Tweet
Hrothgar, thanks! Do you know why? Well, you helped me out, your objection to my argument made me reconsider it, and what i have found out is that there is indeed some flaw in it (principally), but since the devil is in the details, let's see now what details we have to review:
1. Fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis is unexplainable because there is nothing (no force, no real reason at all) why would spatial orientation of the Earth's axis be Fixed ( Earth's axis is spatially fixed with respect to what? ; What kind of force keeps it fixed like that?)
2. The universe is Earth centered, not Sun centered! How do we know that? Seasonal positions of the Sun with respect to the Earth vary more than 47 degrees each year (analema), but principal position of all the stars with respect to the Earth doesn't vary at all, that is why the celestial equator is equal to (aligned with) the "equator" of the Earth, not to the Sun's "equator" (ecliptic).
The observational evidence had become overwhelming. One simple observation is that the number of stars and galaxies increases fairly equally in all directions. That is, if you count all the stars in one direction, and compare it with the count in the opposite direction, the number is always about the same. Similarly, radio sources are isotropic or have the same value when measured in every direction. After HubbleThe mass (matter) of the universe also has a pattern with the Earth seemly at the densest part of the universe. That is, the universe becomes less and less dense as one moves away from the Earth. Quasars, a specific kind of galaxy, form concentric hells around the Earth, or a series of shells all centered on the Earth.
The most compelling evidence was discovered in 1965 in a study of the microwave background radiation. A 1976 article in Scientific American, acknowledged, . Whatʼs more, the universe itself seems to be rotating around a central axis according to the satellite experiment, COBE, launched in 1989. Such observational evidence can be found in standard scientific textbooks, and while they are open to interpretation, the apparent centrality of the Earth has been widely acknowledged.
Historically, there has never been any proof that the Sun-centered model is actually true!!!
3. After exactly 6 months alleged Earth's revolution around the Sun should render exactly 180 degree shift of all the stars with respect to (the observer on) the Earth. But wait..., Earth's alleged orbit (around the Sun) is not a perfect circle, and Earth's orbital velocity is not a constant, and during 6 months of (Arctic) POLAR NIGHT we can observe perfectly steady (precise) annual shifting (on daily basis) of all the stars above the Earth. So how do we get exactly 180 degree shift of all the stars after exactly 6 months in that (heliocentric) manner? We don't. It is just too artificial and imprecise manner to be in any relation with reality.
Described impossibility is obviously a reason for raging madness like these:
Modern astronomers have lengthened the sun's distance by nearly a hundred millions of miles, which has necessarily increased the earth's supposed orbit more than 300 000 000 of MILES!!! But this extreme alteration is neither acknowledged nor permitted to detract from the great name of Kepler, lest it might also reflect upon the "science" of astronomy; for in this exact "science" the alteration of MILLIONS of MILES is "a mere detail!"
Does this make any difference?
Copernicus wrote: " It is not necessary that hypotheses be true or even probable ; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation. . . . Neither let any one, as far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from Astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind, lest in case he should adopt for truth things feigned for another purpose, he should leave the science more foolish than when he came.. . . The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood."Copernicus computed it as being only three millions, while Meyer enlarged it to one hundred and four millions of miles, and there are many estimates between these two extremes. In my young days it was reckoned to be ninety-five, but in my old it has been reduced to about ninety-two millions of miles. Such discrepancies remind me of the confusion which attended those who in olden days attempted to build the Tower of Babel, when their language was confounded, and their labour brought to nought. But no wonder is it that their calculations are all wrong, seeing they proceed from a wrong basis. They assumed the world to be a Planet, with a circumference of 25,000 miles, and took their measurements from its supposed centre, and from supposed spherical angles of measurement on the surface. Again, how could such measurements possibly be correct while, as we are told, the Earth was whirling around the Sun faster than a cannon ball, at the rate of eighteen miles per second, a force more than sufficient to kill every man, woman, and child on its surface in less than a minute? Then, the Earth is supposed to have various other motions, into the discussion of which I need not enter here, and will only notice that of its supposed rotation round its imaginary axis at the rate, at the Equator, of a thousand miles per hour, with an inclination of 23^^ degrees. Let me, however, remind our Astronomers of a pertinent remark made by Captain R. I. Morrison, late Compiler of Zadkiel's Almanac, who, from the position he held, ought to be considered a good authority on such subjects
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
Now what confidence can any man place in a science which gives promissory notes of such extravagance as these? They are simply bankrupt bills, not worth the paper on which they are written. And yet, strange to say, many foolish people endorse them as if they were good, the reason being that they are too lazy to think for themselves, and, to their own sad cost, accept the bogus notes as if they had been issued by a Rothschild."
4.
1. Fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis is unexplainable because there is nothing (no force, no real reason at all) why would spatial orientation of the Earth's axis be Fixed ( Earth's axis is spatially fixed with respect to what? ; What kind of force keeps it fixed like that?)
2. The universe is Earth centered, not Sun centered! How do we know that? Seasonal positions of the Sun with respect to the Earth vary more than 47 degrees each year (analema), but principal position of all the stars with respect to the Earth doesn't vary at all, that is why the celestial equator is equal to (aligned with) the "equator" of the Earth, not to the Sun's "equator" (ecliptic).
The observational evidence had become overwhelming. One simple observation is that the number of stars and galaxies increases fairly equally in all directions. That is, if you count all the stars in one direction, and compare it with the count in the opposite direction, the number is always about the same. Similarly, radio sources are isotropic or have the same value when measured in every direction. After HubbleThe mass (matter) of the universe also has a pattern with the Earth seemly at the densest part of the universe. That is, the universe becomes less and less dense as one moves away from the Earth. Quasars, a specific kind of galaxy, form concentric hells around the Earth, or a series of shells all centered on the Earth.
The most compelling evidence was discovered in 1965 in a study of the microwave background radiation. A 1976 article in Scientific American, acknowledged, . Whatʼs more, the universe itself seems to be rotating around a central axis according to the satellite experiment, COBE, launched in 1989. Such observational evidence can be found in standard scientific textbooks, and while they are open to interpretation, the apparent centrality of the Earth has been widely acknowledged.
Historically, there has never been any proof that the Sun-centered model is actually true!!!
3. After exactly 6 months alleged Earth's revolution around the Sun should render exactly 180 degree shift of all the stars with respect to (the observer on) the Earth. But wait..., Earth's alleged orbit (around the Sun) is not a perfect circle, and Earth's orbital velocity is not a constant, and during 6 months of (Arctic) POLAR NIGHT we can observe perfectly steady (precise) annual shifting (on daily basis) of all the stars above the Earth. So how do we get exactly 180 degree shift of all the stars after exactly 6 months in that (heliocentric) manner? We don't. It is just too artificial and imprecise manner to be in any relation with reality.
Described impossibility is obviously a reason for raging madness like these:
Modern astronomers have lengthened the sun's distance by nearly a hundred millions of miles, which has necessarily increased the earth's supposed orbit more than 300 000 000 of MILES!!! But this extreme alteration is neither acknowledged nor permitted to detract from the great name of Kepler, lest it might also reflect upon the "science" of astronomy; for in this exact "science" the alteration of MILLIONS of MILES is "a mere detail!"
Does this make any difference?
Copernicus wrote: " It is not necessary that hypotheses be true or even probable ; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation. . . . Neither let any one, as far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from Astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind, lest in case he should adopt for truth things feigned for another purpose, he should leave the science more foolish than when he came.. . . The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood."Copernicus computed it as being only three millions, while Meyer enlarged it to one hundred and four millions of miles, and there are many estimates between these two extremes. In my young days it was reckoned to be ninety-five, but in my old it has been reduced to about ninety-two millions of miles. Such discrepancies remind me of the confusion which attended those who in olden days attempted to build the Tower of Babel, when their language was confounded, and their labour brought to nought. But no wonder is it that their calculations are all wrong, seeing they proceed from a wrong basis. They assumed the world to be a Planet, with a circumference of 25,000 miles, and took their measurements from its supposed centre, and from supposed spherical angles of measurement on the surface. Again, how could such measurements possibly be correct while, as we are told, the Earth was whirling around the Sun faster than a cannon ball, at the rate of eighteen miles per second, a force more than sufficient to kill every man, woman, and child on its surface in less than a minute? Then, the Earth is supposed to have various other motions, into the discussion of which I need not enter here, and will only notice that of its supposed rotation round its imaginary axis at the rate, at the Equator, of a thousand miles per hour, with an inclination of 23^^ degrees. Let me, however, remind our Astronomers of a pertinent remark made by Captain R. I. Morrison, late Compiler of Zadkiel's Almanac, who, from the position he held, ought to be considered a good authority on such subjects
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
Now what confidence can any man place in a science which gives promissory notes of such extravagance as these? They are simply bankrupt bills, not worth the paper on which they are written. And yet, strange to say, many foolish people endorse them as if they were good, the reason being that they are too lazy to think for themselves, and, to their own sad cost, accept the bogus notes as if they had been issued by a Rothschild."
4.
Comment