# Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt2)

+++

There are two good essays against geocentricism by Alec MacAndrew, and Steven Dutch of the University of Wisconsin. Since we have proven beyond any doubt that heliocentric theory is false, the below arguments against geocentricism may prove useful in eliminating certain geocentric models and allow us to get a bit closer to the truth; so let’s begin.

### Alec MacAndrew

1. Satellites are launched to the east because the earth’s rotation boosts the velocity of the satellite and helps it to achieve orbital velocity – the earth is used as a sling shot.

Satellites don’t exist. They are a dog and pony show by our illustrious space agencies to help shore up heliocentricity. How do we know this? One word: Thermosphere.

+++

2. Satellite launch sites are as close to the equator as nationally possible for the same reason as 1.
Points at rest or in uniform motion in inertial frames of reference (which in Galilean relativity are frames of reference in which a point not under the influence of applied force continues in rectilinear and uniform motion), have no unresolved forces.

+++

3. The earth has obvious unresolved forces. (Items 3 and 4 have relevance in Riemannian geometry too).

Yes, it does. Since we have shown that the Earth does not rotate, where does this movement come from? The ether of course, as George Airy, Foucault, and Sagnac amongst others have shown us. Read “Scientific experiments” in part 1.
+++

4. Foucault’s pendulum demonstrates the existence of unresolved forces at the surface of the earth.

And these unresolved forces come from… the movement of the ether. It is “space” that moves, not the Earth as proven by George Airy. Maurice Allais has also shown us that Foucault’s pendulum does NOT demonstrate the rotation of the Earth.

+++

5. Weather systems always rotate counter clockwise in the northern hemisphere and vice versa in the southern hemisphere owing to the coriolis force of rotation.

Firstly, the Coriolis effect is NOT a force. Secondly, it can NOT cause atmospheric phenomena for a variety of reasons. Read the bottom of part 1 to see why. It has been proven that it is the heavens which move in a circular motion, not Earth; and Foucault’s pendulum shows unresolved forces, which can only come from the movement of the ether as proved by Sagnac and Gale, which therefore gives us the shape of the weather systems, leading to the probable conclusion that the ether also moves in a vortex fashion (at least whilst in a downward direction towards the Earth).

+++

6. Oblate earth – the earth has a greater girth at the equator than across the poles owing to the centrifugal force of the earth’s diurnal rotation.

I haven’t found any evidence for a pulling centrifugal force at all. (Or centripetal force. Either way, the terms aren’t relevant in this discussion). See part 1. The oblate Earth must be that shape for another reason… the ether? Perhaps.

+++

7. Parallax in the star fields as a consequence of earth’s rotation round the centre of gravity of the solar system.

Nearly all the stars in the sky have no detectable parallax, even by modern equipment; and those that do, show such a tiny movement that the only way for heliocentric theory to work is to use astronomical distances for the stars in the millions of light years where 1 light year is equal to 9.46 trillion km! It has also been proven through both the path of the Sun and George Airy that heliocentricity is 100% false and so there is no “solar system” or “Earth’s rotation” to discuss. See part 1.

+++

8. Red shift in the star field as a result of ditto.

I had forgotten about “red shift”. Let’s add that to black holes, wormholes, dark matter etc. that they keep having to invent to try and keep their worldview together. Astronomy has now been proven bunk period. See part 1.

+++

9. A star field with a radius of 14 billion light years and a mass 3×10^27 times that of the earth rotating around the earth once a day and wobbling with a amplitude of 186 million miles at an angle of 23.5 degrees annually is an untenable dynamical system in Newtonian mechanics.

14 billion light years! I stand corrected. And there was me thinking the “universe” was only millions of light years across. The Earth has been proven NOT to tilt at 23.5 degrees annually. Again, the path of Sun amongst other evidence proves heliocentric theory is false; AND it IS untenable that the star field IS 14 billion light years across if orbiting the Earth. This proves that stars are not that far away after all, or in fact orbit anything, as Foucault’s pendulum has shown that “space” moves; and since George Airy proved that it is the heavens and not the planet that is moving, then it logically follows that the stars do not orbit at all.

+++

10. Systematic forces which explain the dynamics of retrograde planetary motion are not available in a Newtonian gravitational system.

Heliocentricity has been proven 100% incorrect. If retrograde planetary motion is impossible to fit into any geocentric model then retrograde planetary motion is false; or the Newtonian gravitational system is wrong; or both. There is also strong evidence that planets are not even spheres, let alone orbit anything! Yes, you read that correctly. This is due to chiaroscuro which we will look into much more in my next post; and also concerns the moon (even more so). This mean that the only likely true bodies to consider are the Sun and the Earth.

So to summarize, point 10 could show that planets (at least the retrograde Venus and Uranus) do not rotate or orbit anything and are probably something else.

+++

11. Geocentrism is meaningless in General Relativity.

General Relativity is meaningless. Period. as described in part 1. The man below gives more detail:
+++

+++

### Steven Dutch

1. Earth’s Equatorial Bulge

It was Newton who realized that if the earth rotated and was not perfectly rigid, it should bulge at the equator due to “centrifugal force.”

We don’t know the true composition of the Earth. We haven’t dug down very far. It is all theory and guesswork.
+++

(Purists in physics don’t like the term for reasons too complex to go into here) Centrifugal force at the equator amounts to about 1/2 of one per cent of gravity, which is why things don’t fly off. Gravity is far stronger than centrifugal force. If the earth were a fluid, the equatorial bulge should be about 1/2 of one per cent of its diameter, or about 1/200. The earth does have some internal strength, so the bulge is less, about 1/298.

There is no evidence for the theoretical 1/2 of one per cent less gravity coming from the centrifugal force of the proposed rotating Earth. In fact, as well as the lack of evidence stated in part 1, the Eötvös effect only shows longitudinal weight differential, not latitudinal.

“In the early 1900s (decade), a German team from the Institute of Geodesy in Potsdam carried out gravity measurements on moving ships in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans. While studying their results the Hungarian nobleman and physicist Baron Roland von Eötvös (see Loránd Eötvös) (1848–1919) noticed that the readings were lower when the boat moved eastwards, higher when it moved westward.

This effect was put down to the Earth’s rotation, but thanks to the already-mentioned experiments amongst others, we now know it is “space” which rotates in an anti-clockwise direction. This means that the ether not only has frictional properties, but also affects gravity. This is an important discovery. The fact that gravity is reduced when traveling against the direction of the ether wind makes it very likely to have the same properties as fluids and gases in relation to lift, including differences in pressure, density, compressibility and obeying Newton’s 3rd law (for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction). The higher the opposing wind speed, the greater the drag and lift.

“The faster the blade moves, the more drag it experiences. As the blades move faster, lift also increases. The faster that the air passes over the blade, the more lift can be generated.

“Soaring birds that wish to stay aloft without flapping in normal wind usually fly INTO the wind for lift.”

It may even follow the Bernoulli equation or the Kutta-Joukowski theorem to calculate lift of an airfoil (e.g. wing of a plane). Interesting, the latter uses vortexes, but this would be a subject of further discussion.
+++

This figure is known to quite high precision and a precise knowledge of earth’s shape and gravity is essential for satellite navigation. But the bulge is what counts here.

Satellites are marketing bunk from your favorite space agency.
+++

Moving around the sun also creates centrifugal force. It’s about 1/1600 as strong as earth’s gravity.

Again, there is no evidence for centrifugal forces from a rotating Earth, only mathematical models. The Earth does not rotate around the Sun as observing the path of the Sun demonstrates, amongst others.

+++

2. Coriolis Effect

This is the effect that causes weather systems and ocean currents to rotate.

This is definitely not the case as weather systems are far too localized, small, and do not follow the very broad and distinct pattern of an object observed moving across a rotating Earth as has already been demonstrated in part 1.

+++

Basically, if you move over the spinning earth, the earth rotates under you.

There is no evidence of the Earth spinning under us as high as 40km. At what magical height are we supposed to see the beginning of this rotation happen?

+++

The force is quite weak and doesn’t detectably affect driving a car or water draining out of a toilet (contrary to The Simpsons).

The force is non-existent. It is not a “force”. It is an optical illusion.

+++

In theory, it affects planes in flight but normal measures to keep planes on course more than take care of it.

In theory, it affects nothing. It is not a force. Trajectories and courses remain the same.

+++

It does affect satellites, missiles, and long range artillery shells. When the Germans bombarded Paris from 75 miles away in World War I, they took the Coriolis Effect into account.

No they did not. The Coriolis Effect does not alter trajectories. If the shell were visible to the naked eye flying through the sky, then on a rotating Earth, the shell would seem to be in a slightly different position than it actually was.

+++

We say Coriolis Effect, rather than “Force” for the same reason we put “centrifugal force” in quotes above. They are what physicists call fictitious.

Correct. Finally. This contradicts everything said so far.

+++

They exist to us only because we are on a rotating earth. Someone outside the earth would see objects tending to move in straight lines but being forced into curving paths by the earth’s gravity.

“Someone outside the earth would see objects tending to move in straight lines” – correct, but only if the Earth were actually rotating; which it is not.

“forced into curving paths by the earth’s gravity” – true if watching a projectile moving across the Earth slowly falling back down again.
+++

3. Aberration of Starlight

If the earth moves, the stars should appear to shift in position.

Either the Earth moves, or the heavens move.

+++

When British astronomer James Bradley tried to detect the shift in 1729, he made the surprising discovery that all stars appeared to shift by the same amount, some 20.5 seconds of arc (about the apparent diameter of a quarter seen from three football fields away) either side of their average position. Either Ptolemy was right, and the stars are all attached to a sphere, or there was some other explanation. There was.

Indeed. There was.

+++

Just as a person walking into the rain sees raindrops hitting at a slant, moving with respect to starlight causes the starlight to appear to come at an angle to its true path.

Movement of what? The Earth or the heavens?

+++

If light starts from 300,000 kilometers away, it will take one second to reach the earth. In one second, the earth moves 30 km in its orbit. So the starlight will hit 30 kilometers from its original aiming point. The angle of shift is 30/300,000 = 1/10,000 radian = 20.5 seconds of arc.

What about the the solar system’s movement through the galaxy at 250km a second and in turn through the universe at 600 km a second? What about those same stars going through all these exact same movements themselves? It is impossible to take one of these movements in isolation. All three of Earth’s own movements will have a huge impact on the change of perspective.

Also, the fact that EVERY star moves at a maximum 20.5 seconds despite each star having its own unique and varied movements in the universe either means heliocentric theory is bogus or the stars are so far away (up to 14 billion light years!) that their own movement is undetectable. Which option do you think our “clever” academics chose? This is the same “scientific” dead-end created by the undetectable stellar parallax as explained in part 1. Unfortunately for the academics, George Airy showed there was no difference in the angle of starlight between that which was slowed down and that which wasn’t, proving that it was the heavens which moved, both hourly, daily, and yearly.

We’ve already proved the Earth doesn’t go around the Sun in part 1, so what could cause the slight displacement each day of the stars in the night sky? What do you think? The ether winds of course. This proves that the ether winds not only have a 24-hour rotational cycle (at least where the Sun and stars are located), but also a 365-day one as well. This is a vital clue as to the true geocentric model as we will discuss later.

+++
4. Stellar Parallax

What Bradley was looking for was finally observed in 1838. Three different observers discovered it nearly simultaneously. Friedrich Bessel chose an inconspicuous star, 61 Cygni, but one whose motion across the sky was rapid as stars go, reasoning that it it appears to move swiftly, it must be nearby.

Maybe… maybe not. Not relevant to the argument.
+++

Bessel is generally given credit for the first successful measurement. Two other observers picked bright stars with measurable motion, figuring that the combination of brightness plus motion implied nearness. Thomas Henderson determined the parallax of Alpha Centauri (thereby winning the nearest star sweepstakes) and Wilhelm Struve measured the parallax of Vega.

Great.

+++

If the star’s position is observed twice, six months apart, then we triangulate its position from opposite sides of the earth’s orbit. The angle at the apex of the triangle is tiny. Of course, we don’t measure that angle – we measure the angle of the star’s parallax as seen from earth, which is the same thing. And the angles are tiny. One of the pre-Copernican proofs that the earth does not move was the failure to observe parallax, and the reason it was not observed is that the change in position is far too tiny to measure without good instruments.

You don’t say.

+++

For the nearest star, Alpha Centauri (4.3 light years away), the total shift is 1.5 seconds of arc, or the apparent width of a quarter at a distance of over two miles. Astronomy books usually tabulate the shift either side of the star’s average position, which is half the total shift, so the parallax of Alpha Centauri is about 3/4 second of arc.

There is no evidence that the stars are 4.3 light years away for reasons already stated; in fact, they are located only about 4000 miles away.

+++

Up until 1997, we had fairly good direct measurements of stellar distances out to 70 light years or so. In that year the data from the European Space Agency satellite HIPPARCOS came on line and rendered everything before then obsolete.

I bet it did. Those good old white hot satellites.

+++

We now have accurate distances (within 10 per cent) for tens of thousands of stars up to a couple of hundred light years away.

A couple of hundred from 14 billion light years, which is said to be the width of the star field, is 0.000000014% of the total number. Virtually nothing. Not that any of this matters. Lack of stellar parallax is just another reason for the 14-billion-light-year-width-of-the-universe theory. Remember, nothing is beyond outlandish to heliocentric advocates. As long as it can be conceived in the mind to protect their theory from the observable truth, it will be stated as fact.

+++
5. Geocentrism Violates The Laws of Physics

First of all, there are no known cases anywhere else in the universe of large massive objects circling around small light objects.

The actual structure of the “universe” is completely unknown. It is mere theory built on previous assumptions invented to uphold a fallacy that the Earth must revolve around the Sun.

+++

Conservation of momentum requires that when one object circles another, the center of mass of the system must remain fixed. The two objects actually revolve around their common centers of mass.

Sure.

+++

For double stars with comparable masses, the center of mass is between the stars.

We have no idea what stars are. We do know that they are fixed in their position and that they reside at or very near the center of a concave (bowl) Earth.

+++

For cases where one object is far bigger than the other, like the earth and moon, or the sun and earth, the center of mass is within the larger object. But it is never at the center of the larger object. So if anything revolves around the earth, the earth also has to move.

A fantastic argument that there is nothing rotating around the Earth as all observable evidence and experiments show that the Earth does not move. The plot thickens… finally.

+++

Unless you want to postulate that, of all objects in the universe, the earth is not subject to the laws of motion. But individual pieces of earth obey the laws of motion.

Of course.

+++

Tie two rocks to opposite ends of a string and throw them, and they’ll revolve around their center of mass. So why would the earth as a whole be different? Where’s the evidence that it is?

It wouldn’t. There isn’t. Heliocentric theory is false, therefore there are no bodies revolving around the Earth. It also demonstrates that the theory of gravity concerning rotating spheres in space is pure speculation; and tying two rocks together demonstrates centrifugal force of which the Earth/Sun relationship has nothing in common. The truth finally beckons.

+++

Second, if you picture the earth as not rotating, then everything else is whipping around the earth every 24 hours.

Nope. That is the standard geocentric model. There are others.

+++

Anything more than about 4.1 billion kilometers away would be moving faster than the speed of light. The Sun would be moving at 3.6% of the speed of light and should show measurable relativistic length contraction. Uranus and Neptune should be squashed flat as seen through a telescope, as well as their rings.

The theory of relativity is bunk. See the video above.

+++

Believers in weird physics tend to dismiss relativity, but the changes in space and time due to motion were actually worked out by Joseph Larmor, Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincar before Einstein ever came on the scene.

I’m sure they were. They were all at it trying to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment.

+++

Even if we could somehow get around the relativistic problem of exceeding the speed of light there would be some very weird causality problems once we got beyond the Solar System. The Voyager and Pioneer spacecraft should long ago have accelerated to beyond the speed of light. Why didn’t we see any evidence of it?

Forget accelerating beyond the speed of light; they would have been either molten metal or vaporized long ago. But I get your point. This means that the heavenly bodies must be a lot closer than previously “speculated”, or not revolving at all, the latter of which has been shown to be true.

+++
6. Geocentrism Violates Its Own Rules

Remember their definition of “proof:”

By “proof” we mean that your explanations must be direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive. We don’t want hearsay, popular opinion, “expert” testimony, majority vote, personal conviction, organizational rulings, superficial analogies, appeals to “simplicity,” “apologies” to Galileo, or any other indirect means of persuasion which do not qualify as scientific proof.

Absolutely.
+++

Okay, so where’s the direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive evidence that the earth is fixed?

Exhibit A proves heliocentric theory wrong rather than geocentrism right, but the rest overwhelmingly show that the Earth is not rotating.

However, where’s the direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive evidence that the Earth is rotating around the Sun? There is the Eötvös effect, Foucault’s pendulum, and the stars rotating around the sky; the last two of which it has been proven to be “space” that is moving and not the Earth.

+++

Where’s the evidence that distant objects are moving faster than the speed of light as they whip around the earth?

There isn’t any.

+++

Where’s the evidence that some mysterious force carries everything in the universe around the earth?

We don’t know the size of the universe or what bodies truly lie in it. The stars are lights in the sky which we now know are fixed, the distance of which is unknown; although there is no evidence of them being further than 20km away. There is also evidence of the planets not being spheres and the moon not even being solid which we will look at in the next post.

However, the evidence for this “mysterious” force or ether has been demonstrated by default by the George Airy/Foucault’s pendulum combo, and later proved explicitly by Sagnac and then Michelson-Gale amongst others.

In 1913, Sagnac split light and shone the two beams at mirrors which reflected them back and forth in opposite directions around a platform and then recombined them on to the receiving photographic plate. There were interference patterns which meant that the light in one of the directions had been slowed down slightly changing the time at which the light beams recombined. The platform was then rotated at 2 revolutions per second changing the pattern of interference at the same amount as Sagnac had calculated it should, further proving the existence of the ether, and a frictional one at that!

 A beam of light leaves the light source and is split into two different beams (tagged red and blue). They travel around the circuit in opposite directions until they reach the splitter which recombines them where they go on to the photographic plate producing interference patterns because the ether has slowed one beam down more than the other. A simplified version: The light is split and going in opposite directions. The distance between the mirrors and splitter is always the same, as everything, including the splitter is moving on the platform together. No matter what the speed of rotation, there should be no interference pattern, but there is, proving the existence of the ether.

+++

Where’s the evidence that the earth is immune to the laws of motion?

There isn’t any.

+++

Instead we have references to Catholic doctrine, to the Bible, to the alleged degenerative effects of heliocentrism, and to attempts to show that heliocentrism can be reinterpreted in geocentric terms, all nice examples of “indirect means of persuasion which do not qualify as scientific proof.”

Using a book as an authority, whether it is the bible or a textbook, leads us down the road of never-ending assumptions. Only unimaginative fundamentalist Christians reverse the heliocentric model into its directly opposite geocentric one. As we have now seen, both models are false. There are other models of geocentrisim; ones which we will be later exploring to determine the correct Sun/Earth relationship.
+++

### Conclusion

• The ether is a frictional force which can be compressed, has various pressures and densities and obeys Newton’s 3rd law.
• The ether has a 24 hour cycle as well as a 365 one.
• Neither the Sun, planets, or moon can rotate around a completely 100% stationary Earth due to Newton’s gravitational laws and the center of mass which has been clearly demonstrated in the real world. Together with the fact that the Earth has been proven not to rotate, this means that:
• The standard geocentric model (the inverted heliocentric) one is false.

It looks like both the academics and fundamentalist Christians have proven very useful in finding the truth of our situation. Neither of their models is correct, and it is no wonder as both the church and academia have so much in common:

They both have men of the cloth with institutional hierarchies.

 Nope, it’s not a fancy dress party. More hierarchies and strange costumes.

They both lecture from the pulpit.

 The rotating Earth revolves around the Sun… honest. The Sun revolves around the stationary Earth… really.

They both take words from their books as literal truth.

 The Earth is moving at nearly 2.2 million km/h in a universe 130 billion trillion kilometers across… yeah! Jeremiah 16:19 “the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the Earth.” See the Earth has edges… obviously!

They both have zero tolerance for heresy.

 What’s that? No big bang? You will never use our observatory again… who were you again? Of course the Sun revolves around the Earth… now die for your sins… or something.

It would come as no surprise if the same people behind the Church are the same ones behind academia. If we scratch below the surface, we soon find that they are… but more on that later as first we have to look at our strange moon.

### 52 Responses to Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt2)

1. Baba says:

7. Parallax in the star fields as a consequence of earth’s rotation round the centre of gravity of the solar system.

Nearly all the stars in the sky have no detectable parallax, even by modern equipment; and those that do, show such a tiny movement that the only way for heliocentric theory to work is to use astronomical distances for the stars in the millions of light years where 1 light year is equal to 9.46 trillion km! It has also been proven through both the path of the Sun and George Airy that heliocentricity is 100% false and so there is no “solar system” or “Earth’s rotation” to discuss. See part 1.

This argument is stronger when you consider the sun’s motion thru space; it does about 400 million miles a year, substantially more than the radius of the earths orbit. That’s about a light year every 1,000 years, and yet we see the same constellations the Babylonians drew.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

That’s even more interesting. And think about all the other movements going on, our solar system, all the other solar systems etc.

This is an early article. I later learned that by parallax they usually mean the left/right eye difference, and LSC showed a video on that subject where he couldn’t find any actual movement of stars which followed that principle. Plenty of diagrams, but no actual observations.

View Comment
2. BlueMoon says:

As usual, a bunch of misplaced assumptions and obvious misunderstandings that are then cross-referenced with other misunderstood “proofs” that are really just cross-referenced assumptions and ad-hominem arguments to form the big intimidating tangled mess of dubious pseudo-information that is the concave earth theory. The roots of the theory are rotten and provide no nourishment, but the steroids of a deluded community keep it alive and growing. It provides no fruit of knowledge, but the community still holds out hope, choosing to focus on this gnarled, unwelcome blight on the surface of a very convex earth, surrounded by very intricate machines and orbiting a very hot sun within a very, very huge universe. Maybe someday they’ll look up, and see the very real beauty that I have.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

Ditto.

So you don’t see the similarities between the Church of old and the Universities of today? We’ve made some progress but the people are the same.

The earth isn’t convex no matter how many times you say it is. Don’t believe the rectilineator experiment? Test it yourself as I have already pointed out. You are an engineering student. Test it.

Speaking of the very hot sun, how do your orbiting satellites not malfunction in the thermosphere? I expect the usual replies; why not repeat them here.

View Comment
• BlueMoon says:

Again, ENGINEERING student. Not science. I test the stuff I develop, which are rockets, but I trust the science for my rockets to work, and it hasn’t let me down.
The rectilineator experiment is flawed, and Donald Simanek explains why.
Of course you’ll hear the usual replies about the thermosphere; that’s because they’re correct. How about you actually address my explanation of the thermosphere rather than saying the same old shill from your article? You’re going to keep hearing the same shill until you understand that the thermosphere was never a problem. Denying it further is clinging to ignorance.
Your points in that article are all based on the assumption that spacecraft get as hot as the thermosphere does. In reality, the thermosphere only reaches that temperature because the molecules are very light and have very few other molecules to transfer heat to or from.
To quote Wikipedia:
“The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day. Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat. A normal thermometer would be significantly below 0 °C (32 °F), because the energy lost by thermal radiation would exceed the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact.”
Furthermore, solids aren’t affected in the same way as gases. The atoms in a solid are surrounded by other atoms, which allow heat to be conducted away. This means that the atoms never get as hot as the atoms in the thermosphere, and gives the thermal control system plenty of time to to its job.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

Testing the Earth is civil engineering. On a side note, how do you test rockets? I’m interested after watching this video and hearing about problems with large vacuum chamber facilities. It would be great to get some details from you so we could get to the truth of the matter with rockets. So many varied opinions on the subject.

The rest of your argument against the thermosphere being hot has already been addressed in the article. Not repeating it here.

View Comment
3. Random guy says:

Wild heretic, I am very interested in this hypothesis, and I would like to know your stance on a couple of things, please e-mail me.
Thanks! 🙂

View Comment
4. Random guy says:

Wild heretic, I’m very interested in this, and I have a couple things that I’d like your stance on.

View Comment
5. Rupak Baruah says:

i have always been a great fan for modern science untill a few months ago when studing the Vedic scriptures ( oldest source of knowledge know to mankind ) , has started making me question on every thing from So called “Heliocentric system”to so called “Darwin evolution theory”.

It would take some time for me to understand all the stuff you have put on the site , really great work .

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

Thanks. I’ll be revising the first of these two articles and adding the “pro” arguments for heliocentric theory in another article. I’ll do the same for flat earth one day too.

View Comment
• ProperGander says:

The evidence the mainstream puts forth for the moving Earth would seem to me to contradict the basic premise of the work of Einstein.

The same mainstream that parrots the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment that was not quite ‘null’ and that worships Einstein, will point to ‘experiments’ that show the Earth rotating.

This kind of wrecks the whole point of Einstein’s time warping Relativity as well as putting a damper on Galileo’s ships’s cabin at sea Relativity.

There could be no constant velocity on a rotating body, technically speaking. We would have evidence of motion due to centrifugal force, we’d expect this force to effect everything we experience and it does not.

Earth’s bulge is another one. How do they measure it and what kind of massaging does the data undergo?

If Earth’s motion was quantifiable then even archery would become problematic if the arrow is shot North to South (as example).

1000mph at the equator still works out to quite a velocity at higher latitudes. 1000mph is .27 miles a second. Even a tenth of that would be a problem.

We also have to ignore the lack of centrifugal effect of Earth’s orbit and its acceleration around the Sun and any further compounded motion. In this model of the Universe we are supposed to be on a planet that travels at amazing speed that in no way compares to a state of constant velocity. Its like doing donuts in a car in a parking lot.

We simply cannot build a physical model for the heliocentric theory here on Earth. We can’t invoke any physical ‘law’ here on the surface of the Earth that in any way would allow us to do what Newton claimed in thought experiment.

I’d say for all practical purposes, its as if the Earth does not move.
If it is moving, then that motion is being transformed in some way into some other kind of work, like say some kind of magical force field that protects us from experiencing any of the motion we can demonstrate such systems would experience here on Earth.

View Comment
• ProperGander says:

Something I’ve been working on.

The spinning Earth can not exhibit a Coriolis effect.

It is as if the Earth does not move. It is as if the world does not spin, specifically. This is due to the model of the spinning Earth itself. It precludes such an effect.
1. Earth is a globe. A near perfect sphere. It rotates about its axis. This motion is termed ‘sidereal’ and is slightly less than the mean solar day of 24 hours.
2. The circumferential velocity at the Equator is some 1000 mph and at the Poles nil.
3. The mass of the Earth, including the fluids surrounding and on it, rotate as one mass and have the same rotational inertia. Its rotational due to gravity.
4. The Earth exhibits the property termed ‘gravity’ and we are attracted to it.
5. This attraction is along normals or rays that radiates out from Earth’s center. Like an asterisk.
6. The resulting gravitational vector changes as we or any object moves about the globe. This acceleration is why no object caught up in the Earth’s inertial and gravitational field can ever truly exhibit any constant velocity.
7. The world is round not flat. This is not a matter of a frame of reference but one of perspective. If one could construct a tower high enough, or look back to Earth from say something like a communications satellite, one clearly sees the Earth is a globe. Just like the Apollo astronauts and their photos show. The shape of the world is a matter of perspective not frame of reference. A matter of distance. Not some kind of relativity experiment.
8. The Coriolis Effect applies to rotating systems like the MIT video shows and not the type os system that constitutes the Earth and its resulting gravitational field. It does not apply to the Earth’s motion as the entire mass, including all matter on it and surrounding it (IE the atmosphere), move as one. All matter about the center of Earth’s mass possesses the exact same inertia from Pole across equator to the other Pole. What changes is simply the angle of gravitational pull.
9. This ever changing angle of gravitational pull is what enables us to think the world is flat and not curved. If this did not change, we’d experience a world that would indeed curve away from us (like the ball in the Coriolis effect experiment illustrates). We do not. Objects would not appear to follow parallel with the Earth’s surface as they fly. Clouds would not appear to do the same, etc.
10. The potential energy of the Earth’s inertia due to rotation is not discharged unless one can achieve escape velocity. If this state is achieved, the object is a projectile leaving the “sling” of the Earth. That this motion is rotational, is simply due to gravity itself. Gravity is the other force that alters this object in motion. Were Earth gravity to suddenly cease, the object achieves “escape velocity” without having to achieve any specific speed. Now the object would be in free fall orbit around the Sun, since it cannot fly of in a straight line as it would like to. Just like an astronaut floating along with the space station. The object still has the inertia from the Earth relative the Sun. It has not achieved escape velocity relative to this body and thus remains in solar orbit.
12. Simple geometry in motion shows that no Coriolis effect can be experienced in a gravity field. A 3d program easily illustrates this. The center of mass of the object in the terrestrial gravitational field is towards the center of the Earth (or at it for all practical purposes). Rotation and not translation is the actual motion, and a simple 3d animation will show that the globe, the projectile, the cannon all move relative to each other. There is no Coriolis effect, nor can there be. Not on a rotating sphere with inertia and gravity. There is no different moving atmosphere due to the Earth’s motion to cause any kind of frictional loss dues to some kind of velocity difference. This is simply how this model has to physically work. One can easily show this in any 3d program. A child can recreate this experiment using Blender.
13. Another way to look at it. Earth and atmosphere are in a vacuum. There is no fraction or so little friction, the Earth maintains its rotational motion. You are in the place of the Earth, and like Superman can ignore the vacuum of outer space.You have your arms at your sides and you are simply spinning around once very 24 hours or so. Now you lift your arms so they are as far out perpendicular to your spine as far you can reach. There is no resistance to this motion, since there is no friction. No atmosphere. Your outstretched arms describe a circle, so now you can measure a circumference and associate a velocity with it. But as you can see this motion is slightly misleading. The true base of the motion is a simple rotating axis with no need for any consideration of a circumferential motion. The changing angle of gravitational pull relative to the Earth’s surface is what creates the effect of the difference in circumferential velocity. But this is a matter of angle as the speed of the rotation itself is constant across the globe. Its misleading to think in terms of the circumference and a translational velocity.
Now imagine lines or rather circles of latitude described by your arms length as you spin in one spot. This is the Equator. These circles shrink to points at the poles. These circles move as one despite the difference diameters, roaring about the center of mass. Now imagine the rest of the globe around these circles. The lines of gravitational ‘pull’ radiate out from Earth’s center like an asterisk and the resulting intersection of these lines with the circles of latitude result in the changing gravity vector. These lines always maintain the same distance from center and the same rotational velocity. This is why the mass moves together and its inertia is “one”. This angle is different depending on where one is one the globe’s surface, This is exactly like the (near) parallel rays of the Sun hitting the Earth’s surface, resulting the the apparent solar angle difference one experiences as one moves around the globe. This turning is what explains the apparent discrepancy in motion when there is none. If the gravitational vector did not change when one travelled around the globe, one would experience the fact that one was on a globe as the line of sight would be dramatically different from what we experience. The circumferential velocity is not relevant like claimed. The center of mass of any object associated with Earth’s gravitational field, is by definition somewhere towards ( essentially at- depending on relative mass) Earth’s center.

View Comment
• ProperGander says:

A cannon fired from the Equator to the North Pole at the same velocity the cannon’s equatorial (easterly) velocity will strike the target at the pole exactly when it rotates into position.

In other words, a cannonball fired north along the 45th degree longitude will strike a target along that line of longitude whether the world rotates or not. It will stay lined up with that line,

No matter what direction we fire from or to, everything moves as one. The inertia is rotational due to gravity, Here the Einstein model is useful for illustrating the idea.

This is all in context of the heliocentric model.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

There is no Coriolis effect, nor can there be. Not on a rotating sphere with inertia and gravity. There is no different moving atmosphere due to the Earth’s motion to cause any kind of frictional loss dues to some kind of velocity difference.

Bingo. They can’t have their cake and eat it too.

View Comment
• ProperGander says:

The science websites that discuss the Coriolis Effect use a misleading illustration of the world to show the projectile missing its target.

Yet the circumference velocity these ‘science guys’ point to is simply a result of the angle that gravity is pulling on the object. At the Equator it is at right angles to the latitude. That changes as one moves away from the Equator. Just like a clock face.

The ‘centrifugal force’ from the rotation of the world and ‘centripetal force’ from the effect of gravity are the two ‘forces’ we are dealing with.

In this model of the world, Atlas is someone who is about to engage in the sport of hammer throwing, but never lets the hammer fly free. Not the same as the Coriolis Effect.The latter requires the hammer to be let go.

If one goes into a 3d program and uses the animation and modeling tools, one will see how wrong the mainstream is about this one particular point.

The distances in two directions on the globe are clearly measurable. The motion of the globe and the projectile prove my point.

The cannon ball follows along with the cannon and strikes its target as if the world was still.

The cannonball simply follows the same line of longitude it originates from. The cannon is still where it is and so is the target. All on the same line.

I offer this as a more valid means of ‘proof’ than all the thought experiments and myths.

In this case, the computer can visualize the math for us and we can see for ourselves how the mainstream is wrong. This isn’t something abstract. Its basic motion in a 3d world.

View Comment
• ProperGander says:

http://www.lextalus.com/pdf/The%20Coriolis%20Effect.pdf

Page 5 and 6

The Coriolis Effect is explained.

But please take notice that figure 4 on page 6 does not take into account that the lines of gravity radiate from the center of the Earth, the lines grow closer together the closer one gets to the Earth’s center and further apart, the further away one travels.

So this would seem to compensate for the difference tangential velocity between the higher and lower altitudes.

The ground and objets on the ground, have less distance to travel ( and less velocity) than the object higher up in altitude (with the greater velocity).

Just like how the 3d sphere rotates. The nature of its shape means the tangential velocities across its curved and 3d surface, differ. Yet it rotates as one mass. This is the very means by which it is enabled to do so and retain its shape. .

This would seem to invalidate the conclusions of the mine shaft experiments which mythically show an eastward motion to a dropped object.

View Comment
• ProperGander says:

http://www.regentsprep.org/regents/physics/phys06/bcentrif/default.htm

“The smaller the velocity of the object, the less centripetal force you will have to apply.
The smaller the length of rope (radius), the more centripetal force you will have to apply to the rope.
Notice that the centripetal force and the centripetal acceleration are always pointing in the same direction.”

Does any of what we can demonstrate for ourselves really jibe with the fantastic and amazing ‘theories’ of philosophers like Galileo and Newton and the rest?

Gravity is the ‘centripetal’ force. The ‘centrifugal’ one is an illusion. Same would have to hold for the rotating Globe.

View Comment
6. SPACE says:

Scorpio constellation is visible from South Pole to Spain. So, I don’t understand, how someone for example in Ireland or Iceland can be born under Scorpio sign?

There’s 2 zodiacs: Sidereal & Tropical Zodiac. Now most widely is used Tropical Zodiac, introduced by Ptolemy to solve Axial precession problem.

View Comment
7. Greg Fyfe says:

How can one explain that the very same stars of the zodiac have been seen and documented for thousands of years when we are flying through space as well as these zodiac stars are flying through space on their own path. How can we see them in the same place century after century. The only way this is possible is if they are right here all the time repeating over and over and over…… We live in a fixed realm that was created just for us. This place was created for souls to take on a physical form to experience all the trials and tribulations that cannot be obtained in the upper dimensions. Something here has hijacked the experience and it has worked so far, but the truth will come out hopefully before this place has been ruined forever.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

Yes, that is similar to the stellar parallax argument and it is a good one. It can only possibly work if everything is a zillion miles away… and even then does it really work?

View Comment
• Andrew says:

I agree we live in fixed realm and the truth has already been revealed in the Holy Bible as to why this place is under so much deception. The truth to most will only come when it’s too late. 95 plus % of folk are too busy enjoying the meaningless worldly fantasies of life to even care about these things so the truth will never be revealed to them.

View Comment
8. Jessie says:

Hi WH,

I wanted to ask this before I forgot, so forgive me if this question is answered somewhere here.

If the moon rotates on its axis at 16 km/h, and it has no atmosphere, shouldn’t there be an obvious wind constantly on the Moon? Instead, the “footage” of astronauts on the moon show no wind or movement at all on the surface.

I thought that the earth’s atmosphere was magically glued to the surface and that is why we don’t feel the absurdly high speed winds that would exist if the earth was barreling through space as we are led to believe.

I also stumbled on to a series of YouTube videos by “Distinti” who has an extensive background in physics and explains how modern physics is basically all wrong. https://www.youtube.com/user/rdistinti

Thanks, Jessie

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

If there is no atmosphere on the moon, then I guess there is no wind.

View Comment
• Jessie says:

I guess that would be another proof that the moon landings are fake and that the moon can’t possibly be a solid sphere. 🙂

I’ve always been extremely interested in relativistic physics and I followed Jim Al-Khalili closely for a long time because of his work in Theoretical Physics and the like. Have you heard of him or his work?

-Jessie

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

No I haven’t heard of him. I’m not a big lover of theoretical physics, but I do sometimes find it interesting.

View Comment
9. SPACE says:

Moon illusion: There’s full Moon in India. Somebody pickups phone in Germany: yes, there’s also full Moon. Quite a distance, but Moon appears the same size.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

Even more interesting would be its position in the sky at that time as seen from those two locations.

View Comment
• SPACE says:

in Talmud it is said, that Earth and Heaven are connected like two parts of apple and cannot exist without each other. Maybe from here idea of round, ball like Earth.
When I look through telescope, I have feeling, that I look into microscope.
When this Austrian Baumgartner jumped from quite high, he said, that sky is completely dark and there’s no visible Sun, Moon or Stars.
At the height of about 30 km something strange happens. Human optics, eye cannot see no more objects. Only bellow is seen light clouds. Maybe there bellow is sun, moon and stars, so called rakia – firmament.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

“When I look through telescope, I have feeling, that I look into microscope.”

Yes! That is my take on it too. Closeups of the moon look like a closeup through a microscope.

View Comment
10. Robert Sissons says:

I’m confused about the denial of the geocentric model. From Wikepedia: Earlier observations supported the geocentric model. First of all, if the Earth did move, then one ought to be able to observe the shifting of the fixed stars due to stellar parallax. Another observation used in favor of the geocentric model at the time was the apparent consistency of Venus’ luminosity, which implies that it is usually about the same distance from Earth, which in turn is more consistent with geocentrism than heliocentrism. Objectors to heliocentrism noted that terrestrial bodies naturally tend to come to rest as near as possible to the center of the earth.

View Comment
• Robert Sissons says:

This is a letter from St. Robert Bellarmine written to a priest in the 17th century:

St. Robert Bellarmine, wrote the following to
Father Paolo Foscarini on April 12, 1613:
I have gladly read the letter in Italian and the treatise, which Your Reverence sent me, and I thank you for both. And I confess that both are filled with ingenuity and learning, and since you ask for my opinion, I will give it to you very briefly, as you have little time for reading and I for writing.
First. I say that it seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo did prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically, and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles is to speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for mathematicians. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (turns upon its axis) without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false. For Your Reverence has demonstrated many ways of explaining Holy Scripture, but you have not applied them in particular, and without a doubt you would have found it most difficult if you had attempted to explain all the passages which you yourself have cited.
Second. I say that, as you know, the Council (of Trent) prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators.
Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.
Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstrations; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun is at the center and the earth is in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the Holy Fathers.
I add that the words “The sun riseth and goeth down, and returnneth to his place: and there rising again, maketh his round by the south, and turneth again to the north.” (Ecclesiastes 1: 5,6) were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to the appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away from the ship, I shall answer that one who departs from the beach, though it looks to him as though the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to the sun and the earth, no wise man is needed to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move. And that is enough for the present.
I salute Your Reverence and ask God to grant you every happiness.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

It’s obviously a promotion, but is it just an innocent “must feed my family” one, or does it entail something larger and more organized?

View Comment
11. Question Everything says:

A lot of what is said on this website makes perfect sense, especially how the earth is not moving. I have two questions for the author. Why do the stars in the northern hemisphere rotate counter clockwise and and (from what I have read) the stars in the southern hemisphere rotate clockwise? I believe the stars at the equator must just go right overhead. This is easily explained by a convex fixed globe with the ether rotating around it (or a spinning globe with a fixed ether for that matter).

So, basically my question is: How would you explain the star rotations?

Also, would you agree that this opposite hemispheric star rotation observation disproves Flat Earth theory? Because personally, I can’t come up with a model of this that works with Flat Earth.
Thanks.

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

In a concave earth you are “upside down” at the north pole and so your orientation is the opposite. If you visualize it, it’ll make sense. If you look at the side of the concave Earth with the north pole at the top, then the star field and Sun are spinning counter-clockwise.

I haven’t thought about it for flat earth, but now you mention it, no I can’t get it to work there either.

View Comment
• R. E. says:

They try to explain it with overly complicated BS like Mach’s Principle, which explains nothing. Their strategy is to utterly bore observant people and make us sorry we ever asked.

They don’t have a satisfying answer for how fixed satellites stay fixed without a continuous fuel source, but few seem to mind.

View Comment
• R. E. says:

I’ll add: I expected their official site to explain satellite travel by saying something vague about inertia plus less friction at great heights, plus Earth’s mass keeps these objects close by though not close enough to crash to Earth. But no, a few years ago I saw their official answer on their Q&A page. Someone asked how fixed satellites stay fixed, and the NASA approved answer made no sense. I sometimes think they are trying to get us to notice discrepancies while also drip feeding us expensive and elaborate BS.

This, and i could find few actual photos of planets in our solar system – they were all noted as artistic renderings (paintings and CGI). Why not update the site with images from their billion dollar telescopes?

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

Exactly. Their lack of real images of space (and the Earth!) is very telling. My guess is they are waiting for computers to get so good that we won’t be able to tell the difference, maybe they already have that and are testing out the software.

Their “eternal falling” explanation for orbiting doesn’t work because falling is an acceleration. So whatever is falling, is moving at ridiculous speed in no time at all. I think someone worked it out on cluesforum a couple of years ago that the ISIS should be traveling well beyond the speed of light at this stage.

View Comment
• R. E. says:

Beyond the speed of light? It’s on a roll then. Lol

View Comment
• x2mm says:

R.E. Speed of light is always relativ to something. There no such thing as a constant speed of light (SOL)
http://debunkingrelativity.com/
I quote from that very good site: « It is true that Maxwell had deduced the value of ‘c’ (speed of light) mathematically after experimenting on electromagnetism but he didn’t know to which reference frame this speed of light applies. While scientists were pondering on this reference frame issue, Einstein mesmerised the scientific folk with his weird maths and said that the SOL (3×108m/sec) deduced by Maxwell must be applicable to every observer irrespective of their reference frame and made the crowd to believe in the absurd law he proposed i.e. the law of constant speed of light.»

View Comment
• x2mm says:

3×10^8, of course ( a little 8)

View Comment
• BlueMoon says:

Acceleration can mean either change in velocity or direction. The centripetal force of gravity would perfectly cancel the centrifugal “force” of inertia if the orbit was circular. As it is with orbits being elliptical, satellites speed up and slow down as they approach periapse and apoapse, respectively.

You might want to check out Kerbal Space Program. It’s quite fun and moddable, and will really help you understand the orbital mechanics central to heliocentric theory. After all, if you try to make a case against something you don’t understand, someone will call you out on it 😛

View Comment
• Wild Heretic says:

Acceleration can mean either change in velocity or direction. The centripetal force of gravity would perfectly cancel the centrifugal “force” of inertia if the orbit was circular. As it is with orbits being elliptical, satellites speed up and slow down as they approach periapse and apoapse, respectively.

You might want to check out Kerbal Space Program. It’s quite fun and moddable, and will really help you understand the orbital mechanics central to heliocentric theory. After all, if you try to make a case against something you don’t understand, someone will call you out on it

You might want to test the curvature of the Earth before dreaming up theories to suit your own assumptions. Don’t worry, I’ll be doing it for you soon enough 🙂

View Comment
• x2mm says:

Last vid of LSC is clear about that

View Comment
• R.E. says:

x2mm (I can’t reply to your above comment, so I’ll do so here), yes I was teasing. I know that Einstein was another hired hand and that his Theory of Relativity is incorrect, because his model of our universe is incorrect. Our universe is moreso like a DC engine.

View Comment
• R.E. says:

Oops I jumped in with my comment about Mach’s Principle without reading the rest of QE’s comments.

View Comment
12. charles says:

Dear Elaine.

Where in the world did you come up with the flatland idea? How can you even think that eath is flat? If that statement is even true, then why is everybody not experiencing that effect all around the globe? If you are in the USA, China, Australia, Africa or Asie, then some one must be on the edge of the “disk” if Earth was flat. Earth is a sphere, not in the shape of a coin. How can all the people on Earth on all continents live on the “face” side of the “coin” and no one on the “edge”. Flat Earth is so not true or realistic, if every one thinks that his part of the world is flat (not curved), then Earth would have had the shape of a rubics cube…..and that is not even true by a long shot. It seems that you want to re-invent the wheel with this utter non sence arguement. We live in a three dimensional world, not two dimenstional.

View Comment
13. Elaine Cooke says:

Not only is earth not moving, it is also flat. For those who feel the need to raucously wail that earth is round cuz they saw a picture or video, or cuz the teacher said so, ask yourselves… Where is the demonstrable curve? 70% of the surface of earth is water. Surface of water doesn’t curve. Ocean surface can only be flat since water at rest is always flat. It’s insanity or retardation to accept that water behaves differently on a large scale than it does in a lake, or a pool, or a glass of water. For centuries mankind knew the world was flat. The fact you can’t even discuss it without being pounded mute by the indoctrinated is almost certain proof of that indoctrination.

From the time of Galileo, lies were developed that bolstered all manner of stupid “scientific” theory until the dawn of modern media gave total control of the sciences to powerful elite. Using technology to their advantage, these elite scoundrels steal monies from the public under false pretense to fund their precious NASA in order to own the skies enabling them to indoctrinate on a massive level. Observe the timing of the new world order, NASA and “globalists” making policy, (aka gods). The worldly gods use ginormous scientific lies to enslave the masses. In order to fully corral said slaves, the gods needed to recreate the world in their own image, teaching the exact opposite of how it really is. It’s obvious you can’t rule over people who serve another God and His creation. If you want to be god you gotta build it from the ground up. It’s a certain axiom that to not know the truth about any particular thing results in the destruction of that thing.

Most people now bow to the elite globalist agenda (heliocentric science as well as “global” finance) to their own destruction. All in the name of evading the God who created them and the world in the first place.

View Comment
• Totalrecall says:

I have a great admiration for flat earth theorists as they have had courage where I didn’t, over my brain washed years; but I am not one of them. Optics is a very complex issue as I am only recently finding out.

I think you are right that everything is the wrong way round. The more I look into things the more it seems that reality is the exact opposite of the consensus, which smells a lot if you ask me.

View Comment
14. Roy the truth seeker says:

Excellent work. Please continue. I think you may find this interesting concerning the true nature of the world we live in. http://www.rolf-keppler.de/elot.htm

Even though “Lord” Steven Chris may have a bit of an ego. problem, he brings up some excellent points. http://www.missteribabylonestar.com/posthypnoticepiphany2.html

View Comment
• Totalrecall says:

Yeah, Roy, I’ve just recently been pointed to Rolf’s work. I am also an ardent concave Earth theorist, especially since I have found new stuff as well as Rolf’s material and Tamarack Mines and Cyruss Tweed’s stuff. None of the evidence is 100% conclusive, but pretty damn close. I’ll do two articles on it after this one.

Lord Steven Christ (the name makes me crack up every time), does have some good points especially about the glass. His pyramid Sun thing I think is way off-base however (who knows, I could be wrong). His only evidence for that is the bible with the “four corners of the Earth” etc. and the Tibetan drawing of a square around the Sun. It is of course possible that the Sun has a base, and the base may be square, or pyramidal, but that is 100% speculation on no real evidence.

If I happen to find evidence to the contrary, I will happily include it in one of the articles. Perhaps it is a way of harnessing the power of the ether to convert it into energy. (I have suspicions that the ether is a “double helix-ed” or “torsinol” vortex if that is a word.) This is pure speculation however. Perhaps more on that later.

View Comment
• Objective One says:

The ancient Egyptians depict the sun in a u shaped (cradle) base. (Search for images online.) I also believe Jesus Christ is a metaphor for the sun, they have too much in common.

View Comment
• R. E. says:

I think Lord Steve has some good information because he has a direct line to the government, not necessarily God. I think he mixes truth in with a wacky persona so as to prevent mockers from understanding. That is how “they” do things.

View Comment