View Single Post
  #128  
Old 02-08-2005, 07:33 PM
rushdoony rushdoony is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 556
Default Re: The Earth is NOT Moving!

Here is Proof of Heliocentric Incorrectness:
From: www.midclyth.supanet.com
You have to go to site to get diagrams.
------------------------------------------
Proof of heliocentric incorrectness 2 - Mach's Principle

Dr. Neville Thomas Jones, Ph.D., D.I.C., M.Sc.(Phys), M.Sc.(Comp), B.Sc.(Hons), M.Inst.P.,

formerly of the Clarendon Laboratory, Oxford University, England.

Dedication

This work is dedicated to the glory of the God of Abraham.

When I first began questioning the heliocentric myth a couple of years ago, I spent a lot of time reading and rethinking what I "knew." Upon reaching the conclusion that we are being taught rubbish, I eagerly related this revelation to my wife. Her reply? "[She] knew it all along. Ever since [she] was five!"

Anyway, the source of most confusion is rooted in the following:

The ruling, Bible-based cosmology of a centrally-located, non-moving World was effectively done away with by Mikolaj Kopernik (usually given the Latin name, "Nicolas Copernicus"), who wrote in his infamous book, "Die Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium," that the Sun was "the Visible God" and that it should be placed "upon a royal throne, [to] truly guide the circling family of planets, earth included." (Book 1, Chapter 10.) Others had tried to propound this Sun-centred model well before Kopernik (for example, Aristarchus of Samos, in the 3rd century B.C.), so it was known of at the first coming of Christ, though rightly dismissed as unscriptural, unfounded and illogical.
Kopernik’s "revelation/revolution," published in 1543, proclaimed that the Sun was at the centre of the universe, and this idea later gained the fervent support of Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, etc., despite these men still having no evidence to justify Kopernik's original, outlandish claim.
Indeed, the textbooks persist in wrongly instructing people that Galilei demonstrated the geocentric model to be flawed in 1610, when he observed the phases of Venus through a telescope. By 1610, Ptolemy's system had reigned supreme for almost 1,500 years and the exceptionally detailed observational work of the Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe (1546-1601), further verified it (with only slight, proposed changes). It is inconceivable, therefore, that Galilei was ignorant of either the Ptolemaic or Tychonic models, which implies, then, that Galilei's original claim was designed by him to be deceitful.
This widespread misapprehension regarding the phases of Venus is frequently cited as being 'scientific evidence' for heliocentrism. It is the astronomical equivalent of the Peppered Moth 'evidence' used to support the ludicrous idea of organic evolution and, like its counterpart, is still commonly bandied about as being a fact.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, observational data showed that the Sun is not positioned at the centre of the universe, and numerous experiments had failed to demonstrate any motion of the World through the luminiferous aether. In respect of the latter, Albert Einstein came to the rescue by developing the theory of special relativity, which 'saved' James Clerk Maxwell's brilliant electromagnetic theory by doing away with the very thing that Maxwell's theory is built upon - the luminiferous aether. (No one, to the best of my knowledge, has ever explained just how Einstein saved Maxwell's theory by removing its foundations.)
However, this still was not enough and, in order to preserve the humanistic, atheistic philosophy and edifice that had been lovingly built upon Kopernik's suggested cosmology, the acentric paradigm was born. This is the ultimate victory for the intelligentsia, because God, even if some poor misguided idiot (to use Richard Dawkins' favourite word) still believed in Him, would be conveniently relegated out to infinity, leaving man to go about his business, answerable only to himself.
What is lost in all this is the fact that geostatic and heliocentric cosmologies are not equivalent. The common claim that we cannot tell the difference between a heliocentric and a geocentric theory of the universe, and that they are both manifestations of the same, acentric cosmology, is obscuring a deeper reality.


One thing that we need to be clear about is that the Bible is not explicitly geocentric. It certainly implies that the World is at or very near the centre of the cosmos, but does not actually say so. Rather, the Bible is geostatic. It states that the World cannot be moved. It states that the Sun travels daily about the World. It states that the starry heavens turn.

The World does not rotate according to Scripture. If the World is not rotating, then the heavens are. The movement of the heavens is then real, not apparent, and the direction is east to west (by simple observation), not west to east (as they are by necessity in the heliocentric case).



There are, then, three cosmologies to consider: heliocentric, geocentric and geostatic. The Bible tells us in plain, simple terms that the real one is the geostatic case (see, for instance, 1 Ch. 16:30, Ps. 93:1, Ps. 96:10).

In each of these systems, various celestial bodies are moving. Actually moving, by definition (this is what the whole particular scenario is built upon). Relative motion has little or nothing to do with the initial construction of the model. Let us consider these three models.



Case 1: Heliocentric



The Sun is located at the centre of the cosmos.
The Moon goes around the World in a W to E direction (anticlockwise, when viewed from within the northern celestial hemisphere).
The World rotates on an axis in a W to E manner.
The World/Moon subsystem goes around the Sun in an anticlockwise direction, taking one year to complete one revolution.


Case 2: Geocentric



The World is located at the centre of the cosmos.
The Moon goes around the World in a W to E direction (anticlockwise, when viewed from within the northern celestial hemisphere).
The World rotates on an axis in a W to E manner.
The Sun goes around the World in an anticlockwise direction, taking one year to complete one revolution.


Case 3: Geostatic



The World is located at the centre of the cosmos.
The Moon goes around the World in an E to W direction (clockwise).
The World does not rotate.
The Sun goes around the World in a clockwise direction, averaging a solar day to complete one revolution.


Whether you think the last one is crazy or not is of no importance at this stage. The geostatic model is a legitimate scheme, because :

It is the one and only one state specified and alluded to in Holy Scripture (this alone makes it the primary reference system to which all others must conform) ;
It must, by its very nature, completely describe and account for everything we can observe from the World. Motion under this scenario can always be attributed to the thing which appears to move ;
Either the cosmos has the World at its centre, or it just appears to have the World at its centre. The very same acentric premise, that informs us that the latter is 'reality', must also, by its definition, support the former contention ;
No experiment or observation has ever disproved it.
Hence, the heliocentric scenario must agree in all observational respects with the geostatic case, and not the other way around.

The next step is to start thinking about what is really happening in each of these models. We will begin with the geostatic (Bible) case. This is an example of what is termed, in the computer industry, WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). The World does not move. Everything else moves. Hence, if you observe the Sun rising in the east, travelling across the sky and setting in the west, then that is because the Sun rises in the east, travels across the sky and sets in the west. Just like the "Ronseal" varnish advertisement ("it does exactly what it says on the tin").

Since the Moon does the same sort of thing, but more slowly, the Sun gains on the Moon, catches it (at which time we can sometimes obtain a solar eclipse) and overtakes it. Of all possible models of celestial motion, the geostatic scenario (where everything else does the moving) definitely has to be allowed. Indeed, it is a requirement of all other configurations that they agree with the predictions of the geostatic system. In particular, the heliocentric system must agree with the geostatic system. Any fundamental difference appearing between the two would disprove heliocentrism, because geostaticism is supported by experiment, observation and our senses.

Now, conventional 'wisdom' claims that the heliocentric (Fig. 1) and geocentric (Fig. 2) systems are just special instances of the acentric 'reality'. That the motions involved are equivalent. (These figures are typical of such sketches shown throughout the relevant literature - for example, Smart [1].) There is, however, one tacit assumption in this that is not at all obvious, either from the diagrams, or from the body of such texts.



Figure 1: A heliocentric view of the Sun-World system, looking 'down' from the north celestial pole. (Not drawn to scale.)

Of course, the World also rotates on an axis in the heliocentric scenario, in order to account for diurnal observations, although this rotational component of the World's motion is not shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 2 depicts the geocentric situation, with the orientation of the Sun's direction of motion being in the same sense as its heliocentric counterpart. In this way, the two models can be regarded as being equivalent, since they predict the same effects, when viewed from either body. If we could stand outside the universe and look in, we could tell which was right and which was wrong, but from our terrestrial abode we cannot. Furthermore, Einstein's General Relativity shows that there is no place within the physical universe from which we could distinguish absolutely between these two systems.

What isn't quite so obvious is that Fig. 2 also requires of necessity a spinning World, such that the daily view of the heavens to someone on the World will be in accord with reality.





Figure 2: The supposedly equivalent geocentric version of Fig. 1. Notice that to allow for the Sun's orbital direction to be in the same sense as the World's in Fig. 1, the World has to be spinning on an axis in this model, too.

Some people undoubtedly regard the geocentric label as implicitly indicating both a central and non-rotating World. Strictly speaking, this latter implication is more properly described by the term geostatic or geostationary. In a geostatic model of the cosmos, Fig. 2 is wrong, because it predicts that the Sun would rise in the west and set in the east, in contradiction to what we know to be true. To correct Fig. 2, we would need to simply reverse the arrows in this second diagram (there would also be changes required to the motion of other celestial bodies, too).

Although the heliocentric and geocentric descriptions of the so-called 'solar system' are probably dynamically equivalent, as long as the World is rotating about an axis in each one of them, the geostatic scenario can only be satisfied by adopting a clockwise orbital motion of the Sun and Moon (when viewed from the north). Heliocentric and geostatic models are therefore not dynamically equivalent, since they vary considerably in their predictions of orbital speed and direction. This is because, in the geocentric case, as distorted through time in the manner briefly indicated above, the World has gone from non-rotating to rotating, seemingly without many people noticing, or bothering about it.

Hence, to say that the heliocentric scenario must be correct, because observations that can assume a geostatic perspective support reality, is wrong. The equivalence between the two breaks down, as a consequence of the fact that one system has a movement that the other does not have (namely a rotating World), and that the sense of actual rotation is different between them.

That a physical system must be independent of the geometrical reference frame by which one mathematically attempts to describe its behaviour, was covered in depth by the German physicist, Ernst Mach (of speed of sound fame). It is thus given the name of ‘Mach’s Principle’ and was heavily influential in the work of Poincaré, Lorentz and Einstein, around the turn of the nineteenth century.

The classic example usually quoted, to illustrate to a general audience the significance of Mach's Principle, is that of a small boy in a school playground, bouncing a tennis ball up and down on the ground and catching it again. Clearly it does not matter if we create a system of rectangular coordinates that will allow us to specify at any instant where, in three-dimensional space, the boy, the tennis ball, the ground, etc., are positioned. Furthermore, the coordinate system, or ‘reference frame’, that we construct is not unique, the only thing that is unique is that the positions we derive from it are valid only for that particular coordinate system. If we fix the frame to another centre, or we use spherical polar coordinates, for example, we simply get different equations of motion, but the boy continues to bounce the ball up and down, totally oblivious to our abstract geometrical frame of reference. We also notice that, although the point of contact has various means of being represented in a mathematical way, the physical spot on the surface of the World does not change. In other words, and this is the important point to grasp, there exists a physical location within the system from which one can observe a reality, in this particular case, the ball is either touching the ground at regular intervals of time, or it isn't.

The same is true, though it is perhaps not quite so obvious to see, if we use a rotating frame of reference. In this case, although the boy looks different, depending upon the angle we are viewing him at, he is still behaving in exactly the same way. To see this, imagine that we have painted tennis court lines on the playground. The ball is hitting a point on the tennis court which is completely definable in terms of the fixed positions of the lines. We can specify it as, say, 2 metres in from the base line and 1 metre in from the inner tram line on the right hand, far side court as we look at it (this is where the dubious concept of an ‘observer’ comes from in special relativity). No matter how we adjust our vantage point, the ball hits the ground at the same physical location (albeit different coordinates, depending on the geometry used). The physical place of contact between the ball and the ground is a consequence of the mechanical system being observed and is irrespective of the reference frame used to describe the observation and behaviour of the system. This is Mach's Principle and it is used to declare that geocentric and heliocentric frameworks are dynamically equivalent (i.e., that from the perspective of the World we can not distinguish between them).



To see the fallacy inherent when applying this argument to a geostatic and heliocentric comparison, we can imagine the following four cases:

Case A: The boy starts going around in a circle, but ‘on the spot’, still bouncing the ball.
Case B: The boy levitates an inch or so in the air, but otherwise stands still, as he was before, while the World rotates underneath him at the same angular speed though opposite sense to A.
Case C: The boy stands still upon the surface of the playground, with the soles of his shoes super-glued to the ground, and the World rotates.
Case D: As in case C, but the boy rotates.


Cases A and B are dynamically equivalent. Any reference frame so far conceived will give the same results for A as it does for B.

Cases C and D are dynamically equivalent. Any reference frame so far conceived will give the same results for C as it does for D.

So I will ask you a question. Taking either case A or case B, I don’t care which, is that case dynamically equivalent to case C ? If not, then why not ?

Take a look again at cases 1, 2 and 3. Consider how they fit in (or not) with cases A, B, C and D. Is the picture and its obscuration becoming clearer?

Hopefully you will now see that the whole point is that we are not dealing just with relative motions of three bodies. We are dealing with two different physical systems, each one of which will, of course, contain consequences of their actions that can be tested observationally. Namely, in this particular example, where does the ball strike the playground?

A physical system will behave in a certain way. We are not talking here about quantum mechanical effects, nor relativistic effects. We are talking about the behaviour of celestial bodies, as viewed from any vantage point within the physical universe. If you assemble a toy train set on the floor and send some current through the motor, the train will travel in a particular direction. Whenever you switch on the power, the train will always travel in the same manner. However, if you reverse the polarity across the motor, the train will go the other way. The set has the same components, but behaves differently. After any time, t1, the front of the engine will be at (x1,y1,z1) in the first configuration, but at (x2,y2,z1) in the second. For any t1, with the exception of those values of t1 which correspond to n half-circuits around the track, (x1,y1,z1) will not equal (x2,y2,z1). They are different points on the surface of the World. Mach’s Principle is irrelevant. They are two differently behaving physical systems, albeit with the same components. We can see the difference between them, because we stand on the floor and look down on the system, but if we were shrunk down in size and were travelling on the train, then we could not tell, as long as all we can see are the components of the train set. If we could see a fixed point upon which to attach the coordinates of our observations, then we could still tell.

How does this fit in with the heliocentric/geostatic problem? Well, first of all we note that there are again two physical systems. This must be true, by definition, but if further proof is required, consider the motion of the Moon about the World. In one scenario it is actually travelling clockwise, whereas in the other it is actually travelling anticlockwise. They are different configurations of the same three objects (World, Sun and Moon). In addition, one system has an extra component of movement than the other (see Fig. 3). It is thus a perfectly legitimate question to ask, "can I stand anywhere at all within the universe and observe a discernible difference between the heliocentric model and the geostatic reference system?" Mach’s Principle has nothing to do with it. If we can find just one undeniable anomaly, then the heliocentric model can be ruled out.



Figure 3: The heliocentric hypothesis is not dynamically equivalent to a geostatic cosmos. In the former, viewed from within the northern celestial hemisphere, there are two relevant components of motion, and the World goes around the Sun anticlockwise. In the geostatic case, there is only one movement to be considered - that of the Sun going clockwise around the World. (Illustrated by Jack Lewis.)



The problem now becomes one of proving scientifically that there is indeed a way to discriminate between the reference system and the heliocentric model. (I had to qualify this statement, because there has always been a way to tell. Believers in God have always known that the World does not orbit the Sun - for the Bible tells us so!) The heliocentric scenario is propped up by ever-deeper philosophical ad hocs, under the guise of 'science' and my objective is therefore to use science itself to bring heliocentrism down, rather than take the simple, though perfectly legitimate, stance of saying that God's written word disallows it.

In this sea of relativism, what is needed is an immovable rock on which to anchor ourselves. The spiritual rock is the Bible and the spiritual anchor is Christ. We are the ship and are connected to the anchor via the unbreakable 'rope' that Christ supplies, i.e., the Holy Spirit. The sea is mankind, which acts to toss us about all over the place. The rock was placed in the sea by God, specifically for our benefit. If we ignore the rock, or do not search for Who put it there, we will either drown in the sea, or be dashed to pieces on the rock, whilst the anchor lies unused at our disposal.

To disprove heliocentrism similarly requires us to latch onto a small entity in a universe in which we are told that everything is mere relative motion and purposeless chance. We need something that is not relative, but behaves in a discernibly different way in a heliocentric (or geocentric) scheme to how it behaves in a geostatic scheme.

The luminiferous aether? The plenum aether? No, these may rotate. The World's gravitational field? No, its behaviour away from the World is not known, only assumed. The World's magnetic field? This may be stationary as far as the World is concerned, but would it rotate with the structure of the firmament? Also, would we be justified in extending laboratory experiments with bar magnets to a World where the cause of the field is only modelled on a huge bar magnet, especially when even the laboratory experiments give inconclusive results? No, there has to be something else.

I have previously investigated the direction that the Moon's shadow travels across the face of the World during a solar eclipse, and for a while thought this to be promising, but have now abandoned that idea after conducting further analysis upon it. I remain totally convinced, though, that there must be something, because the two systems are fundamentally different.

Okay, let's recap. The heliocentric idea was known of at the time of Christ's first coming, but was not considered to contain any substance. Jesus never even mentioned it in passing and his half-brother, James, tells us that it is the heavenly bodies which cause day and night (etc.) by their movement, rather than the spinning of the World about an imaginary axis. (James 1:17)

The publication of a multi-volume book, in 1543, by a Sun-worshipping astrologer who knew nothing about physics, then sowed the seed of the present-day misconception that we are taught as being "fact." One after another, physicists placed meat on Kopernik's bare bones, with many contorted and ad hoc components of motion, that look to me more like cancerous growths, grafted on to account for what we daily, and seasonally, observe. In particular, the World was assigned a period of 23h 56m 4.091s, to explain away the rotation of the firmament.

Unfortunately, there is such an amalgamation of alleged movements now, albeit not a single one we are to believe can be detected with our senses, that it is difficult to find a phenomenon that will be demonstrably different in a heliocentric model to how it is in the geostatic reality.

The acentric scheme allows us to have the World as the centre of the universe. Figure 4 depicts this situation. A little later, in this model, and we get the configuration shown in Fig. 5, where the background celestial sphere has rotated east to west, as well as the Sun and Moon rotating east to west. The stars go full circle in 23h 56m 4.091s (the sidereal day), but the Moon only goes around once every 24h 50m 28.5s. Therefore the Moon seems to travel west to east, with respect to the background stars.





Figure 4: Motion of the Moon, Sun and 'background' stars in a geostatic (i.e., non-moving World) framework, looking 'down' from the north ecliptic pole.





Figure 5: As with Fig. 4, but a few hours later. All motion is real, not apparent.



To account for the diurnal motions of a geostatic scenario, the heliocentric model, depicted in Fig. 6, must impose two components of motion on the World - it must rotate on an axis and revolve annually about the Sun.





Figure 6: In the heliocentric idea, the centre of the universe coincides with the centre of the Sun, and the Moon traverses an epicycle, that is centred on a deferent, centred on the Sun.



I believe that the solution which will enable us to demonstrate that the heliocentric and geostatic scenarios are not equivalent to each other, lies with this (non) rotation of the World. The heliocentric system requires of necessity a spinning globe, in order to satisfy nightly, observational facts. But if there exists a motion-related phenomenon that would be the same, irrespective of whether the World spins or not, then the correct model will be the one that functions properly with this extra circumstance, whereas the counterfeit model will almost certainly fail. Hence, we will now turn our attention to something which does not depend upon the World's supposed rotation; namely, the phases of Venus. To explain this whole area, however, we will, for simplicity, first consider the phases of the Moon.

The Moon is illuminated by the Sun, such that one hemisphere of the Moon is brightly lit and the other is in almost complete darkness. What we perceive of as being the Moon's phase is therefore determined by the geometry shown in Fig. 7, below, where A represents the Moon and B represents the Sun.





Figure 7: A solid sphere, whose centre is at A, is illuminated by a spatially extended light source, centred on B, and observed by someone standing on the surface of the World, the centre of which is at C.



In the absence of background reflections, or other light sources, the illumination of a solid sphere depends primarily upon the angle, a , since we can vary angle g almost at will, by sliding the light source along AB, without in any appreciable way affecting what is lit up, whereas fixing g and altering a , by sliding the light source up and down BC, will drastically change the illuminated hemisphere. (In a similar fashion, by sliding the observer up and down AC, we deduce that angle b has very little influence, too, on what we observe, given the distances involved.)

Again, from Fig. 7 and the law of cosines, we get

a2 = b2 + c2 - 2bc cos a ,

which enables us to calculate a (or g , by use of a similar expression) for any given position of the centres of the World, Sun and Moon. The centre of the World is at (0,0) in the geostatic system, and the centre of the Sun is at (0,0) in the heliocentric system. The distances a and b are constant in each model, and within our forthcoming simulations are assumed to be those that are considered well-established. The rotation rates, calculated to six decimal places, facilitate the determination of the position of the relevant objects in each system. Thus, a high-level computer program was developed to compare the two cosmological models. The graphical user interface for this program is shown as Fig. 8.





Figure 8: GUI for the phase analysis program, showing angle a for the Moon, one mean solar hour at a time, over twelve months. (Times of dichotomy are shown by dotted lines.)



Now the phases of Venus are very interesting, because of "a well observed and measurable effect known as Schröter's Effect." (Geoff Kirby, as contained in Chapter 6 of his online biography, emphasis mine.) "In fact the observed phase [of Venus] is usually slightly less than the predicted phase. The size of this anomaly varies. So for example the time when the Venus disk is seen to be 50% illuminated is sometimes several earth-days different from the predicted time. Explanations of this anomaly generally propose that [it] is caused by the atmosphere of Venus." (Simon Edgeworth.)

The following quotations should provide the reader with the essence of the puzzlement of this phenomenon: "The curiosity is that the apparent phase is always less than the theoretical phase. If we define the phase as the fraction of the apparent planetary diameter illuminated, then the observed fraction (or phase) is about 0.03 to 0.05 less. This is quite dramatic around the time of dichotomy which is the time when the planet should be exactly half phase, i.e. the phase is 0.5 and the angle Sun-Venus-Earth is 900. The apparent phase appears to be about 0.45 so that Venus is very slightly a crescent." (Geoff Kirby.)

"The so-called phase anomaly is another interesting topic for the observer of Venus. It has long been known that the time when Venus shows a half phase in the telescope frequently occurs later than the predicted time when Venus is west of the sun; and half phase is earlier than expected when Venus is east of the Sun. The half phase is called dichotomy. The results of two observers are shown [in a graph on the website] for autumn 1999. Both observers agree in timing dichotomy at 2nd November 1999, approximately three days 'late'." (The British Astronomical Association.)

"The observed phase may differ slightly from the predicted value, the phenomenon being known as the Schröter effect. Dichotomy is seen to occur a few days early at eastern elongation and likewise late at western elongation." (David Graham, et al.)

"Another old mystery regarding Venus is the Phase Anomaly. This is most noticeable at dichotomy when the planet's terminator (the line dividing day and night) should be a straight line. At that time the planet is so placed with respect to the Earth that it should look exactly like a half-moon with the terminator running straight down the middle of the planet. Astronomers have long been aware that for some unknown reason this never happens at the predicted time. Theoretically we know Venus' orbit with such accuracy that the exact time of dichotomy can be predicted to within hours. But in practise it can be out by a week or more. The problem is that there is nothing wrong with Venus' position in its orbit - so what can be causing this problem?

"A further aspect of the Phase Anomaly problem is that astronomers have commented at various times on the difficulty of determining Venus' exact phase. Sometimes it seems to be ahead of its predicted phase and at other times behind. The British Astronomical Association has looked into this for the better part of [the 20th] century." (Unknown author.)

In his website, Geoff Kirby makes a good case for daylight masking being the cause of about 40% of Schröter's effect. Certainly, I consider that his experimental method and associated reasoning are sound. This, however, still leaves the remaining 60% unaccounted for, with perhaps the most viable explanation so far offered being the possible scattering characteristics of the Venusian atmosphere (Giuseppe Marino and Fabio Salvaggio, for instance). There is, though, another possibility - one that correlates with previous, experimental results.

Figure 9 shows a run of the program which plotted out the angle a for two years and indicates the points of dichotomy for the heliocentric model. The second dichotomy line is the one relating to eastern elongation (this simply depends upon the initial configuration of the three bodies - World, Sun and Venus - in the program code).





Figure 9: Variations in the phase angle a for the heliocentric system over a two year period from the starting (all aligned) position.



What is hugely significant here is that the time of dichotomy in the geostatic model (637 days) is 2 days before what it 'should' be according to the heliocentric model (639 days) and, since theoretical calculations assume a heliocentric 'solar system' (that can be worked out from a geocentric perspective, if the World rotates), the geocentric, geostatic scenario correctly agrees with observation, whereas the almost universally taught paradigm (heliocentrism, or acentrism, to be more precise) does not.

As a test of the program code, we should expect there to be very little difference in the angle g over most of this two-year period, simply because the heliocentric scenario is specially formulated to account for the angular velocities of celestial bodies (this is the main reason why the Moon shadow direction during a solar eclipse corresponds with what we know to be true). Figure 10 confirms that, between days 110 and 644 at least, there is indeed hardly any difference between the heliocentric and geostatic values of this Sun-World-Venus angle.





Figure 10: Testing the mathematical models by plotting the differences in g .



(The jumps that can be seen to occur at each year-end, in Fig. 10, have still to be resolved.)



Preliminary Conclusions

Differences, such as the actual times of dichotomy in each model, can be expected to show up because the geostatic and heliocentric(/geocentric) systems work in a different way. In particular, extra components of motion must be assigned to the World, in order for the heliocentric model to tally with reality. Here, though, we have deliberately sought a phenomenon that does not depend upon one such ad hoc motion (namely, the supposed rotation of the World about an 'axis'), and investigated the behaviour of the two conflicting models.

The correct model will agree with all observations. The phase 'anomaly' of Venus is an undeniable, observational fact, that has been known of for at least two hundred years (from the time of its description by Schröter). The heliocentric idea does not predict what actual observations consistently show. The heliocentric idea must therefore be wrong (as was demonstrated by Arago, Airy, Michelson & Morley, Michelson & Gale, Trouton & Noble, et al.). On the other hand, the geocentric, geostatic model, insofar as it has been tested, correctly matches the data.

These investigations remain on-going, but appear extremely promising. In particular, I remain confident that God's written word will once again prove to be totally vindicated and, if so, in a way that could not be more fitting, or ironic, for the observed phases of Venus is the exact same phenomenon that Galilei originally (and fraudulently) claimed disproved a geostatic cosmos!





Copyright © 2004 Dr. Neville Jones. All rights reserved.



References

Kirby, G., "The Phase Anomaly of Mercury and Venus," J. Brit. Astron. Assn., 80 (4), 293-295.
Smart, W.M., 1977, "Textbook on Spherical Astronomy," 6th ed., revised by R.M. Green, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, ch. 2, p. 38.


Home
Reply With Quote