Our World in Space


What You See is What You Get

Our World in Space

What You See is What You Get

 

 

 Few people seem to notice what a cosmologically marvellous world we live on --- neatly  suspended in space, rotating on an axis and revolving around the sun with a host of other planets.  To many people, the Earth is simply a case of ‘what you see is what you get.’  They have only the vaguest concept of what a heliocentric marvel our world is. 

 

Perhaps the most cosmologically marvellous thing about the world is how it moves through space:

  • First, there is the Earth’s rotational speed of c. 1,040 MPH at the equator.
  • Second, the Earth’s orbital velocity must be c. 67,000 MPH to get it completely around the sun in its annual orbit (dragging the moon with it).
  • Third, in the Earth’s approximately 200,000,000-year journey around the Milky Way galaxy, the velocity that the world (in fact, the entire solar system) must be maintaining is c. one-half million (500,000) MPH.
  • Fourth, the Big Bang Expanding Universe Model requires that the Earth (and our Milky Way galaxy---plus the entire universe) must be receding from the Big Bang’s explosion (occurring approximately 15 billion years ago) at a relativistic velocity of c. six hundred fifty million (650,000,000) MPH (~.9C).

 Is that fantastic or what?  The Earth is (1) rotating on an axis, (2) orbiting the sun, (3) orbiting the galaxy, and (4) receding from the Big Bang, all at the same time.  If that is not a true marvel, I cannot say what is.  Of course, the Earth is not alone on its trip through the heavens; nonetheless, the Earth is my primary focal point.

 

As a teenager, I became interested in astronomy.  Over the years, I read countless books, articles and essays dealing with the phenomena of the universe.  Whenever a new cosmological discovery was made, I tried to learn all I could about it.  The discovery of background radiation in the universe, the introduction of the Big Bang Expanding Universe Model, the discovery of black holes and neutron stars, not to mention the renewed interest in dark matter and dark energy, were quite exciting.  However, something undefined began bothering me during the latter time I was casually studying cosmology and related items.  After an extended period, I realized what it was:  All the books, articles and essays relating to cosmology provided a great wealth of information, but it became obvious to me that none of them offered any proof that what they were expounding was factual, that is, the truth.  What I was reading (and hearing at lectures) could not be proven to be any more than an hodgepodge of theoretical assumptions and hypotheses (not facts) presented to the world-at-large by academically endorsed “experts”---theoretical scientists of “informed opinion.”

 

The Heliocentric Root of Modern Cosmology

 

When I began investigating the obvious lack of proofs in the cosmology premises, I discovered what seemed (to me) to be an oddity:  

  • Apparently, all the cosmology premises are rooted in the heliocentricity hypothesis.  In other words, without the heliocentricity hypothesis, none of the premises would be or could be (or seem to be) viable. 
  • That being the case, it no longer seems an oddity; I have surmised that all the cosmology premises must be rooted in heliocentricity in order to provide an apparent consistency in the currently accepted cosmology paradigm. 
  • So, it finally dawned on me: for years I had been reading cosmology without realizing that cosmology is based primarily upon the unequivocal acceptance of heliocentricity as an established scientific fact (even though it is not a fact).

It then occurred to me that since modern cosmology is rooted in the heliocentricity hypothesis, the most important thing was an attempt to determine if the Earth is actually moving, or if the Earth is stationary and the sun is the object doing the moving.  The following text is only a small part of what I came up with:

 

Introductory

 

Definition:

Prima-facie (Latin for “at first view”) evidence:  Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted.

 

Should one say to a cosmologist, “I see the sun rise in the east each morning and then set in the west each evening.  Is that not prima-facie evidence that the sun is orbiting the Earth?”  The cosmologist will answer authoritatively, “Yes, it is; however, that is an illusion caused by the Earth’s rotation on its axis.  The sun is not moving, the Earth is.  I cannot vouch for anybody else, but I have never seen evidence that the movement of the sun is an illusion (to my knowledge, neither has any heliocentrist ever seen such evidence).  That being the case, since the sun is apparently orbiting the Earth (according to reliable evidence), it becomes obvious that the Earth cannot be orbiting the sun.  (That is, the two cannot be orbiting each other simultaneously.)

 

[Digression:  Speaking of illusions, there is the case of the moon orbiting the Earth.  Cosmologists assure us that the moon is orbiting the Earth every ~27.32 days from west to east at an orbital velocity just slightly less than the Earth’s speed of rotation.  According to cosmologists, this gives the illusion that the moon orbits the Earth from east to west daily (approximately 24 hours).  There is no evidence that the moon is orbiting the Earth from west to east; that is merely an assumption by heliocentrists to force the moon’s orbit into the heliocentricity hypothesis.  (Think of it: cosmologists are telling us that the orbit we observe is an illusion of the moon backtracking on its “true” orbit.)  Naturally, everyone on Earth sees the moon orbiting the Earth daily, and its observed ~24 hour orbit fits in quite well with the geocentric view of the universe and with geocentric calculations.  As with other heliocentric assumptions, cosmologists are saying that imagination (assumption) trumps observation.]

 

Whenever I ask heliocentrists why they believe the heliocentricity hypothesis is true, they always answer the same:  Copernicus proved heliocentricity hundreds of years ago and it was confirmed by Kepler and Galilei.  (They usually add that heliocentricity is the only reasonable explanation for how the solar system works.)  The main problem with such an explanation is that Copernicus did not prove that heliocentricity was a fact.  Copernicus was an especially gifted mathematician and all he really did was construct a mathematical model based upon certain assumptions (the concept and basic structure of which Copernicus freely admitted borrowing from the Greek philosopher Aristarchus).  As for Kepler and Galilei, they simply jumped aboard a shiny new bandwagon.  One thing should be understood:  The Earth rotates on an axis and orbits the sun only in a mathematical model.  In the real world, the Earth does not move.  There is no unequivocal evidence to the contrary.

 

An Earth Rotation Reality Check

 

I have never felt nor observed the supposed rotation of the Earth. I have never felt nor observed the Earth move through the heavens.  I wake up each day in a world where celestial objects appear to move around me. I have never had nor do I now have any sensation of Earthly movement. That is where my questioning of the Earth’s supposed movement began.  I sense no movement of the Earth, yet everything else appears to move around me. From that point, a process of observation and experience was begun to determine what is and what is not moving. There have been numerous scientific experiments conducted to make that determination, and they have shown, without fail, that the Earth is definitely not moving.

 

I have observed the sun rise in the east and set in the west every day, as has almost everyone on Earth.  If I go outside, look up and see something moving across the sky (for example, a bird or an airplane), my first thought is not, “Hey, the Earth is moving!”, without a firm grounding in observation and experience to convince me of that.  Consider this question: what tells anyone that the sun is not moving unless they imagine it first? “Theoretically” the sun could be not moving; but, nobody can show any unequivocal scientific evidence (observation and experiment) for such an imaginary conclusion.

 

In addition to the moon, the planets and the stars all appear to move around the Earth. The idea that the Earth and the planets revolve around the sun is not a plain observable fact; it is based soley on a series of assumptions.  When we look into space and see other objects in the heavens move, that does not tell us what is absolute motion, nor whether one could detect those motions if one were there.

 

When we look into the heavens, we see some small objects orbiting larger objects, but we do not see all small objects orbiting larger objects. All “scientific” assertions to that “fact” do assume that to be the case.  But, the sun orbits me; I do not see me orbiting the sun without assuming that is really going on first.  “Theoretically” either the sun or the Earth could be moving, but only one of those theories can be demonstrated as a scientifically derived conclusion (by observation and experiment), whereas the other theory cannot be demonstrated as such without invoking pure imagination first to produce a stationary sun and an assumption of Earth movement.

How Not to Prove an Earth Orbit

 

Heliocentrists have five major arguments they unashamedly use in their efforts to prove that the Earth is orbiting the sun:

 

1.  Certain stars have parallax. 

2.  Stellar aberration shows up as the need to point the telescope slightly ahead of the star's true position.

3.  Stars near the plane of the Earth's orbit show a radial velocity, a slight red shift as the Earth moves away from them in its orbit, and six months later, a slight blue shift.

4.  Related to radial velocity, the “light-time effect” affects the timing of pulsars and short-term variable stars. General relativistic calculations are needed to correct for it.

5.  Since the Earth's orbit is elliptical, it is closer to the sun in January than in June. The difference in the apparent size of the sun can be observed.

 

However, do any of these arguments prove the orbit of the Earth exists?  Let us give each of these five assertions a somewhat cursory examination and see what we find.

 

1. “Certain stars have parallax.” -- With stellar parallax, what is really observed is a star moving relative to other stars.  This does not prove the orbit of the Earth exists.  Following their preconceived notions, the movement of a star is interpreted by heliocentrists as the Earth moving.  It is plainly an interpretation, not an observation.

2. “Stellar aberration shows up as the need to point the telescope slightly ahead of the star's true position…” – The Earth is not being observed moving.  What is actually seen is the star moving.  Also, the notion of “the star's true position” is based solely upon the heliocentrist belief that the Earth is moving.  Such thinking is circular.

Note: One geocentric interpretation of stellar aberration can be explained this way:  the same effect would be observed if the stars are centered around the sun and partake of the sun’s annual motion around the Earth.

 3. “Stars near the plane of the Earth's orbit show a radial velocity, a slight red shift as the Earth moves away from them in its orbit, and six months later, a slight blue shift” – The Earth's orbit is not what is observed, but the behavior of the light coming from stars.  Again, the fact is what is observed is not the movement of the Earth. Instead, we are seeing the light from stars changing in frequency with a certain annual regularity.  The reason for this is actually unknown.

4. “Related to radial velocity, the “light-time effect” affects the timing of pulsars and short-term variable stars. General relativistic calculations are needed to correct for it.” -- The important question to ask is what is being observed, the stars or the Earth?  If we are simply looking at stars and then trying to interpret the effect, then we are not observing the Earth move; instead, we are being told authoritatively how to interpret the light effects from stars in order to say that the Earth moves. [We also have to assume that general relativity and its mathematics are true and that the results are verifiable.]

5. “Since the Earth's orbit is elliptical, it is closer to the sun in January than in June. The difference in the apparent size of the sun can be observed.” -- Because of the fact that we are observing the sun, and from this same observation, the heliocentrists (using their preconceptions) interpret the “fact” that the Earth is moving, we are forced to conclude that the heliocentrists have proved nothing. Why? Because what was observed is the size of the sun! This is not seeing the Earth moving. It is only when one assumes heliocentricity that one comes to the conclusion that it proves heliocentricity. The only thing the observation tells a person is the preconceptions (the conclusions) heliocentrists have made beforehand.

None of these “proofs” have us observing any movement of the Earth.

    a.  They all have us looking at something else other than the movement of the Earth relative to the sun.

    b.  None of the “proofs” help us determine whether the universe and sun are revolving around the Earth, or if the Earth is rotating.

    c.  Many, if not all, of these “proofs” rely on circular reasoning.

To reiterate:

  • None of the “proofs” offered by heliocentrists have us observing any orbital motion of the Earth. 
  • All the “proofs” have us looking at star movement, light frequency changes, and other things rather than any movement of the Earth. Because of that, none of the “proofs” allow us to decide if it is the universe or the Earth that is moving. 
  • Also, the various heliocentric “proofs” rely on circular reasoning to reach their conclusions.

Since heliocentrists cannot provide any proof of the Earth orbiting the sun, the best (and most logical) course would be to accept that the Earth is stationary, after all.

Conclusion

So….there it is.  After studying a fair amount of heterodox material concerning Earth motion (as opposed to the “accepted” orthodox material) I am convinced that the Earth is indeed not moving.  Naturally, should scientific evidence be obtained that appears to prove Earth motion (derived by observation and experiment without including the assumption of motion), I might reconsider my convictions.  However, I doubt that finding such evidence is likely. 

As it is, my head is still stuffed with all the heliocentric garbage I learned over the years and I find I must continually suppress all the assumptions and hypotheses I absorbed during that time.  Still, one must hold on to what is known rather than what is imagined and not allow the fantasy of heliocentricity to override the reality of geocentricity.

For any who may care, it is obvious the Bible is correct where it says that the Earth is hung upon nothing (suspended in space), is established (fixed in place) and shall not be moved (is immobile).  A perfect description of our world in space.

Thomas E. Cobb

Supplemental resources:

1. Allen Daves

2.  http://creationwiki.org/Bible_says_the_sun_goes_around_the_earth_%28response_2%29

“If you buy the premise, you buy the whole bit.”                                                                                           --John William Carson, Humorist (1925-2005)

“Be very, very careful what you put into that head,

because you will never, ever get it out.”
--
Thomas Cardinal Wolsey (1471-1530)