can-geocentric-mean-rotating-earth - Moving-World DECEPTION!!Search this site can-geocentric-mean-rotating-earth Moving-Earth DECEPTION!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Can Geocentrism Include A Rotating but Non-orbiting Earth Model? ---------1. "You say that all experiments 'failed to show that the Earth spins,' but that is not strictly true. They failed to demonstrate that the World hurtles around the Sun, which is what they were hoping (and expected) to find, but the diurnal spin is shown in many of them. It has never been shown that it is the World turning or the heavens turning, but it is assumed to be the World because that is a) more reasonable (true I suppose with a gigantic universe) and b) essential for their funding-attracting paradigm. And why does this, and only this, paradigm attract the funding? You know this as well as we all do. The retro-reflector is an interesting area, because if it were possible to hit it with a laser beam as the general public are led to believe, then it would tell us which way the Moon was actually going!" Neville T. Jones, Phd ---------2. "There is no science/knowledge that shows a rotating Earth. Any experiment conducted with the assumption ... that it is rotating can add the other eight assumptions and present a visual, working, mathematical experimental model of a rotating Earth. This experimental model, of course, immediately demands an orbiting, tilted Earth with the Moon's direction reversed and assigned a new speed, etc. That first assumption of a rotating Earth demands that we grant it 'science' status when, in plain fact, it is nothing more than an illusion based upon an assumption which defies all true science/knowledge. This true science/knowledge is unfailingly certified by observation of the Sun, Moon, and Stars going clockwise around the Earth every day...with no contra-scientific assumptions required. 'Experiment' may not be the best word to use without proper modifiers. 'No truly scientific, assumption-free experiment has shown that the Earth rotates' would be better because it is irrefutable." Marshall Hall ----------

3. "A rotating World does not necessitate a tilt of the World's axis, nor does it necessitate a yearly motion of the World around the Sun. The World can rotate and still be at the centre of the universe. I have been trying to impress this upon people for years now: that there are three models, not two. The confusion arises because the Devil has deliberately taken the word 'geocentric' and applied it to the rotating World model, whereas you and others are taking 'geocentric' in its more natural meaning as what I call 'geostationary'. The model you describe is the heliocentric one, as you know. World rotates anti-clockwise once per sidereal day and orbits the Sun anti-clockwise once per solar year ('anti-clockwise' when viewed from the North Celestial Pole). The 'geocentric' (in the current scientific usage of the word) model involves the World rotating anti-clockwise once in slightly less than a sidereal day, but not orbiting the Sun. Instead, the Sun and universe rotate anti-clockwise once per year (approx). The 'geostationary' model is what we all profess. The World is completely motionless. The heavens go around the World in a clockwise direction once per sidereal day and the Sun and Moon in turn go around a path that is itself fixed in the firmament. The Cassini family of major astronomers supported the middle option.

When scientists say that the heliocentric and geocentric models are 'equivalent', they are referring to models 1 and 2. Model 3 is NOT equivalent, which is why I firmly believe that there must be a way of proving reality. Experiments such as Michelson-Morley, 1887, do demonstrate a sidereal rotation of either the World in one direction, or the heavens in the opposite direction. It is not possible to tell from the experiment which is true, but nevertheless the wording on his web page was slightly inaccurate and would just be seized upon by a physicist reading his page. I therefore think that it should be slightly re-worded." Neville T. Jones, Phd ---------4. "A rotating World does not necessitate a tilt of the World's axis, nor does it necessitate a yearly motion of the World around the Sun. The World can rotate and still be at the centre of the universe." This sounds ok but is blatantly false. Rotation is the first assumption of the heliocentricity model. It is "assumption", not science by definition. If we grant this illusion based on an assumption, we must then assume a stationary sun. One must move and one must be moved around, so heliocentricity must postulate/assume a yearly motion of the Earth around the sun. That assumption must be followed by Bessel's 186,000,000 mile diameter of the Earth Orbit. Since the heliocentricity model must account for the hemispheric seasons, the simple geocentrism/Biblical spiral back and forth from 23 1/2 degrees N & S latitudes must be abandoned. Then the humpback

earth model must be assumed so that when it is on opposite sides of the assumed 186,000,000 mile orbit, the tilt will mathematically accommodate the seasonal problem. At this point the classic problem for heliocentricity--even when granting all the assumptions--arises. Rotating the Earth and stopping the sun leaves the problem of the moon. Nothing (eclipses, phases) would work if it is stopped, nor if it is allowed to go as we see it go. Nor would it work if its same speed is maintained over a now W to E rotating earth. The mathematical heliocentricity model requires that the moon's direction be reversed, and that its speed be changed from c. 65,000 MPH to c. 2,200 MPH. So the assumption that the moon goes the opposite of the way we see it go must be accepted. Then, of course, like the sun, the motion of the STARS must be stopped and the assumption granted that they just appear to move because of the Earth's rotation. This assumption is one of the most glaring clues as to the necessity of granting all these assumptions based on the original assumption of a rotating Earth. After all, we have tens of thousands of star-trail photographs--along with visual observations--that confirm geocentrism. These evidences force a hard look at the basic rotating Earth assumption in sharp denial of all that is seen or known, i. e., sharp denial of observable, repeatable, true science. Heliocentricity with its Science-bashing and Bible-bashing assumptions--and all the tweakings of it--serve Satan's premier goal, namely, destruction of the credibility of the Bible with Science Falsely So Called profane and vain babbling. Add to that a plethora of False Doctrines insinuated into the churches and we have a snapshot of the confusion (Babylon) of the present world. Marshall Hall ---------5. I'm not sold on the bulge and one would certainly have to question the accuracy of the measurements. No doubt since NASA is behind the GPS system, then they can spill out whatever baloney they want to the public. To me, the bulge is another tactic to uphold the helio lie. Our Earth has a molten interior, it has tectonic plates on the thin crust that can move slowly, and so it is certainly not a solid ball. Two myths here; the molten interior is assumed. There is molten material no doubt at various depths, but actual deep drilling and seismic studies have revealed more water. God began with water (Genesis 1). The molten idea supports the BB paradigm. Of course the Plate Tectonic paradigm is used to support an old Earth via creeping plates, but Plate Tectonics is 100% false the crust of the Earth was destroyed/deformed. Continental Drift is a scientific myth used for evolution of the Earth, but its nothing but junk. Mark Masters ---------6. Your defense, where you abruptly ended it, saying: "I stop at this point because your assumptions as to the sun having to be still are invalid".

This is not MY assumption (that the sun must stand still in the heliocentricity model). That is the SECOND necessary assumption in the construction of the Copernican/Heliocentricity model...as the rest of my comments after you stopped explain, and as other physicists agree. (Even Einstein was very plain on the subject as this quote given in the "Jerusalem Post Magazine" in 1938 confirms: "The struggle (so violent in the early days of science) between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system 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 coordinate systems." Ignoring his saying that either system "could be used with equal justification" (they can t), notice that there are two systems, not three: In one (the Biblical one) the sun must be at rest. In the other (the Copernican) THE SUN MUST BE AT REST (i.e., stationary). Those two realities cannot be escaped. The Copernican/Heliocentricity Model BEGINS with the rotating Earth ASSUMPTION and demands the ASSUMPTION of a stationary Sun. "Assumption" means "to take for granted without proof". It is not "science" which means "to know" and "a body of FACTS". True Science will not grant any of us either the rotating Earth assumption, but if false science insists upon the first assumption (rotating Earth) it must insist upon the second assumption (a stationary sun). It is upon these two basic assumptions (neither of which is "science") that the others (Earth orbit, Earth tilt, reverse Moon direction, etc.) are required to construct this Bible-killing, Christ-killing Kabbalist Big Bang Evolutionary Universe. As I explain in certain essays, the Machian Model is another "3rd way" which is Scripturally (as well as scientifically) impossible, though its adherents think it is Scriptural because it sort of challenges the Copernican Model. Marshall Hall ---------7. Im not sold on the bulge and one would certainly have to question the accuracy of the measurements. No doubt since NASA is behind the GPS system, then they can spill out whatever baloney they want to the public. To me, the bulge is another tactic to uphold the helio lie. Exactly. It s a combination of the rotating earth assumption and the Evolutionary 4 1/2 billion year Earth age slinging the earth mass toward its equatorial extreme. You can actually blow up a perfect earth picture to 8 or 12 feet (I forget) and the scale would cause the "theorized" oblation of some 60 miles to be a measureable 3/8 of an inch.That, I think, could be done, and at least disprove the theory if not the rotation (and evolution ages) theories. Marshall Hall ---------8. Yes of course the Sun stands still in the heliocentric model of the Solar System, but not in the geocentric model of the universe which has a rotating World at the centre. When Einstein made his quote about the Earth being "at rest," he either did not mean that the World was not rotating or, more likely in my estimation of him now, he did not know the difference. Einstein would never even have

considered that the heavens are revolving around the World. The stars were "fixed" for him, so naturally the World would have to be rotating as far as he was concerned. There are only two systems if you allow for dynamical equivalence, but dynamical equivalence is an invention of secular science. In these two systems, the World spins (and in the same sense). That is why they are dynamically equivalent. This is the subtle point that NASA misses altogether when it admits that it works trajectories out from a geostationary model and fires its rockets to match the acentric (heliocentric/geocentric) model. I repeat, there are three models, not two. Science does not mean "to know." Science is a methodology. Michelson and Morley were looking to measure the speed of the World around its alleged and assumed orbit of the Sun. They found nothing. Null. Caput. But their results do demonstrate diurnal rotation and this rotation is EITHER of the universe (as we know), or of the World (as they know). Neville T. Jones, Phd ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9. I don t really care in this instance what the dictionaries define science to be. Having spent most of my life in and around science and scientific establishments, I know what it is. If science is to know , then why do theories change? If science is to know , then why do experiments need to be redone? Why are some experiments inconclusive? Why are even some laws rewritten, amended, or discarded altogether? If you stop and think about your position for a moment, you will see that you yourself deny that science is to know . You have spent years telling people that science does not know much, if anything! Science is actually to do with trying to find out, which is why experiments can be cited as supporting the idea that the World rotates. I think that you are confusing the issue by dealing with paradigms. I would agree that a paradigm is all about telling people that something is known or proven , but this is not true science. Experimental and theoretical science are both branches of the same natural philosophy. The Copernican model has a rotating World. Ptolemy s model did not have a rotating World. I don t think that Einstein cared much whether it had knobs and bells on it, because, as far as he was concerned, it was done away with hundreds of years before dear Albert was a twinkle in his father s eye. Albert was also not around to see any of NASA s fairy tales, so apart from his brief correspondence with Ernst Mach about the equivalence of reference frames, he just merrily accepted the Copernican model and that was that. A cosmological model with a rotating World at the centre of the universe is scientifically valid and MUST have a moving Sun in order to explain what is clearly observed from day to day. If you want support for this statement, then I cite Cassini who, unlike Einstein, was(/were) living in an age when this whole topic was heavily investigated and considered. Neville T. Jones, PhD ----------

10. The Sun goes around its orbit, in the ( geocentric ) model under consideration, W-E, in about twelve months. The Sun also rotates about an axis. This orbit is very simple, because it is the path of the orbit which is fixed in the heavens. The path lies in the plane of the ecliptic and the plane of the ecliptic is inclined at 23.44 degrees to the plane of the celestial equator. The ecliptic plane and the equatorial plane intersect at the vernal equinox and the autumnal equinox. As for seeing the same side of the Sun, let s not get into that, because this model is not the one that we are proclaiming anyway. It is the one that NASA says it uses for its calculations and, mathematically, it is equivalent to the heliocentric model of the so-called solar system . The geostationary model is the one that we are proclaiming. In the geostationary model, NASA s claims are impossible. Hence, if NASA are correct, then we are wrong. If we are correct, then NASA are a bunch of liars with an ulterior motive. Neville T. Jones, PhD ---------11. I don t really care in this instance what the dictionaries define science to be. That is clear. And it is equally clear that you really don t care what the Bible defines as "false science" is: "the profane and vain babblings of science falsely so called which cause many to err. "Having spent most of my life in and around science and scientific establishments, I know what it is. And you know it can replace unvarying observation with theories, and contrary definitions with your own. Interesting. If science is to know , then why do theories change? If science is to know , then why do experiments need to be redone? Why are some experiments inconclusive? Why are even some laws rewritten, amended, or discarded altogether? If you stop and think about your position for a moment, you will see that you yourself deny that science is to know . You have spent years telling people that science does not know much, if anything! False science doesn t know anything! It is pure deception from the author of deception, and I think there is a Dictionary definition on that word too. "Theoretical Science" is an oxymoron. "Theoretical" is: "existing only in theory; hypothetical... speculative...." (Darned Dictionary again!) Einstein didn t like Dictionaries either...with his own definition of "simultanieity", etc. Science is actually to do with trying to find out, which is why experiments can be cited as supporting the idea that the World rotates. I think that you are confusing the issue by dealing with paradigms. I would agree that a paradigm is all about telling people that something is known or proven , hence, the modern "science"-controlling "Big Bang Paradigm" but this is not true science. Right. Experimental and theoretical science and "Physics"!! are all both branches of the same natural philosophy. The Copernican model has a rotating World. ...and a stationary Sun around which the Earth orbits annually. (The Geocentrism model--i.e., the Biblical Model--has an inert, immovable, stationary Earth, no rotation, no orbit, as you know. No one has ever observed

anything contrary to that in the real world, nor has any factual science ever disproved it. Thus, all variations are speculative theories seeking to dethrone observed truth while claiming to be reaching for a "different" and "higher" truth through "Natural Philosophy Physics" and other theories. I mean this in no unkind way, because we ve all been fooled by false science, but it is now known that "Physics" is an admitted tool in the Bible-destroying, Christ-destroying, Satan-worshipping Mystic Pharisaic Kabbalist tool box which has given the world the false science Big Bang Evolutionary Paradigm. Ptolemy s model did not have a rotating World. I don t think that Einstein cared much whether it had knobs and bells on it, because, as far as he was concerned, it was done away with hundreds of years before dear Albert was a twinkle in his father s eye. ...and besides that, he was major Zionist (was offered Israel s first Presidency in 48), and a Kabbalist-friendly tool of the Pharisees who dutifully brought in the elastic "relativity" component of the Big Bang Paradigm Model. Albert was also not around to see any of NASA s fairy tales, so apart from his brief correspondence with Ernst Mach about the equivalence of reference frames, he just merrily accepted the Copernican model and that was that. right...just a willing tool... A cosmological model with a rotating World at the centre of the universe is scientifically valid and MUST have a moving Sun in order to explain what is clearly observed from day to support for this statement, then I cite Cassini Einstein, was(/were) living in an age when this heavily investigated and considered. ...being a

day. If you want who, unlike whole topic was contemporary doesn t

seem like sufficient evidence for following such a bold digression from all that is Observed (and dictionary definitions as well). I am sure there is a long list of other contemporaries who reject Cassini. Why not follow them? Marshall Hall ---------12. In the geocentric model where the World rotates, the Sun DOES appear to orbit the World, as the heavens do, every day, but the Sun is going around a path. The path is fixed in the heavens. The inclination of the Sun s orbital path to the plane of the celestial equator, explains why the Sun would appear to describe a helix over the course of 12 months, and the fact that the Sun goes around its orbit in the same sense as the World spins (in this model) explains why a mean solar day is ~ 4 minutes longer than a sidereal day. Neville T. Jones, PhD ---------HOME Comments _displayNameOrEmail_ - _time_ - Remove_text_ Acceder Condiciones Informar de abusos Imprimir pgina Tecnologa de Google Sites Original Text:Mostrar traducciones alternativas