon the Earth’s surface does not move a single yard, and therefore, that the Earth has not the slightest degree of orbital motion.
Traditionally, stellar parallax has been notoriously difficult to measure with even the best of modern equipment.
The angles involved in these calculations are very small and thus difficult to measure. The nearest star to the Sun (and thus the star with the largest parallax), Proxima Centauri, has a parallax of 0.7687 ± 0.0003 arcsec.
There are 3,600 arcseconds in 1 degree, 180 of which cover the sky at night. No wonder we can’t see any movement with the naked eye. Even so, movement for only a tiny fraction of the stars can be measured at all even by modern equipment!
In 1989, the satellite Hipparcos was launched primarily for obtaining parallaxes and proper motions of nearby stars, increasing the reach of the method tenfold. Even so, Hipparcos is only able to measure parallax angles for stars up to about 1,600 light-years away, a little more than one percent of the diameter of the Milky Way Galaxy. The European Space Agency’s Gaia mission, due to launch in 2013, will be able to measure parallax angles to an accuracy of 10 microarcseconds, thus mapping nearby stars (and potentially planets) up to a distance of tens of thousands of light-years from Earth.
There are an estimated 100 to 200 billion galaxies in the universe (which is bunk, as there are no galaxies) each with up to 100 trillion stars! So being able to detect movement in 1% of the stars of our own galaxy is a miniscule amount. We also know about our space agencies’ weird and wonderful orbiting machines, so even this 1% is unlikely to be true.
This is a big problem for heliocentric theory which states that every 24 hours the Earth rotates on its axis at 1675km/h, revolving around the Sun at 107,000km/h, which in turn moves around the center of the galaxy at 900,000km/h, which moves in the universe at 2,160,000km/h!
Apart from the atmosphere disappearing at these speeds, how is there no stellar parallax, especially considering that all the other stars and galaxies are revolving around each other and the Earth as well. The sky must be a right mess! Each new day must bring a brand new unique constellation in the sky at night with some new stars getting nearer so they can be seen with the naked eye and some traveling further away and disappearing never to return for thousands or millions of years.
Before we move on, this lack of stellar parallax is the reason why advocates of heliocentric theory give the unbelievably enormous distances the heavenly bodies must be from Earth. They can’t measure it! The stars must be thousands and millions of light years away (with the Milky Way 100,000 light years across, 1 light year being 9.46 trillion kilometers!) because there is no (or little) detectable stellar parallax; otherwise heliocentric theory would be definitely wrong.
It is clear from Euclid’s geometry that the effect would be undetectable if the stars were far enough away, but for various reasons such gigantic distances involved seemed entirely implausible: it was one of Tycho Brahe’s principal objections to Copernican heliocentrism that in order for it to be compatible with the lack of observable stellar parallax, there would have to be an enormous and unlikely void between the orbit of Saturn and the eighth sphere (the fixed stars).
Not only is there no evidence for such astronomical distances, but we have now proven that the stars are approximately 4000 miles away!
Does making stuff up to support a theory lacking any observational or experimental evidence sound like science to you?
Speaking of which…
How do we know it is not the heavens or “space” which moves above us, instead of the Earth, which causes both the rotation of the stars and any of their hard-to-detect parallax. We now know it is the former, thanks to an experiment in 1871 by Astronomer Royal, George Airy; which is this:
If stellar parallax is too small to see with the naked eye, then why not artificially increase it. If the Earth rotates at the same speed constantly, then by slowing the light down (by filling the telescope with water), the angle of star movement would increase. If stellar parallax increased then the telescope would have to be tilted more to see the same star and prove a rotating Earth once and for all.
And guess what? As confirmed by others, the most careful measurements gave the same angle for a telescope with water as for one filled with air. This is called “Airy’s failure”. It proved the rotation of the heavens, not Earth, which moves stars.
The angle stayed the same, proving that the Earth does not rotate.
The heliocentric advocates were now desperate. What was needed was another observable experiment to still offer the possibility of a rotating Earth. Enter Foucault’s pendulum in 1885. This pendulum swings back and forth, each swing moving slightly to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern hemisphere until, at the poles, one full circle is achieved in 24 hours. It doesn’t move left or right at all at the equator.
Foucault Pendulum in California
Not to scale, but illustrating the movement.
As you have noticed, this is the same phenomenon as the stars rotating every 24 hours around the polar star, which was proved not to be caused by a rotating Earth thanks to George Airy. Unfortunately for the heliocentric supporters, Foucault’s pendulum also had a problem. In 1954 and 1959, Maurice Allais noticed that during a solar eclipse, which lasted 2 and a half hours, the angle of the pendulum changed dramatically by 13.5°. This has been repeatedly observed with positive results on most of the subsequent eclipses, which obviously means that the pendulum isn’t registering the Earth’s rotation, but the motion of something else instead.
With Airy’s failure proving that the Earth does not rotate, the heliocentric theorists needed to quickly show with no further doubt that the Earth rotated. Enter two staunch supporters of heliocentricity, Albert Michelson and Edward Morley, who in 1887 set up a device which split up light: one beam in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, and one at right angles. The two light beams then recombined and hit a photographic plate. The difference is speed of the two beams would create an interference pattern. They expected to measure a speed of 30 km/s as that was the speed of the Earth’s supposed rotation, but instead registered a variable difference of between 1 and 10 km/s each time the experiment was repeated. They called this a “null” result. This proves that the Earth is not rotating and at the same time proved the existence of the ether.
Gosh, the traveling light wasn’t rotating with the Earth. Who’d a thunk it?
It didn’t stop there, Georges Sagnac, and Henry Gale conducted similar experiments, but on a rotating platform, which again demonstrated the existence of the ether, already proved by default in 1871 and 1885 by combining the results from George Airy and Foucault’s pendulum, and also in 1887 by the Michelson-Morley experiment.
How do you think the advocates of heliocentric theory responded? Why, they made something up of course! What else could they do but invent another wild theory to play down these experimental results and lead us further into the cesspit of fallacy. Enter showbiz academic of the 20th century, Einstein and the special theory of relativity.
Enter the clowns.
Special relativity was invented to make sure all these experiments still gave heliocentric theory a chance of being correct. It needed objects to shrink to a specific size in direct proportion to its speed. These objects weren’t measured! The concept had never been observed at all. It was metaphysical only. But it had to be correct, otherwise the unthinkable would be true.
The rescue operation was performed by means of a purely metaphysical concept lifted directly from Professors Fitzgerald and Lorentz, who had also been trying to explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and renamed by him the Special Theory of Relativity. What was suggested was that if the dimensions of an object in motion were assumed to shrink exactly in proportion to the speed at which it was traveling by exactly the necessary amount, mathematical calculations could be made to show that the Earth was in motion after all. No one has ever seen an object shrink as a result of being in motion, and indeed one of the world’s leading authorities on relativity, Dr. Herbert Dingle, was later to dismiss the theory of relativity as metaphysical nonsense with no basis on what could be observed.
Making up a new branch of mathematics to explain the results of experiments that disagrees with your worldview does not a proof make! As a J.J. Thomson once said:
We have Einstein’s space, de Sitter’s space, expanding universes, contracting universes, vibrating universes, mysterious universes. In fact the pure mathematician may create universes just by writing down an equation, and indeed if he is an individualist he can have a universe of his own.
However, when you make stuff up not based on anything in the real world, it is bound to run into trouble.
Ironically, when Special Relativity failed due to its internal contradictions, Einstein had to invent General Relativity to shore up the façade, and in the process he had to take back the very two foundations he had discarded in Special Relativity, namely, (a) that nothing can exceed the speed of light and (b) the existence of ether. In the end, Einstein’s theories were a mass of contradictions which are covered over by obtuse mathematical equations.
Despite this nonsense, the heliocentric “authorities” pushed it through with all their media power and academic might so that once this new mathematics was firmly established, they had carte blanche to sneak in other bad “science” when experimental observations went against them, like black holes, dark matter, wormholes and other such unobservable and unverifiable nonsense. The worst offence though was trying to tie in the Coriolis effect of a rotating Earth with observable atmospheric phenomena. The Coriolis effect is an optical illusion whereby an object traveling in a straight line is seen to be moving in a curved one instead because the observer is on a rotating platform.
The Coriolis optical illusion. You are the red dot. Below is what you observe. Above is what actually happens.
This is the complete pattern and scale of ANY Coriolis effect on the Earth. If something in the real world doesn’t match this, it can NOT be the Coriolis effect!
They say it is this effect which causes moving objects to be deflected in a clockwise direction in the northern hemisphere and anti-clockwise in the southern hemisphere; an example of which are large cyclones. This is obviously false. The Coriolis effect is NOT a force, it is an optical illusion. It cannot cause objects to be deflected; their trajectories remain the same, which is straight. Cyclones do not “travel in straight lines, but just appear to be curved because we are on the surface of a rotating sphere”. Their size ranges from under 222km to over 888km making their curves far too tight and localized. Plus there are very high altitude images looking down on cyclones from above. Is the camera rotating with the Earth to get this curved perspective?
Is the camera rotating with the Earth? How can a cyclone twisting on itself be a straight line? Is this image even real?
A tropical cyclone in Australia twisting down to Earth is not a straight line.
And what about smaller vortex phenomena like Tornadoes which average only 150m across. Where is the Coriolis effect now?
A 150m wide tornado is really a straight line!
If you wish to study further the fallacy of linking the Coriolis effect with atmospheric phenomena then Miles Mathis‘ work is a must. Otherwise, those inclined to understand cyclones and tornadoes would do well to study the relationship between gravity and electromagnetism, and vortex dynamics instead, as even physicists admit that the Coriolis “effect” and electromagnetism is eerily similar. (What a surprise!)
So far we have proved that:
- The Earth does not tilt.
- The Earth does not rotate.
- The Sun moves, not the Earth.
- The heavens move, not the Earth, which means that:
- “Space” or the ether moves and not the Earth.
- “Space” moves in a circular motion (and is probably a vortex).
Heliocentricity is now dead. The debate is over. However, it is only fair to list the arguments for heliocentric theory which we will address in part 2. Unfortunately you will see that they try and attack (one of the models of) geocentrism rather than try and support their own concept, but never mind. Let’s reply to what they have to say anyway.