Re: The Earth is NOT Moving!
The conclusion is that the World does not orbit the Sun and that it does not rotate about an axis, either. This can be reasoned via the following logic:
The stars complete circular paths every 23h 56m 4.091s, apparently as a consequence of the observer having completed a circle of absolute maximum circumference 24,860 miles.
No similar, annual motion of the stars is observed, in consequence of our supposedly hurtling around an (approximate) circle of 584,058,077 mile circumference (i.e., 23,494 times bigger than the equatorial maximum given in point number 1).
Precession of the World's imaginary axis, such that it always points to the same point in the northern sky, will not produce such an alignment in the south, and vice versa.
The World therefore would have to remain aligned with the north-south axis of the celestial sphere, which, in turn, means that it cannot be orbiting the Sun, unless the stars are somehow tied to the World as the World moves.
Such non-fixed 'background' stars, attached to the World in some way, would be contrary to the heliocentric scheme.
Heliocentrism is therefore an invalid model.
Acentrism is therefore an invalid model.
Geocentrism (with a rotating World) is therefore an invalid model (see Proof of Heliocentric Incorrectness 2), because it is geometrically equivalent to a heliocentric model. Hence, since the heliocentric one is wrong, the equivalent geocentric one must also be wrong, simply because of its equivalence.
Star circles cannot be due to a rotating World, because they do not vary with latitude (a camera situated at the North Pole will still capture Polaris moving around the same-sized circle).
We are therefore left with a World that must remain on the north-south axis of the celestial sphere, must be central, because of countless other observations (e.g., Y.P. Varshni's paper, briefly mentioned under "Solar System," elsewhere on this website), and which cannot be a World that rotates.
The heliocentric and geocentric (with rotating World) cosmological models are geometrically equivalent, since they can be considered as sharing a common point of rotation. This is Mach's Principle. The heliocentric and geostatic systems, on the other hand, are not equivalent, either dynamically or geometrically. They are totally different, physical systems. There is no common point of rotation between them. Mach's Principle does not therefore apply, although many people get themselves and others completely confused by erroneously claiming that it does. Hence, the geostatic reference system (as discussed in the previous proof, linked to on point number 8) again matches observational facts, whereas the heliocentric/acentric concept does not.
Our method here has been similar to the phenomenon of stellar parallax, which Tycho Brahe used to argue his case against heliocentrism, and which is addressed in the scientific paper, "Stellar distances and the age of the universe." (Note that huge distances to the stars were only brought in as another ad hoc to prop up the heliocentric deception.)
We thus conclude once more, and without the necessity for any mathematical analysis, that the cosmos is geocentric and geostatic.
Quod erat demonstrandum. more:
“...I realized I had to gain more knowledge to protect against evil and to protect myself from not becoming evil myself. This is our major goal in life...\" Terry Lee