Go Back   Club Conspiracy Forums > General Conspiracy Discussion > Alternate History
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 02-06-2005, 05:41 PM
rushdoony rushdoony is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 556
Default Re: The Earth is NOT Moving!


"The Rapidly Approaching Triumph of the Biblical God and His Plan From A to Z" demonstrates how and why the Bible is scheduled to emerge from the Fall of Babylon--brought about by the fall of Copernicanism--as the one true Holy Book from the One True Holy God while all else is exposed as deception from the father of deception. (HERE).


In keeping with these essays (HERE - HERE - HERE)--which are designed to reach out to the Moslem World with certain truths that can not be avoided when Babylon Falls--go (HERE) :"Christianity & Islam:Why Islam Will Go Down When Babylon Falls"


I counted 20 references to a rotating earth in five short paragraphs of one report about the tragic South Asian Tsunami. Peculiar, isn’t it, how 4 1/2 centuries of indoctrination into factless Copernicanism (HERE) continues to insert the "rotating earth" mantra into the most unlikely news stories 24/7? Peculiar too, isn’t it, that the powers behind this lie are so confident of their academia and media enforced control over people’s minds that "scientists" can come out within hours of this tragedy and claim that this quake has speeded up the earth’s rotation by three millionths of a second (!) and as caused the earth to "wobble" off its "axis" by one inch (out of 506,880,000 inches!)?? This insult to people’s intelligence was backed by NASA "scientist" Richard Gross and a dozen other "heavies" (Aren’t you just a little bit tired of being taken for a sap by these mind-control clowns who would stoop to using this unspeakable tragedy to reinforce their evolutionary agenda in the unsuspecting minds of millions via the world media? Shameful... ) [Forget the alleged "wobble" fiction. "The world is stablished that it cannot be moved." Psalm 93:1 False science--with all its "profane and vain babblings" [I Tim.6:20]--has never disproved that fact.]
More: www.fixedearth.com

Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 02-06-2005, 06:04 PM
rushdoony rushdoony is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 556
Default Re: The Earth is NOT Moving!

The Size and Structure of the Universe

According to the Bible and Non-Theoretical Science


Part V


The Mother of All Space Science Fraud Is At Work

In The Measurement of Star Distances


Considering that it must be clear by now that the whole matter of the structure and size of the universe is a contest between two religious teachings about the Origin of the universe and all that is in it, we must try to sort out which religious teaching we are going to accept when all the evidence is factored in.


Uppermost in one’s mind in this decision should be these seven points which have been shown to be demonstrable facts in previous discourses in this series and in the seven essays on "The Kabbala" particularly:

1) The indispensable foundation of all modern cosmology is the Copernican Model of a rotating, orbiting Earth and a stationary sun.

2) This foundational heliocentric model is built solely on seven interdependent assumptions which deny observational and experimental evidence.

3) The observationally verifiable transit of the stars around the Earth nightly is said by modern cosmology to be forever disproved because some of the stars are 15 billion light years distant and the speed they would have to go to get around nightly is so great as to be incomprehensible and foolish to consider; ergo, the Earth is rotating, causing it to appear that the stars are revolving nightly.
More:http://www.fixedearth.com/Size%20&%20Structure%20Part%20V.htm
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 02-07-2005, 05:26 AM
Vlad Vlad is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 37
Default Re: The Earth is NOT Moving!

It is also flat.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 02-07-2005, 09:33 AM
rushdoony rushdoony is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 556
Default Re: The Earth is NOT Moving!

"What would be the effect of exposing Copernicanism as the Keystone holding up all evolutionary ‘science’?"

So that there will be something for both Bible-bashers and Bible-lovers alike to weigh in with the dozen top effects that will be listed by this exposure, I mention only that (speaking of the Devil’s confidence that his deception-based empire [Babylon] is too deeply rooted to ever be overturned) the verse that sums up both that confidence and God’s view of that doomed author of all confusion (I Cor.14:33) in the world today:


"...How much she [Babylon=confusion] hath glorified herself,

and lived deliciously,

so much torment and sorrow give her:

for she saith in her heart,

I sit a queen, and am no widow,

and shall see no sorrow...."

(Revelation 18:7)


Effect #1: As is appropriate, God’s "Judgment begins at the house of God" (HERE). Christian Churches exist solely to guard, uphold, and preach the Bible from the first page in Genesis to the last page in Revelation. There should be (and will be) one Christian Church because there is one true doctrine on every subject in the Bible. ALL of the churches in Christendom are doctrinally trapped in Satanic doctrinal deception to a greater or lesser degree. We know this is true because God plainly calls them out of Satan’s Kingdom of Babylon. "Come out of her [Babylon] MY PEOPLE", He says (Rev. 18:4). The one false doctrine that ALL churches have accepted in the one that God knew before the foundation of the world (Acts 15:18) would--when exposed--set off a domino effect on all Satan-installed (I Tim. 4:1), anti-Bible doctrines.


Effect #2: The Theoretical Science Establishment will be revealed to be the chief tool utilized by an anti-Bible, anti-Christ Pharisaic Religion to make false-science modern man’s Idol. This modern day Idol rests upon and cannot stand without continued belief that the Earth rotates on a axis and orbits the sun (HERE - HERE, etc.) When belief in that contra-scientific myth is shattered (Rev. 17:14; HERE, etc.), Babylon (Satan’s empire built on deception) will Fall. True science, i.e., observationally and experimentally confirmed science, will be venerated and embraced by all who love truth and the God of Truth, and vilified and hated by all who love lies and the g’d of lies. The technological feats of true science--all of them--present no problem to truth lovers. However, God is poised to put a supernatural can of whoop-ass on every lying use of technology that has been used to create a Kabbalic Universe (HERE - HERE - HERE - HERE) and advance the agenda of the doomed little g’d with no truth in him (John 8:44)...(which little g’d was fabricated by the Ultimate Technician to do just what he/it has done (HERE - HERE)....
More:http://www.fixedearth.com/what_would_be_the_effect_of_expo.htm
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 02-07-2005, 09:58 PM
billiard billiard is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 71
Default Re: The Earth is NOT Moving!

rushdoony somehow thinks that a non-moving earth(giggle)means that God exists and that there has been a giant conspiracy to discredit God and the Bible ,by all the world's scientists ,to pretend (giggle,giggle)the earth turns on its axis and moves in orbit around the sun. he also apparently believes that with these endless hyperlink posts we will all believe him. oh wait ,dinosaurs never existed either ... i almost forgot ... that's also a plot by all the world's scientists to prove the Bible isn't true. is it just me or does this seem ridiculous to anyone else ? i believe in freedom of speech .rushdoony has the freedom to put this stuff in here and i have freedom of speech also. rushdoony simply annoys me and is either a total idiot or a very immature person displaying attention-seeking behavior .
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 02-08-2005, 12:32 AM
Mawashi Mawashi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 64
Default Re: The Earth is NOT Moving!

This would have to be the dumbest thread ever. Either our honourable OP is a troll supreme, or unbelievably ignorant.

Fact: the Earth and the other planets revolve around the Sun.

Fact: This has been going on for quite a while.

Fact: The Earth's surface is covered with a layer of velcro to keep the atmosphere from slipping off. That's what mountains are for: they grip the air.

END OF THREAD
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 02-08-2005, 03:28 AM
Ahmad Ahmad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 382
Default Re: The Earth is NOT Moving!

Pecae Mawashi,

I just hope you don't offend the poster, even if he or she is utterly wrong.

As for me, Quran confirms the movement of the earth. By the way, what is the relation between the mountains and the atmosphere? first time i hear that, could you elaborate please.
__________________
---------------------------------------
God\'s alternative, USN

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[3:19] The only religion approved by GOD is \"Submission.\"...
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 02-08-2005, 06:33 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
  #129  
Old 02-16-2005, 09:20 PM
rushdoony rushdoony is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 556
Default Re: The Earth is NOT Moving!

A Small, Young Universe After All!

Scoffers take a number and sit over there, please.... While you are waiting and mumbling expletives under your breath at such an outrageous claim, work the facts that follow in with what has gone before under the titles:

NASA's Agenda: Promoting Evolutionism

NASA's Hanky-Panky: Virtual Reality Technology

The Spiritual Roots of NASA's Big Bang Premise

Now consider:

A non-moving earth at the center of our universe--with the sun and a stellatum of stars going round every day--is still a model that explains all the important phenomena in the known (i.e., the REAL, non VR) universe. Calculations requiring the utmost precision, i.e., calculations about moon phases, air and sea navigation, satellite deployment and relocation, solar and lunar eclipses, etc., are all based on a non-moving earth (HERE). All sorts of arcane math symbols calling themselves heliocentric may be used but when these "fumididdles" (as one physicist called them) or "pseudomathematical decorations" (as Andreski called them) are set aside, the math is geocentric. Given the explanations in the seven part series on the Kabbala (begin HERE) and the seven part series on "The Size and Structure of the Universe According to the Bible and Non-Theoretical Science" (begin HERE), the Model of Apollonius is demonstrably both more Scriptural and more scientifically satisfying than the modified Brahe Model (HERE). (Physicist Dr. Neville T. Jones in Scotland has a marvelous CD with moving graphics of the Apollonian Model which you can read about and order by going to the May 2004 Bulletin (HERE).)

Thus, in spite of a world persuaded otherwise, Biblical cosmology stands just as impregnable in the 21st century as it did in 1600 AD. The Apollonian Model particularly shows the Earth at the center of the universe with a band of stars all around. Inside the misnamed "solar" system all the planets and the sun and the moon and the stars orbit the Earth, (The Earth is not a planet...which word means "wanderer" and--like "solar" system and capitalizing the planet's names and using the small "e" for Earth--are all just clever little indoctrination tools).

In short, the sun, moon, and stars are actually doing precisely what everyone throughout all history has seen them do. We do not believe what our eyes tell us because we have been taught a counterfeit system which demands that we believe what has never been confirmed by observation or experiment. That counterfeit system demands that the Earth rotate on an "axis" every 24 hours...at a speed of over 1000 MPH at the equator. No one has ever, ever, ever seen or felt such movement (nor seen or felt the 67000MPH speed of the Earth's alleged orbit around the sun...or its 500,000 MPH alleged speed around a galaxy...or its retreat from an alleged "Big Bang" at over 670,000,000 MPH! ).

Remember, no experiment has ever shown the earth to be moving. Indeed, these experiments have all reported the same thing, i.e., no movement. Add to that the fact that the alleged rotational speed we've all been taught as scientific fact MUST decrease every inch or mile one goes north or south of the equator, and it becomes readily apparent that such things as accurate aerial bombing in WWII (down a chimney from 25000 feet with a plane going any direction at high speed) would have been impossible if calculated on an earth moving below at several hundred MPH and changing constantly with the latitude. (You can see several such logical impossibilities treated in THE EARTH IS NOT MOVING.)

Note this well: a) If moving Earth Copernicanism is shown to be a colossal deception, the Bible is automatically proven to be right on this major aspect of Creation. The Earth is either moving or it isn't! b) Anyone jolted into recognizing that the whole world could be utterly fooled by the Copernican deception will have little trouble seeing Darwinism as fruit off of the same tree. c) Recognizing that the physical and biological sciences have been used to make these mega- deceptions as successful as they are, no strain will be required to see how the teachings of Marxism, Freudianism, Einsteinism, Zionism, NASA's Saganism and Goldinism, Zionist-supporting Christian Fundamentalism, AND KABBALISM have been used to bring that Bible-bashing mystic religion to the verge of pulling it all off and establishing the long-planned New World Order which is already programmed to quickly rid the world of Bible-based Christianity.

Because of Big Bangism's and Einstein's demands--based on "thought experiments", Kabbalistic mysticism, and flat-out VR fraud--we've all been led to believe that there are galaxies of stars so far away that even God could not get them around the Earth every day! Take away those demands--including Dr. Albert's scientifically unsupportable speed of light limitations--and it is downright easy to understand stars in a stellatum with about a 1/2 light day radius (twinkling and reflecting endlessly in the Bible's watery outer firmament (Gen 1:15) and going around the Earth daily just as we see them go and just as the Bible says they go. (Go HERE for first of seven part series describing a 1/2 light day thick universe. )

Though the physicists and electrical engineers involved in the steadily emerging ELECTRIC UNIVERSE concept do not make Biblical geocentrism connections, their model shrinks the universe enormously. More, it gets rid of Relativity, the Big Bang, and an Expanding Universe. In addition to all this, the concept and the evidence behind it make sense! A "small" universe with a young Earth is a model whose time is drawing very near. All that has to be done to make the Electric Universe model fit with Biblical Geocentrism is to get rid of the extraterrestrial evolutionary mind-set baggage of its proponents. This link (HERE) should go far toward getting rid of that baggage, and this link (HERE) will provide an overview of The Electric Universe Concept and its great potential for gutting modern theoretical cosmology and starting over.

Any reader still racked by waves of disbelief that such mind-boggling deceptions could have been pulled off (even by Satan, the master of deceit!) needs to possess only two things: 1) A heart that "can receive A LOVE OF TRUTH" (II Thess.2:10); and 2) A willingness to look at the various kinds of evidence which prove that these masterpieces of cosmological deception have indeed occurred, and, more, that they are terminally pregnant with technology's Virtual Reality Lies (HERE) calculated to finish off Christianity and crown Kabbalism and Talmudism ruler over all the Earth in a Zionist-ruled One World Government.

As for #1, it is undeniable that people can be forced to see a Truth and not Love It. These prefer lies to Truths, and though forced to see and know a Truth, will hate it and hate its author, God. Their father is Satan who was created "in the beginning with no Truth in him" to be the father of all who hate Truth...(John 8:44; etc. Go (HERE) to order a book entitled: Satan: What Makes Him Tick?

And for #2 (having looked at some of the scientific and logical evidence), all who will then look at the Historical development of Copernicanism (HERE and elsewhere) will see very plainly how this mega-deception has been able to overcome and replace indisputable observational and experimental evidence. All can see for themselves how Copernicanism gradually took over in the physical sciences at the universities (and has trickled down now to become a "fact" that is learned in kindergartens). All will see how liberalism took over in the churches and let the Copernican lie beat back the Bible with its scores of Scriptures declaring a non-moving and immovable Earth with the sun and stars going around daily (HERE) The real roles of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Sagan, etc., in advancing this colossal Bible-bashing fraud will become obvious. The fact that these men have been put in man's Hall of Fame as great world-changing "scientists" attests again to Bible infallibility for we are told that God has allowed Satan to be "god of this world" (II Cor.4:4) until the time appointed when he is briefly taken out of the way (II Thess.2:7; Rev.11:15;12;12; 20:3), then restored for "a little season" (Rev.20:3,7) and then terminated permanently (Rev.20:10;Is.14:16; Is.66:24; etc.).

Furthermore, the hidden but real and unbreakable connection between Copernicanism and Darwinism will become totally plain and understandable to any who will look with an open mind and a heart capable of loving Truth. (Click HERE to see this symbiotic connection....) And the connections don't stop there! With the physical and biological sciences captive to Copernicanism and Darwinism being spewed from every bastion of "higher learning", the social "sciences" and the behavioral "sciences" and the arts, and ultimately Bible-based Christianity have all been driven into Satan's corral of Babylonish confusion.

Much sanity still remains in the world, however, do largely to the fact that Creationism-- while down for the count several times--is still in the ring and getting in a good punch here and there. Besides that, there are plenty of people who don't have the information with which to challenge evolutionism on scientific grounds, whose common sense nevertheless tells them it's a nutty idea and that it is a root cause of rudderless kids and adults everywhere.

Unfortunately, neither these folks nor knowledgeable creationists seem to have a clue that NASA is the agent being used to put Creationism on the mat for the full count. Consequently neither group can see that the Devil is on the verge of winning this critical match with his use of fraudulent VR simulation technology (HERE - HERE) propelled by and undergird by the multi-faceted religion of mystical Kabbalism, which, along with Talmudism, are the sworn enemies of Christianity (HERE - HERE). Thru NASA (and a host of other powerful evolution fronts: See: Time, 1/17/00,p.76), Satan intends to place man's new god for the 21st century--namely, anti-Bible Kabbalist Humanist-Paganism (HERE -HERE)--firmly in the driver's seat of a One World Government.

(The fact that a OWG is coming to pass and is imminent is no longer a moot point. Nationalism is dying on the vine as computerized telecommunications make the world a global village. World leaders openly envision a OWG as the utopia that man's wisdom will have finally put together. These will ignore the fact that Bible prophesies over 1900 years old tell us that such a global government will indeed come to pass...that it will look good at first, but will be empowered by Satan...that it will have "a war with the Lamb" which it will lose (Rev.17:14)...that this will result in a separation (not the Rapture!) of God's people (Rev.18:4) from those who then are committed to what has become an overtly Satan-led, Satan-worshipping, God-hating, drug-dispensing, global government...and that its formation will signal the very beginning of the end of this earth's history, etc. (Go (HERE) to order a book entitled: The Preterit View: Straining At A Gnat And Swallowing A Camel...a subject that fits into all "End Tim" considertions.

The dominos of man's "wisdom" ("foolishness to God": I Cor. 3:19) are all lined up. They cover every academic discipline and many of the false doctrines in all religions. Together they make up the deceptions upholding Satan's kingdoms on Earth, namely, "Babylon the Great", i.e., where Confusion and its author reign. (I Cor. 14:33; II Cor. 4:4; & I Tim. 4:1...which says that demons mess up doctrines....) [Go (HERE) to see how modern man's "knowledge" is rooted and grounded in deception which flows in a straight historical line from the success of the Copernican Revolution....

But, not to worry; a Sovereign, Omniscient, and Omnipotent God planned all this before the foundation of the world (Acts 15:18). He has declared that Babylon (i.e., confusion) will Fall (Rev. 14:8; 17:12-18; 18:1-24; etc.), and Fall it will!

Copernicanism is the first domino. Darwinism is the second.... These are the chief lies that have fooled not only the world but all the Christian churches and all other religions.. Not incidentally, that is why God's Judgment "...begins at the house of God" (I Pet. 4:17,18). HE will call His people out of Babylon once the OWG is formed and its true Satan-worshipping nature is revealed in the "war with the Lamb". HE has declared that "the gates of hell will not prevail [succeed] against His Church" (Matt.16:18). Believe it! Those gates are guarding the deceptions that rule the world and are seeking to destroy Jesus, the Lamb of God and the Church He established. That sacrificial Lamb, however, is also "The Lion of Judah"! With His "called, chosen, and faithful" (Rev.17:14) He will expose those deceptions (I Jn.3:8) and their author, and then He will finish God the Father's Plan for the end of this old earth and the beginning of the new heavens and the New Earth.

Few if any readers who have come this far could be more duped by the lies of the false science establishment than I have been. I believed it to be beyond challenge that all that modern science alleges about the cosmos, evolution, and all the rest was scientific fact, and that only red-necked ignorami in bib-overalls still believed the Biblical account of creation and on thru the New Testament of Jesus Christ. It was inconceivable to me that all the smartest people in the Universities with their training and books, etc., could be fooled or--worse--lying. Every book I read confirmed these convictions, and I read thousands of them.

But then an odd set of circumstances over thirty years ago caused me to investigate the claims of evolution thoroughly. I discovered that--beyond any question--evolutionism is a contra-scientific lie without the first piece of evidential proof to support its preposterous claims. More, I discovered that a belief in evolutionism was at the core not only of my disbelief in God and the Bible, but that this belief has also basically determined my socialist political and economic philosophy and my approach to sexuality and marriage and family and all that is connected with those things and all of which unconsciously combine to make up a person's total understanding of what life is all about. (To order the book which resulted from that about face - The Truth About Evolution - go HERE.)

Other developments led me to question the seemingly unchallengeable teaching that the earth revolves on an axis and orbits the sun. Though plainly contradicted by numerous Scriptures in the Bible, the Copernican Model was not only universally accepted as fact in the secular world...but (barring a few brave souls) was even accepted as fact by evolution-fighting Creationists and other hard core Bible people. Surely it couldn't be a contra-scientific deception like evolutionism!! Nonetheless, as any who want to know can find out, it is indeed pure deception. More, it is the mother of the success of evolutionism and the other pernicious isms built on both lies.

Having written The Earth Is Not Moving to demonstrate how Copernicanism has succeeded in spite of having no evidence and violating all we can see, I have only very recently been led to discover some of the additional facts related in these four short essays. The Kabbalistic connection is very important, as all can surely appreciate.

Its importance lies not only in the fact that it explains and amplifies the religious zeal driving NASA's leadership in its no-holds-barred goal of demonstrating anti-Bible evolutionism, but also that it explains and amplifies how thoroughly the Zionist Ashkenazis have tricked Fundamentalist Protestant Evangelicals into supporting their every move, and do so on the alleged grounds that they are still God's chosen people fulfilling Biblical prophecies by returning to the "holy land", etc.

In ways too involved to explain here (HERE) these Christian leaders have been tricked into ignoring or twisting scores of New Testament texts which declare that all the chosen people status and perks for the Jews were abrogated by Jesus so that God's grace could go to "whosoever will", whether "Jew or Greek", with "no respect of persons" whereby "If ye be Christ's, THEN are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise", etc., etc. Sheesh....

So, just as surely as the Space Program is driven by the Kabbalist-based Relativity-Big Bang-Expanding Universe cosmology, just so surely is the mis-characterization of Biblical End Time events by the most visible Christian evangelicals today (HERE - HERE) really a fulfilling of the anti-Bible, anti-Christian teaching of the Kabbala.

One of the long list of major ironies that leaps out from the Kabbalist origins of Big Bangism and Zionism was the selection of Einstein from a long list of notables to be "Man of the 20th Century". Big Al's crucial role in saving Copernicanism from the non-moving Earth results of the Michelson-Morley experiments with his Relativity nonsense (HERE) and his promotion of the key element of Big Bangism (energy produces matter) made him an unrivaled hero to one and all who were eager and determined to see Bible-based Christianity bite the dust.

Documented but not widely broadcast is the fact that Einstein was also a ZZ (Zealous Zionist), who was, in fact, offered the presidency of Israel when that state was formed in 1948. Did Einstein know that what he really was...was a Kabbalist superstar?! Did those who brought him out of obscurity and made him an international celebrity for the whole 20th Century and then crowned him "The Man of the Century" know it?! Surely, few will want to say that Einstein in particular and those others in general were too dumb to know that what they did was in the service of anti-Bible, anti-Christian Kabbalism.... Can the smartest of the smart have been that dumb?? And is it not obvious that--whether duped or not--synthetic Zionist Christians have been a major factor in bringing this Bible-bashing plot to its present stage of virtual completion?! (HERE, HERE)

All who are not afraid to look into this will see that the evidence to back it up is irrefutable, and they will see that it is a spiritual rather than a scientific need to portray a 15 billion year old and virtually endless universe that drives modern cosmology today. (HERE)

Einstein and those who crowned him knew exactly what his role was, and--in spite of the opposition of Genesis-believing Jews--are still doing their utmost to bring to pass a global government with the highest priority being the fulfillment of the Kabbalist goal of getting rid of New Testament Christianity by ultimately making it a Hate Crime deserving the death penalty if not renounced. What do we think the Mark of the Beast is anyway?! (See: Hate Crimes.)

Ah, but there's that "war the Lamb wins"! (Rev.17:14) The soon coming One World Government with all its big plans only lasts "one hour" (v.12) before its Satanic goals are exposed and foiled so that it has to show who its real god is. Then look for several years of very rough stuff spelled out in The Revelation. (Scriptural details in these books: HERE - HERE.)

The Question again is: What does a small universe have to do with all this?

Answer: Everything. The Big Bang's limitlessly expanding universe gets rid of a uniquely created geocentric Earth on the one hand and, on the other, it provides the billions of years needed for the triumph of the evolution myth which is the fatal wound, the coup de grace, the denouement, the final resolution of the centuries-old plot to destroy Bible credibility. With the credibility of its Creation foundation destroyed, all of the Bible is suspect. If the Biblical Creation accounts of the cosmos and of all life are disproved by "science" as claimed, then the Biblical Jesus has no credibility and can take His place alongside Buddha, Confucius, and Zoroaster.

That's what the facts add up to, like it or not.

Big Bang Kabbalism fueled by NASA's high-tech Virtual Reality simulations may have the world convinced that goofy billions of light year distances to their latest star discoveries are "scientific" and that Star-Trekian evolutionism has produced washboard-browed and pointy-eared life all over the place "out there", but science fiction and simulations are not real. They are imaginations and counterfeits of something not known, not scientific, and not real (1 p. sum: HERE) The known facts, i.e., the real scientific facts, add up to an Earth-centered "small" universe with the Sun, Moon, and Stars going around the Earth every day just the way we see them go (HERE). That is both the scientific and the Biblical model and no Kabbalistic plans, old or new, are going to change it.
From: www.fixedearth.com
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 02-17-2005, 04:45 PM
rushdoony rushdoony is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 556
Default Re: The Earth is NOT Moving!

From: "Amnon Goldberg" Add to Address Book
Subject: Scientific Mafiosi



An interesting article "Persecution in the name of science" from the
Orthodox Jewish newspaper "Yated Ne'eman"
http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/TZV65vid.htm
The handling of Richard Sternberg by the scientific establishment
has been mild compared to some of his predecessors.



There exists an academic and media mafiosi which attempts to
discourage, suppress, ostracise, threaten, and demote individuals
who even start to show an interest in "heterodox ideas".



Organised pressure groups, chicanery, sharp practice, and jealous
histrionics abound in the "altruistic" Scientific Establishment,
all
geared to prevent and discredit any research and experimentation
that threatens the establishment "status quo" or is against
"informed opinion", especially in the area of today's three "sacred
cows" of Evolution, Relativity and Heliocentricity.



Any doubters or nay-sayers are lambasted with epithets like "dupe",
"heresy", "shameful", "disgraceful", "pseudo-scientific
fanaticism",
"fog of nonsense", "red herrings", "shallow", "starry-eyed
fundamentalism", "extreme", "lack of balance, "dogmatic",
"bigoted",
"hysterical", "far fetched", "ignorant", "of no help to anyone",
"height of presumption".



When even President Reagan in 1984 dared to express his doubts in
the theory of evolution, public questions were raised as to his
sanity!



Researchers like Immanuel Velikovsky (catastrophist), Halton Arp
(anti-Big Bang), Stefan Marinov (anti-Relativist), Pons and
Fleischmann (cold fusion), Robert Gentry (pleochroic haloes),
Richard Milton (anti-evolution), Barry Setterfield (decrease in
speed of light), Eric Braithwate (free energy), Walter van der Kamp
(geocentrist) etc., have been shown to have strong cases, or even
to
be substantially correct. Yet they were all initially greeted with
epithets like "stupid", "drivel", "loony", "harmless fruitcake",
"in
need of psychiatric help" etc., and conspiratorial attempts at the
highest levels were made to silence them, ban their publications,
restrict their access to laboratories, deny them telescope time
etc.
in blatant disrespect of the pursuit of novel human knowledge.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Israeli Zionist Mafia Moving In "Down Under". Oz Military Infiltration? truebeliever Oceania 6 09-14-2011 12:54 AM
Earth inc. creat3d Social Engineering 3 12-28-2007 09:18 PM
NASA Moving Space Launch Facilities To Oz truebeliever Opinions 1 08-24-2006 01:52 PM
The Earth IS Moving! nohope187 Alternate History 9 07-10-2005 09:11 PM
Please Explain How Rush Doony's "The Earth Is Not Moving", Got 141 Replies and 1400 Views? truebeliever General Conspiracy Discussion 11 03-01-2005 10:48 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.