Geocentricity, is it true and does the Bible teach it? Compiled by Jack Kettler
Part One, a survey of scriptural teaching
The simple straight forward literal reading of Scripture sets forth the teaching that the Universe is geocentric. The Earth is the center of God’s creation and is at rest or stationary.
There are verses that refer to the sun as rising and setting every day while not one verse ever refers to the earth as moving. For example:
As we look at the following passages, are they nothing more than figures of speech or figurative language designed by God to be more resounding? If so, it can be asked convincing of what? Figures of speech like metaphors, similes, allusions, which may go beyond the literal meanings of the words and may give the readers better insights. The following passages have a literal way to interpret them. If they are purely figurative, what type of insights are being gained by the reader for not taking them as literal? How would you rephrase to represent heliocentric truth?
“The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar.” (Genesis 19:23)
“But Moses' hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.” (Exodus 17:12)
“And when the sun is down, he shall be clean, and shall afterward eat of the holy things; because it is his food.” (Leviticus 22:7)
“And on the east side toward the rising of the sun shall they of the standard of the camp of Judah pitch throughout their armies: and Nahshon the son of Amminadab shall be captain of the children of Judah.” (Numbers 2:3)
“Then Moses severed three cities on this side Jordan toward the sunrising.” (Deuteronomy 4:41)
“And the men of the city said unto him on the seventh day before the sun went down, What is sweeter than honey? and what is stronger than a lion? And he said unto them, If ye had not plowed with my heifer, ye had not found out my riddle.” (Judges 14:18)
“And when all the people came to cause David to eat meat while it was yet day, David sware, saying, so do God to me, and more also, if I taste bread, or ought else, till the sun be down.” (2 Samuel 3:35)
“And there went a proclamation throughout the host about the going down of the sun, saying, Every man to his city, and every man to his own country.” (1 Kings 22:36)
“And Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees.” (2 Kings 20:10)
“So we laboured in the work: and half of them held the spears from the rising of the morning till the stars appeared.” (Nehemiah 4:21)
“He can command the sun not to rise” (Job 9:7)
“The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.” (Ecclesiastes 1:5)
“A Psalm of Asaph. The mighty God, even the LORD, hath spoken, and called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof.” (Psalm 50:1)
“For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.” (Isaiah 13:10)
“So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.” (Isaiah 59:19)
“She that hath borne seven languisheth: she hath given up the ghost; her sun is gone down while it was yet day: she hath been ashamed and confounded: and the residue of them will I deliver to the sword before their enemies, saith the LORD.” (Jeremiah 15:9)
“And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord GOD, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day.” (Amos 8:9)
“And it came to pass, when the sun did arise, that God prepared a vehement east wind; and the sun beat upon the head of Jonah, that he fainted, and wished in himself to die, and said, It is better for me to die than to live.” (Jonah 4:8)
“Therefore night shall be unto you, that ye shall not have a vision; and it shall be dark unto you, that ye shall not divine; and the sun shall go down over the prophets, and the day shall be dark over them.” (Micah 3:6)
“Thy crowned are as the locusts, and thy captains as the great grasshoppers, which camp in the hedges in the cold day, but when the sun ariseth they flee away, and their place is not known where they are.” (Nahum 3:17)
“For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.” (Malachi 1:11)
“That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” (Matthew 5:45)
“And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils.” (Mark 1:32)
“Now when the sun was setting, all they that had any sick with divers diseases brought them unto him; and he laid his hands on every one of them, and healed them.” (Luke 4:40)
“Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath.” (Ephesians 4:26)
“For the sun is no sooner risen with a burning heat, but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade away in his ways.” (James 1:11)
In addition, the Bible represents the earth as firm, immovable, the foundation of creation:
“And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.” (Genesis 1:9-18)
“He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them.” (1 Samuel 2:8)
“Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.” (1 Chronicles 16:30)
“The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah.” (Psalm 75:3)
“The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.” (Psalms 93:1)
“Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.” (Psalms 96:10)
“Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.” (Psalm 104:5)
“And they answered the angel of the LORD that stood among the myrtle trees, and said, we have walked to and fro through the earth, and, behold, all the earth sitteth still, and is at rest.” (Zechariah 1:11)
“And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:” (Hebrews 1:10)
The Bible never describes the Earth as spinning around, just shaken, as in an earthquake:
“The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining:” (Joel 2:10)
“Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.” (Isaiah13:13)
“And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.” (Revelation 6:12-13)
The Sun moves, not the earth:
“Then spake Joshua to JEHOVAH in the day when JEHOVAH delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.”
“And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.”
“And there was no day like that before it or after it, that JEHOVAH hearkened unto the voice of a man: for JEHOVAH fought for Israel.” (Joshua 10:12-14)
“The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear.” (Habakkuk 3:11)
The Bible states the earth does not move. In contrast, the Bible states that the sun does move:
“He can command the sun not to rise” (Job 9:7). Rather than, “He commanded the earth to stop spinning.” That God would direct such a command at the sun rather than the earth, implies an unambiguously geocentric viewpoint. Similarly, “Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, not the earth.” (Joshua 10:12) *
The Bible also states: “...the sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again” (Ecclesiastes 1:5; NASB). “Rising” and “setting” may be easy to explain away due to one's earth-bound perspective, but speaking of the sun "hastening to its place" so that it may rise again, is not so easy to explain away. It means the author of Ecclesiastes believed that the sun moves. Compare Psalm 19:4-6, “In [the heavens] He has placed a tent for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; it rejoices like a strong man to run its course, its rising from one end of the heavens, and its circuit to the other end of them.” *
Likewise, the Bible states that stars “course” [move] through the heavens, “From their courses they fought against Sisera” (Judges 5:20, NASB). God “leads forth” the stars, “The One who leads forth their host by number...Because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power not one [star] is missing.” (Isaiah 40:26, NASB) Constellations are “led forth” in their season: “Can you bind the chains of the Pleadies or loose the cords of Orion? Can you lead forth a constellation in its season, and guide the Bear with her satellites? Do you know the ordinances of the heavens, or fix their rule over the earth?” (Job 38:31-33, NASB) *
* These 3 paragraphs and comments are from: http://www.reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/geo/pages/13-bible-geocentrisim.htm
“A conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible.” - Albert Einstein
Are you going to follow Einstein, or God’s Word?
Part Two, recognized leaders
Augustine: Let not the philosophers, then, think to upset our faith with arguments from the weight of bodies; for I don’t care to inquire why they cannot believe an earthly body can be in heaven, while the whole earth is suspended on nothing. For perhaps the world keeps its central place by the same law that attracts to its center all heavy bodies. (City of God, Bk XIII, Chapter 18) (Under lining emphasis mine)
Augustine: For an eclipse of the sun had also happened; and this was attributed to the divine power of Romulus by the ignorant multitude, who did not know that it was brought about by the fixed laws of the sun’s course. (City of God, Bk III, Chapter 15)
Augustine: This he said either of those things of which he had just been speaking–the succession of generations, the orbit of the sun, the course of rivers, –or else of all kinds of creatures. that are born and die. (City of God, Bk XII, Chapter 13).
Augustine: What is there so arranged by the Author of the nature of heaven and earth as the exactly ordered course of the stars? What is there established by laws so sure and inflexible? And yet, when it pleased Him who with sovereignty and supreme power regulates all He has created, a star conspicuous among the rest by its size and splendor changed its color, size, form, and, most wonderful of all, the order and law of its course! Certainly that phenomenon disturbed the canons of the astronomers, if there were any then, by which they tabulate, as by unerring computation, the past and future movements of the stars, so as to take upon them to affirm that this which happened to the morning star (Venus) never happened before nor since. But we read in the divine books that even the sun itself stood still when a holy man, Joshua the son of Nun, had begged this from God until victory should finish the battle he had begun; and that it even went back, that the promise of fifteen years added to the life of king Hezekiah might be sealed by this additional prodigy. But these miracles, which were vouchsafed to the merits of holy men, even when our adversaries believe them, they attribute to magical arts; so Virgil, in the lines I quoted above, ascribes to magic the power to “Turn rivers backward to their source, and make the stars forget their course.” (City of God, Book XXI, Chapter 8).
Chrysostom: For He not only made it, but provided also that when it was made, it should carry on its operations; not permitting it to be all immoveable, nor commanding it to be all in a state of motion. The heaven, for instance, hath remained immoveable, according as the prophet says, “He placed the heaven as a vault, and stretched it out as a tent over the earth.” But, on the other hand, the sun with the rest of the stars, runs on his course through every day. And again, the earth is fixed, but the waters are continually in motion; and not the waters only, but the clouds, and the frequent and successive showers, which return at their proper season. (Homilies to Antioch, Homily XII)
Look at Calvin’s commentary on Psalm 93:1, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:
“The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion — no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wanderings, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God’s hand? By what means could it maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it?” John Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries Volume V1, Psalms, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, Reprinted 1979), pp. 6, 7.
God “laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed, forever” (Psalm 104:5). Calvin’s comment begins as follows:
“Here the prophet celebrates the glory of God, as manifested in the stability of the earth. Since it is suspended in the midst of the air, and is supported only by pillars of water, how does it keep its place so stedfastly that it cannot be moved? This I indeed grant may be explained on natural principles; for the earth, as it occupies the lowest place, being the center of the world, naturally settles down there.” John Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries Volume V1, Psalms, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, Reprinted 1979), pp. 148, 149.
Commenting on Psalm 19:4, Calvin says: “the firmament, by its own revolution, draws with it all the fixed stars” Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, I, 315; (Calvini opera, XXXI, 198), p. 168.
The concept of a stationary earth at rest in the air was expounded by Calvin in his sermon on:
“Thou hast established the earth, and it abideth.” (Psalm 119:90)
“I beseech you to tell me what the foundation of the earth is. It is founded both upon the water and also upon the air: behold its foundation. We cannot possibly build a house fifteen feet high on firm ground without having to lay a foundation. Behold the whole earth founded only in trembling, indeed poised above such bottomless depths that it might be turned upside down at any minute to become disordered. Hence there must be a wonderful power of God to keep it in the condition in which it is.” John Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries Volume V1, Psalms, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, Reprinted 1979), p. 469.
In his Commentarius in librum Iosue, composed during the agony of his last illness, Calvin commented:
“As in kindness to the human race He divides the day from the night by the daily course of the sun, and constantly whirls the immense orb with indefatigable swiftness, so He was pleased that it should halt for a short time till the enemies of Israel were destroyed.” Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of Joshua, tr. Henry Beveridge (Edinburgh, 1854), 153; re-issued, Grand Rapids, 1949, Calvini opera, XXV, 500), (p. 171).
“Luther called Copernicus an “upstart astronomer” and referred to him as a “fool who wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.”
“Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters… It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night… We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding.” Martin Luther, Luther's Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan, (Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1958), pp. 30, 42, 43.
“People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.” Martin Luther, Table Talk
“The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty-four hours. But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded the earth moves.” In support of what was obvious to him and clearly taught in Scripture he would quote such authoritative texts as Ecclesiastes 1:5 “The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hurries to the place where it rises.”
“The truth is that God states in many places in His Word that the sun is in motion, her circuit resulting in both day and night, and that the world remains both motionless and stationary. Nowhere does God speak to the contrary, ... Since God states it to be so, it is truth and we are to embrace it as truth. Is not God the Creator, maintainer, and governor of all things, who is much better acquainted with His own work than is man with his limited and darkened understanding? Should men not subject their judgment to the very sayings of God? Or should one attempt to bend and twist the clear declarations of God in such a way that they agree with our erroneous thinking? Whatever God declares, also concerning things in the realm of nature, is true. God says that the world is motionless and stationary, being circled by the sun, and thus it is a certain and incontrovertible truth.” - The Christian's Reasonable Service. pp. 64-66
“Writing on Joshua 10:13, John Gill said, 'How this is to be reconciled with the Copernican system or that with this, I shall not inquire.' Wise man not to pretend to understand what has not been Divinely revealed. Wiser still in refusing to allow the theorizing’s of a Prussian astronomer to cast doubt on what He has made known, or to suggest an interpretation which 'harmonizes' the same with the hypothesis of 'science falsely so called' (1 Timothy 6:20).” A.W. Pink, Gleanings in Joshua, 13. (Moody Press, Chicago), Victory at Gibeon, Joshua 10:1-43.
Part Three comments, questions and online presentations
Is the Bible without error in all that it teaches? In the above verses regarding the sun and stars moving and the earth not moving, is God using human language in such a way to accommodate how humans in their limited understanding understood the creation? If so, why would not God correct human misunderstanding and set forth the heliocentric view if it is correct? If the writers of Scripture were moved by the Holy Spirit as they wrote the Word of God, why would God allow them to write false information just to accommodate human ignorance? In addition, geocentrists would ask: “How deceptive of God to speak in such a manner unless He meant what he said.” Calvin and others, got their understanding from the simple reading of Scripture. Are the Scriptures in error? Since Calvin and other church leaders got their understanding of the sun moving, and the earth stationary from the Bible, was God teaching falsehood? Were Calvin and Luther deceived or ignoramuses in the area of biblical teaching and science?
I may be argued that the Bible, is correct in all it says, yet it is not a book of science, it is a book about salvation. This type of assertion does not accomplish anything except inadvertently admit that the Bible is not correct in areas of science. If Calvin, the “prince of exegetes” and others thought the Scriptures taught a geocentric view of the world, then it is not preposterous to take the above Scriptures at face value and agree with Calvin. Are you going to stand with the Scriptures or the pagan scientists? The Scriptures warn us about science falsely so-called.
“Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life. O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and opposition of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.” (1 Timothy 6:19-21)
In addition, a heliocentric believer may argue that the earth in unmovable as it moves around the sun. Does this even make sense? Is it a sound logical sentence? Once we depart from Scripture in the area of gocentricity, and embrace a heliocentric view, we have opened the door to questioning other areas of Scripture, such as creation. Now we have evolution, higher literary criticism. The flood gates of unbelief are wide open. Accommodation, seeking respectability gains nothing. The proof that you think you have seen about heliocentricity is nothing more than animated science fiction movies. There are many brilliant clever men who are unbelievers. They use their vast intellectual capabilities to erect non-believing theories and edifices to their own vanity and in doing so think they can escape the truth and judgement of God.
“Such as, my dear, that Christianity is dead and rotting since Galileo cut its throat.” - Michael Slote
But haven’t astronomers and scientists proven that the earth revolves around the sun? No, for your consideration see:
See Geocentrism - Sagnac's experiment - an animated explanation in the YouTube link below:
An animated explanation of how Sagnac's experiment proved the existence of the aether, thus demolishing Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Complaints by two experienced physicists that when they were at university, they were never informed about this important experiment. When other experiments - Airy's Failure, Michelson-Gale's interferometer experiment (also not taught at universities!) and of course the famous Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment- a completely different picture of the cosmos emerges - with the Earth at the center of the universe.
The Airy and the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments failed to show any movement of the earth going around the sun. Both experiments did show a slight aether drift confirming the presence of aether a substance or medium that causes light to travel as a wave. Sagnac's interferometer experiment along Michelson-Gale's interferometer experiment proved the existence of a large amount of aether that moved around the earth.
Sagnac you tube link:
Let me know if you are able to disprove the Sagnac experiment. Is so, you can make lots of money. Keep reading to find out how.
“Whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments...all attempts of this nature led to a negative result.” - Albert Einstein
Dr. Robert Sungenis - Geocentrism Geocentric Cosmology
If you are interested in viewing the two following full length movies, let me know.
Movie Trailer “Journey to the Center of the Universe” Two parts, 4-1/2 hours.
“The Principle” Movie Trailer Two hours in length.
The heliocentric theory alleges that the Earth is spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the Sun at 67,000 miles per hour and the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour. If the Earth spins at a constant velocity dragging the atmosphere in such a manner as to perfectly cancel all centrifugal, gravitational, and inertial forces. Why do we not feel any evidence of this rapid motion? Is gravity a solution? Moreover, how is it that gravity is strong enough to drag miles of Earth’s atmosphere along, but weak enough to allow little bugs, birds, clouds, smoke, flying kites and planes to travel freely undiminished in any direction? How come the constellations do not change over the course of thousands of years? Why do we always see Orion’s belt and the Big Dipper?
How does air travel work with an Earth spinning 1,000 miles an hour from East to West? How would North to South military artillery or sniper shots work with the Earth spinning at this speed? At 1,000 miles per hour, 16 miles per minute, ¼ mile per second air planes would crash on North to South runways. If gravity is so strong to keep water from coming out of the oceans, why can you swirl a glass of water around at substantially less than 1,000 miles per hour, and why does not gravity keep the water from spilling out of the glass?
If the Earth rotates on its axis at 1,000 miles per hour revolving around the Sun at 67,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way Galaxy moving even faster, why is there no observable stellar parallax, (A stellar parallax is a parallax on an interstellar scale: the apparent shift of position of any nearby star or other object against the background of distant objects) specifically bearing in mind that all the other stars and galaxies are revolving around each other and the Earth as well.
If the moon’s gravity is strong enough to act upon the earth’s oceans and cause the tides then how come it doesn’t act upon our atmosphere in the same way? Why do we need gravity when buoyancy, density, temperature, and electromagnetism is able to explain everything we observe and experience in the world around us?
Are you really certain about the heliocentric theory? Consider the following quotes:
“One can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the Earth or sun to be at rest.” - Steven Hawkings (2010)
“I pause to note that one may scan Einstein’s writings in vain to find mention of the Sagnac or Michelson-Gale experiments. The same can be said of general physics textbooks and of the 1971 McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. … Such an oversight in these distinguished encyclopedias constitutes a stinging indictment of professional scientific reporting.” – Dean Turner
“Whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments...all attempts of this nature led to a negative result.” Albert Einstein (1952)
“I can construct for 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.” - George Ellis (1995) George Ellis is a famous astronomer who has authored books with Stephen Hawking.
“At the end of the nineteenth century, one of the most perplexing unresolved problems of natural philosophy was that of determining the relative motion of the earth and the aether.” – Frederick Thomas Trouton
“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.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “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.”. W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.
This led Sir Fred Hoyle (Nicholas Corpenicus, 1973) to state:
“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view. Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory “wrong” in any meaningful physical sense.”
“The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS 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. -- Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.)”
“When you look at CBM map, [cosmic microwave background (CMB)] you also see that the structure is...correlated with the plane of the Earth around the sun. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.” - Lawrence Krauss (2006) Lawrence Krauss is a theoretical physicist.
In an article, “The Energy of Space That Isn't Zero,” Lawrence Krauss stated (2006):
“But when you look at CMB 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. The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales.”
A number of years ago cosmic microwave background (CMB) was detected in space and it was contended that if these observations are accurate and if the “big bang” model is correct, there should be unvarying presence of the CMB across the universe. There should not be any intermittence and certainly no variations in the CMB in the large scale of the universe. To examination this, several satellites were launched, they were COBE (1989), WMAP (2001) and PLANCK (2009). COBE in particular revealed that the universe is not uniform as was predicted in the big bang model and as required by the Copernican principle leading a big question, was Copernicus right? WMAP and PLANCK also confirmed this same phenomenon.
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies, which is the property of being directionally dependent and surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic. This alignment has been dubbed the “axis of evil” with very damaging implications for the standard model of cosmology. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropies.” – Ashok K. Singal
About this new term “the axis of evil.” From these satellites, the evidence suggested the earth is at the center of the universe, it was considered “evil.” Calling this discovery “evil” is an example of unbelieving wickedness. “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20)
This newly revealed “axis” is the core of MIT Professor Max Tegmark’s recent discovery. The universe is filled with radiation at a temperature of 2.728K, whose spectrum peaks at about 300GHz. This radiation was first noticed several decades ago and is known as the Cosmic Microwave Background.
In the microwave sky the temperature of the CMB is not exactly the same in all directions: it is anisotropic, which is the property of being directionally dependent. There are small fluctuations in the temperature across the sky at the level of about 1 part in 100,000: the microwave background temperature anisotropies. He detected that the anisotropies, or temperature disturbances in radiation, were all pointing toward the earth.
These temperature disturbances create a preferred direction spanning the entire universe and creates an axis. The earth has a distinct location in the center of this axis. In fact, the entire span of the universe has a correlation to the earth’s equinox and ecliptic, which is another way of saying that the earth lies at the center of the universe. Is this unthinkable? For many non-believers it is. Unfortunately, this is also true of Christians who should be rejoicing at this discovery.
A close up of the WMAP map showing the energy map of the galaxies
Picture from: https://biblescienceforum.com/2014/02/22/the-cosmological-principle-and-geocentrism/
Scientists have found the same CMB line of the visible cosmos from the sky, space probe and ground digital telescope data gathering projects have created a very thought-provoking map of the known universe: galaxies are aligned in concentric spheres around the Earth and the Milky Way and that the cosmic microwave background converges on the Earth along its equator and on its axis making the Earth the center of the known universe.
Image Credit: NASA Hubble and Planck probe data
Consider the following article:
Axis of Evil piercing throughout Universe changes scientific conception of space
The latest WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) data release has nearly put the scientific community into a state of shock. WMAP is a NASA satellite designed to survey the sky to measure the temperature of cosmic background radiation of different parts of the galaxy. The probe detected the existence of a strange line in the depths of space. The line pierces throughout the universe and shapes its spatial model. The line was dubbed an “axis of Evil” by scientists.
[“The discovery that the CMB is cosmically aligned to the Earth should make the hair on the back of your neck stand up. It points to the fact that the Earth is at a special place in the Universe and that God wants it to be known.” From Appendix Two.]
“The discovery casts doubt on all contemporary concepts of the nature and development of the universe,” says Leonid Speransky, an astrophysicist and professor with the Lomonosov State University in Moscow. “Even the Einstein theory of relativity seems obsolete now. Until recently space and time were believed to have unfolded in a chaotic way after the Big Bang, and the universe was thought to be homogeneous and expanding continuously. Now scientists will have to acquiesce to an ordered way of development of the universe as if it was born and develops in compliance with a scenario written beforehand.”
What kind of a scenario is it and who penned it? The question puzzles scientists.
The standard model of modern physics including the Big Bang theory is no longer capable of providing an explanation of principal characteristics if the observable universe e.g. its temperature, expansion and even the existence of galaxies in it. Problems tend to multiply year in and year out. Even the black holes emit radiation in contradiction with all existing laws of physics. The holes are surrounded by some strange fluorescent matter spinning around at high speed. The recent discovery of a ring composed of bright stars in the center of Andromeda galaxy has stumped scientists. The stars simply are not supposed there. A black hole located in the very center of the galaxy is again to blame. Stars and other heavenly bodies normally can not lie in the vicinity of such an object.
“The term “axis of Evil” was put to use by the cosmologist Joao Magoeio at the London Imperial College,” says Prof. Speransky. “It is he who first found out that the “cold” and “warm” areas of the metagalaxy happened to be lying in the sky in a somewhat organized way. A computer simulation proved that the above distribution of fluctuations could occur only in case of a considerably smaller-sized universe,” adds he.
Magoeio arrived at the conclusion that the axis of Evil was not bad at all and should be renamed an “axis of Good.” “The so-called standard model of the universe is really ugly and complicated. Hopefully, the old model will be deleted in the near future,” says the scientist in an article published by Nature magazine. Anyway, the cosmic background radiation measurements taken by WMAP seem to indicate a certain orientation or a plan. The orientation of the whole structure of the universe is built around a special gigantic line, according to scientists.
“By all appearances the world is about to witness a revolution in terms of the scientific concept of the universe. Its consequences may exceed all the expectations. The incompatibles will have to be united by a new theory, which will probably be a much-sought-after “universal Theory.” Physicists have been talking about a needful theory like that for a few years,” says Speransky.
However, story may be much simple than it seems. All the “axis of Evil” might as well stem from an error occurred during the calculation. It would be quite unsurprisingly since the temperature of the cosmic background radiation is 2.7 degrees Calvin while the measuring accuracy of the temperature anisotropy is at the level of a few thousandth fractions of percent.
Translated by Guerman Grachev http://www.pravdareport.com/science/tech/20-04-2006/79383-universe-0/
“We have ...certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth.” - Galileo Galilei in letter to Francesco Rinuccini, March 29th, 1641
“I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment.” - Einstein
“Redshifts would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth... This hypothesis cannot be disproved.” - Edwin Hubble in The Observational Approach to Cosmology
“If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! This theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations.” - Paul Davies in Nature
"The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect" - Lawrence Krauss, 2006
“Red shift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result: namely, that the Earth is the center of the Universe.” - Y.P. Varshni in Astrophysics and Space Science
“In other words, assuming the cosmological red shift hypothesis, the quasars…are arrange on 57 spherical shells with Earth in the center. This is certainly an extraordinary result. Some of the possibilities that we shall consider to accommodate this result may be disturbing, but we must consider these possibilities dispassionately.
(1) Coincidence in distances could be possible if there were clustering. However, an examination of the coordinates of the various members of individual groups show that in most cases there is no such correlation. Hence, this explanation has to be ruled out.
(2) Quasars may be arranged like atoms in a crystal lattice, with the Earth being either at an empty lattice site or at a suitable interstitial site. Should that be the case, one would expect some pattern or regularity in the directions of quasars belonging to a certain group. No such evidence is found and this possibility must also be abandoned.
(3) The Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or a quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also, it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and the General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes.” - Y.P. Varshni in Astrophysics and Space Science
“A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative.” - Henri Poincare
“Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…” - Henrick Lorentz
“No physical experiment has ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.” - Lincoln Barnett
“This hypothesis (of a central Earth) cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort.” “We disregard this possibility. The unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs.” “Such a favored position is intolerable.” - Edwin Hubble
“The pendulum has swung all the way and started to come back on the Copernican principle.” - Max Tegmark
“There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.” - Arthur Eddington
Is modern science logical?
“Science was now working by this simple syllogism:
Major Premise: It is self-evident the Earth moves around the sun.
Minor Premise: No interferometer has ever measured such movement.
Conclusion: Earth moves, matter shrinks, time dilates, and neither ether nor absolute motion exist. Everything is relative. Case closed.” - Robert A. Sungenis
A summary of Relativity's 'begging the question' regarding the Michelson-Morley Experiment, by poster John Martin on cosmoquest.org forum.
To commit the fallacy of begging the question, a conclusion to be demonstrated is assumed into a premise.
1 An experiment is set up to demonstrate the motion of the earth through space.
2 A positive result is expected from theory.
3 The experiment produces a null result.
4 The null result has a cause.
5 The cause of the null result is not a stationary earth, because the earth is moving.
6 The cause of the null result is a moving earth
7 Therefore an experiment on the moving earth has demonstrated that c is constant in any inertial reference frame.
8 Therefore c is constant in all reference frames.
Line 8, implies a moving earth as part of the conclusion, yet line 5 merely asserts the earth is moving, to conclude to line 8. Therefore, the constancy of c is invalid according to the fallacy of begging the question.
The only way science can conclude to one of special relativities postulates is to beg the question on the motion of the earth as shown above.
As Robert Sungenis and John Martin have demonstrated, modern science in flagrant violation of the simplest rules of logic.
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;” (Romans 1:18)
Tycho Brahe’s Geocentric Model:
“And thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest, as in the Tychoic system.” - Isaac Newton
There is a modified geocentric model that differs slightly from Tycho's in that the stars are centered on the sun, not the earth, and so they also trace out the yearly cycle about Earth. This explains parallax and aberration and other yearly effects which are not explained in Tycho's original model. See: http://www.geocentricity.com/shop/about_tycho.html for more on Tycho Brahe and modifications to his brilliant geocentric model.
William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), who was an English Franciscan friar, scholastic philosopher and theologian. How does his philosophical razor work? Basically, the simplest explanation is usually the right one. Or, amid opposing suppositions, the one with the least assumptions should be selected. What does this have to do with gocentricity? Can you understand or explain Einstein’s special theory of relativity? What about Einstein’s idea of curved space?
“This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth moves.” - Albert Michelson Note: This is Michelson expressing shock at the results of his experiment.
“The data were almost unbelievable… There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.” - Bernard Jaffe Note: Jaffe is also commenting on the interferometer experiments of Michelson and his associates.
Did Einstein make up the Special Theory of Relativity as a mathematically theoretical construct to cover up the fact that no known empirical experiment could prove that the earth is moving? Are you willing to accept a mathematical formula as absolute truth over the results of tradition empirical observational experiments? Airy's experiment, the Michelson-Gale's experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiments and Sagnac's experiment are observational experiments that show every time they are done that the earth is not moving and that there is a substance called aether that moves.
Why are these interferometer experiments not taught in classes on physics? How far Einstein theory of relativity go? Does it displace absolutes? In regards to Occam’s razor, the biblical teaching is simple straightforward and true. Moreover, after considering the many quotes for top physicists, are you certain of your heliocentricity? Why are Christians so opposed to the earth’s place in the Universe, when non-Christians scientists will talk about things like the so-called “axis of evil” and lack of observational experiments proving that the earth moves?
“The theory of relativity is a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense.” Nikola Tesla
Want to make some money?
This challenge is simple. Anyone who can provide qualified experimental proof that the Earth revolves around the Sun will be paid $100,000. The prize money is promised by a long-time patron of CAI Publishing, Inc. Dismissing or laughing this off is not proving the heliocentric theory.
“Thus, general relativity brings about its own downfall by predicting singularities.” - Stephen Hawking
Einstein proven wrong
Herbert Dingle was a 20th century physicist, philosopher and historian of science, author of scientific books, and an untiring critic of science and scientific method. He is best known for his criticism of the special theory of relativity, stemming from controversies over the twin paradox in the 1950s, and his book Science At The Crossroads which documented how the scientific community attempted to suppress his heterodox viewpoint. He is most famous for his assertion that the special theory of relativity contains a logical or mathematical inconsistency which invalidates it.
Dingle was born in London August 2, 1890, of Cornish ancestry. He was raised in Plymouth by his mother, who moved there following the death of his father. He left school at age fourteen in order to work, but he continued his studies at night. In 1915 at age 24, he won a Royal Scholarship for physics at Imperial College, London. He was appointed to the department staff there prior to his graduation in 1918, and remained at Imperial College for many more years, eventually leaving in 1946. Upon graduation he was married to Alice Westacott. They had one son. Both died before Dingle, who died in Hull on September 4, 1978 shortly after his 88 birthday.
Dingle was an academic by profession. He trained to be a physicist, and worked in the field of spectroscopy. At imperial College he worked in the department where Norman Lockyer had been section head, followed by Alfred Flower. Dingle became spectroscopy section head in 1935. In 1937 he was appointed to a chair in Natural Philosophy in the physics department. During the second world war, Dingle took responsibility for running of the physics department in the absence of its formal leader. In 1946, Dingle left Imperial College to take the position of Professor and head of the History and Philosophy of Science department at University College, London. He remained there until he retired in 1955. He was highly regarded as one of the foremost philosophers of science in Britain.
He was elected a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1922, as a result of his spectroscopy work, he was elected president of The Royal Astronomical Society in 1951, serving until 1953. He was President of the History of Astronomy Commission of the International astronomical Union. In 1948 Dingle founded the Philosophy of Science Group of the British Society for the History of Science, and in 1950 founded its official journal the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. From 1955 to 1957 he was president of the British Society for the History of Science.
Dingle’s professional work can be divided into three areas: spectroscopy and astrophysics, natural philosophy, and relativity. In the case of relativity, his most famous work occurred after his retirement. Dingle studied spectrochemical analysis and pioneered research into Flourine II and III. In 1924 he published one of the earlier books in astrophysics with the title Modern Astrophysics. In 1923 a book entitled Splendor of the Heavens was published with Dingle as one of its authors. In 1929 he published The Life and Work of Sir Norman Lockyer who had once headed Dingle’s own spectroscopy department. By the 1930s, Dingle’s main emphasis had shifted from physics to philosophical interests, although he maintained his physical work until he left Imperial College.
Dingle developed an interest in natural philosophy from Alfred North Whitehead. Who from 1910 to 1922 taught and wrote on physics and the philosophy of science while at Imperial College and University College, London. Dingle describes his development in natural philosophy in this way: “I grew to adolescence at a time when theoretical physics was just in the state to make most appeal to a mind eager for activity of all kinds and hovering chiefly between the delights of literature and the discipline of abstract thought… when, in later years the clouds of relativity and quantum theory filled the sky, and I had the good fortune …to be for a few years a pupil of Professor Whitehead’s, I determined to work out for myself a rational scheme of thought in which these fantastic physical developments would appear as intelligible…in other words, to seek a philosophy into which science …would find a rational setting.” This was Dingle’s lifelong goal.
His first book devoted to natural philosophy titled Science and Human Experience was based on a lecture series and was published in 1931. His second book Through Science to Philosophy, published in 1937 continued the theme. In his first book he was critical of the new scientific philosophies in particular those of Eddington and Jeans. His second book was more detailed in defining a scientific philosophy which Dingle advocated. This was more of an empirical science, that was based upon a real understanding of the world rather than a speculative science that was long on a theory of mathematical speculation and short on real empirical facts about the world as it is. This theme, that science should be an empirically based enterprise rather than a mathematically speculative enterprise was the hallmark of his scientific philosophy and was one of the sources of his criticism of relativity.
Dingle tells us that he studied natural philosophy under Alfred North Whitehead. Apparently it was Whitehead who persuaded him that relativity was a worthy subject of interest. In 1922 he published his first relativity book Relativity for All. It was a popular exposition that appeared at the height of popular interest in relativity following the eclipse expedition of 1918, in which Dingle participated, which declared that the theory had been proven. In 1940, Dingle published his second relativity book titled, The Special Theory of Relativity. This was an intermediate level textbook to introduce relativity to college students, that was highly successful, although it was attacked by mainstream relativists who tried to suppress it. His third and last book Science at The Crossroads appeared in 1971. It documents his challenge to the relativity establishment regarding his claims of an inconsistency in the theory and the methods used to suppress his view, without answering the challenge to prove that his claims were false.
Dingle’s claim of an inconsistency in the special theory of relativity occurred after many years of controversy were already behind him. The first controversy erupted in 1939 when he published a paper in Nature which asserted that it was not correct to state that according to relativity moving clocks run slow. His argument was based on his discovery of a mathematical demonstration that there were clocks that did not obey this claim. He was subsequently attacked for this claim and a bitter exchange of letters occurred in the pages of Nature. The essence of the controversy was the claim by Dingle’s critics that his demonstration did not use a legitimate clock and therefore was invalid. Dingle resisted this assertion and stuck to his claim. He asserted that the claim of relativity should be changed to assert that it was the time scale of physics that was changed by relative motion and not the rate of a particular type of clock. He asserted that this did not invalidate relativity, but that it showed a need to correct the calibration of clocks that did not obey the time transformation law of relativity.
In 1940 the controversy was revived by Paul Epstein who used it as an opportunity to criticize Dingle’s book the Special Theory of Relativity. Another acrimonious exchange of letters occurred, but this time in the American Journal of Physics. The issues of the previous debate were revisited by Epstein who added an additional major criticism of Dingle’s book, that it did not teach the operational method. The issues discussed included the adequacy of the operational method, the reality of the Lorentz contraction, and the legitimacy of Dingle’s clocks. Eventually Einstein’s protégé, Leopold Infeld, published a paper which appeared to resolved the dispute by asserting his agreement with Paul Epstein. However, none of the disputed issues were actually resolved.
In 1955 Dingle precipitated the most famous of his controversies when he objected to a statement made in a book written by George Thompson The Foreseeable Future regarding the famous twins paradox. The ensuing controversy was one of the most famous disputes in 20th century physics. The controversy caused Dingle to investigate the mathematical and physical foundations of the special theory of relativity and this caused him to doubt its validity. Eventually he discovered mathematical demonstrations which he interpreted as proof of flaws in or inconsistencies in the theory. The debate and discussion of these eventually led him to disown relativity as a valid scientific theory and produced his long campaign to establish his refutation of relativity as scientifically valid, which remained his main goal for the rest of his life.
What Dingle discovered in this controversy is different from what the establishment critics of Dingle say about it. They claim that he was wrong, but that claim cannot, and has not, been proved, despite the fact that they claim it is not true. Dingle asserted that there must be a flaw in the theory. This claim was mitigated by an additional assertion on his part that the mathematics was correct. This has been the source of considerable confusion and controversy. Clearly Dingle did not mean that all the mathematics was correct, because he used the established mathematics to present a logical contradiction. What he meant was that assuming that the mathematics was correct, we deduce a logical contradiction — Dingle politely called this an inconsistency–, which must be the result of a flaw within the theory. According to Dingle this flaw was within the logical structure and not within the mathematical structure.
To illustrate this, consider Dingle’s 1962 letter to Nature which claimed an inconsistency. In this letter, Dingle showed that by the method used by Einstein, it was just as valid to conclude that moving clocks run fast as to conclude that they run slow. Although Dingle called it an inconsistency, it was really a logical or mathematical contradiction, similar to the other inconsistencies which were labeled as paradoxes in the theory of relativity. Succinctly put, Dingle had discovered another paradox. But it was essentially the same as the clock paradox, which had been discovered much earlier, but it was a more precise statement of it.
To understand this clock paradox problem, and how the Dingle paradox were related, consider the following. The clock paradox arises from Einstein’ 1905 paper where he states that if a synchronized clock is moved from some location to another one in the same reference frame, its motion causes it to lags behind the clocks, clocks in the same frame that do not move. This conclusion, however, implies a contradiction of the principle of relativity, which asserts an equivalence of reference frames. Hence, it is not logically possible to say that one clock was the one that moved and not the opposite one in the other frame. Hence, it was not possible to say which clock, if any, actually lagged in time after being moved. Dingle’s paradox asserted that given any clock being moved, is was not possible to say whether the motion caused it to lag behind or to accelerate ahead of the rest clock to which it is compared.
Dingle said that this dilemma had a simple solution. Neither clock was changed by the motion, hence there would be no difference in their readings after the motion, if there was no difference before being moved. This simple answer should have been recognized as the correct solution, but instead was claimed to be wrong. Primarily because of the recourse to experimental evidence which seemed to imply that the moving clock actually ran slow and not fast so Dingle seemed to be clearly wrong. But this answer didn’t resolve Dingle’s paradox, it just preempted it as a perceived problem within the theory. The reason for this is not difficult to surmise, it pointed to evidence that the special theory of relativity was contradicted by experiment, hence recourse to the conclusion that experiment confirmed relativity instead.
What Dingle exposed, and the reward for this was eternal damnation in the eyes of the science establishment, was that relativity was unable to prove whether its claim that moving clocks run slow is true within the mathematical and logical structure of the theory, without recourse to experiment. This point has not been carefully studied, because most scientists incorrectly assume that Dingle has been proved wrong. But there is no proof of this, just hearsay. Hearsay is not proof, but apparently in science it can be if the claim is seriously a problem. Dingle showed that the relativistic claim is ambiguous. It is just as valid to claim that moving clocks run fast as to claim that they run slow. No proof can be produced that resolves this difficulty. Relativity is ambiguous, it is as valid to claim clocks run fast as slow. Dingle demanded an answer, but none was produced, that claim is essentially unproven.
The Discovery That Dare Not Speak Its Name Has Been Made
Steven Hawking, arguably the world’s greatest living astrophysicist, called it “the discovery of the millennium, if not all time.” Hawking was referring to the anisotropies of the Universe. Anisotropies are variations or inhomogeneities in a structure. The anisotropies referred to here are the temperature variations in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation distributed across the Universe. These temperature variations were left behind by the original creation event: they are the afterglow of The Big Bang from which the Universe emerged. These variations are tiny, amounting to only about 1/40,000 of a degree Celsius, but they are enormously consequential. It is from these minute variations that the current Universe developed its large scale structure of Galaxy Clusters and Super Clusters. This structure is also essential for the Universe to be able to support life.
This of course is all quite interesting, but a shocking new set of findings has emerged from the study of the CMB. It has been discovered that the CMB, which pervades the entire Universe, is aligned to The Solar System. This means that, the original creation event, which produced all of space, time, matter, and energy, was precisely fine-tuned so that it is aligned with the location and direction of motion of Solar System in which we live.
This discovery has been so disturbing to some scientists that it has been most inappropriately labeled “The Axis of Evil.” Since this discovery was first made in 2003, many scientists have been trying to disprove it. Researchers have been studying the CMB since 1965 when it was first found to exist. Through the years, more sensitive instruments have been developed which have allowed ever more accurate maps of the CMB to be drawn. The best known of these were the 1992 COBE and the 2003 WMAP satellite-based probes. The initial shock came when one alignment was discovered, but as work has progressed, instead of going away, at least three more of these “Cosmic Alignments” between the CMB and the Solar System have been uncovered.
The first discovery was that the original Creation Event was divided into two hemispheres, called a Dipole, with one warm lobe and one cool lobe. What researchers were shocked to find was that the plane of the Solar System sits at the exact division point, right in the middle of these two lobes. This means that the plane of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun exactly divides these two hemispheres. It was further discovered that the direction of the Sun’s motion around the center of our Galaxy is also closely aligned with this plane.
Within each of the lobes of the dipole there are other cool and warm areas that have been located. There is a quadrupole (four lobes) and an octopole (eight lobes). To the researcher’s amazement, it has also been discovered that these mulitpoles are also planar and additionally are perpendicular to the Earth’s path around the sun. The likelihood of any of these alignments arising by chance is less than 1 in 1000.
Why This Is Important
One of the Primary Axioms of Materialist Philosophy is the Copernican Principle, sometimes known as the Mediocrity Principle. Simply stated, it is the opinion that humans are not privileged as observers or in anyway. Therefore, there should be nothing special about where we live in the Universe, about our Galaxy, Solar System, or Planet. The Copernican Principle was offered as a counter to the widely asserted medieval beliefs that the Earth was at the center of the Universe, that man was in an exalted place, and that God’s existence was proved by these facts. Medieval scholars did not actually believe anything like this, but that is another story.
The discovery that the CMB is cosmically aligned to the Earth should make the hair on the back of your neck stand up. It points to the fact that the Earth is at a special place in the Universe and that God wants it to be known. In the source listed below, it is interesting to observe how the writers try to dance around this implication (the elephant in the room) without actually coming out and directly admitting the clear implication of these discoveries. We read for example, “The solar system seems to line up with the largest cosmic features. Is this mere coincidence or a sign post to deeper insight?” “Careful analysis have confirmed these alignments exist. But we don’t know whether they are bizarre coincidences or if something more fundamental is at work.”
As similar “coincidences” from every field of science are piling to the sky for all to see, the only ones who will not see are those who refuse to see.
Source: “Why is the Solar System Cosmically Aligned?”, by Dragan Huterer, Astronomy, Dec. 2007, pp. 38-43.
Article link location: http://scienceonyourside.blogspot.com/2007/11/discovery-that-dare-not-speak-its-name.html
Where non-believing science has brought us:
“The current state of knowledge can be summarized thus: In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded.” - Terry Pratchett
“If I have spoken to you of earthly things, and you believe not; how will you believe if I shall speak to you of heavenly things?” - Jesus Christ
Suggested Reading and Research:
Gerardus D. Bouw, Ph.D. Geocentricity: Christianity in the Woodshed
Robert Sungenis, Geocentrism 101; And Introduction to the Science of Geocentric Cosmology 4th edition The book comes with a CD-Rom which contains a PDF of Geocentricsim 101 and animations depicting models of the geocentric cosmos
http://christian-wilderness.forumvi.com/t569-geocentricity-ordered-quotes#8723 Great source of material. Some quotes in this article come from this research page.
The majority of quotes in this article are taken from Geocentrism 101 by Robert A. Sungenis
I am not claiming originality for anything in this study. Jack Kettler
Mr. Kettler is the owner of www.Undergroundnotes.com web site where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.