Al Borealis, 2022 Year in Review |576|

Above all else, Alex is a warrior in the pursuit of truth! He is unwavering and honest in his journey! Furthermore, willing to share his journey with all of us. He deserves our support whether you agree with him or not!

His discussion with Al Borealis illuminates the unwavering work for his climbing up that mountain fearlessly!
 
thx so much FL. glad to know we've connected.

I've been thinking about some ways that I can go forward. I have some shows in the works. some of the main changes I'd like to see happen have to do with how I approach skeptiko is my journey changes :)

I also want to ask for help from listeners... well not exactly listeners... I mean. anyone can and should be able to listen... but the people I really care about are folks who want to help me develop these shows. I get excited about the idea of actively working with folks who are trying to figure this stuff out in the same way that I am. I hope to be able to publish a brief solo show this week with more details.

Have you considered a few shows as a trialogue?

Those old ones with McKenna, Sheldrake, and …the math guy, forgot his name… were real gems.

In a trialogue a 3rd person has the opportunity mediate or recapitulate points to help get through stalemates. A 3rd person also allows more time to prepare a statement and less time to make it making statements more pithy.
 
Have you considered a few shows as a trialogue?

Those old ones with McKenna, Sheldrake, and …the math guy, forgot his name… were real gems.

In a trialogue a 3rd person has the opportunity mediate or recapitulate points to help get through stalemates. A 3rd person also allows more time to prepare a statement and less time to make it making statements more pithy.
Ralph Abraham is the third.
Sheldrake has the Trialogues on his website. I used to get them on Psychedelic Salon long before I knew about Skeptiko. I think i listened to all of them multiple times - except the ones that had super poor recording quality. Great old school podcasts!

https://www.sheldrake.org/audios/the-sheldrake-mckenna-abraham-trialogues
 
Great Call Hurm!
The trialogues are a great study for anyone who wants a top level class study on long form discussion. Three men sitting next to eachother talking for 10-15minute intervals or longer, without breaking the intimacy of actual conversation (as opposed to a 'presentation').
great study material
 
Listening to Alex on Zero w Sam Tripoli. Episode dropped on Rokfin this morning. Only half way through and had some quick points to make.
  • First show with Sam I’ve been able to enjoy in probably 4-5 months.
  • While Alex takes a breather from weekly Skeptiko shows, could be an opportunity to go do the podcast circuit for a while help everyone else step their game up. would be a service and I have a feeling it’s highly needed. They get soft when they don’t have anyone like Alex to come call bullshit here and there.
  • Don’t know if Alex had considered posting his other podcast guest appearances to the Skeptiko forum for discussion
  • think I can hear in Sams voice he’s kinda thrown off balance a bit but in a healthy way.

https://rokfin.com/post/117089/213-...Inside-Your-Head-with-Skeptikos-Alex-Tsakiris

Edit/Add: After finishing the episode I highly recommend everyone give it a listen. Really a great discussion and I hope we get more
thx Rob. I will post tomorrow.
 
Alex--

Modern Cosmology is a Religion


Way back, leaders of religions proclaimed that Earth was the center of the universe and that they were special intermediaries between gods and the people.

However, over the ages, people saw their lives improve by intelligent invention and manipulation of the material world, not by homage to religion and its irrationality and injustice that violated reason and conscience. So, religion and its gods were rejected in favor of matter.

(The illogic that the Creator with infinite incomprehensible power--as opposed to a man-made god--has anything to do with man-made religions was not even considered.)

It was concluded that with no gods and only matter, there would be no reason for Earth to be a special focal point in the universe. This required an alternate explanation for reality and existence.

So a new secular religion was born. Its tenets are:


A big bang of nothing created an infinite meaningless universe containing atomic dust that gravitationally accreted into heavenly bodies including our Earthball moving in several different directions at 2.8 million mph and holding an atmosphere next to the vacuum of space while spontaneously forming life from primeval sludge that then evolved into complicated rocks called humans with no free will.
Its high priests are the authorities and experts in the secular state who now determine what the masses are to believe. Just like god-religions, indoctrination, and fear are their tools of obeisance and compliance. Both religions cause immeasurable human suffering because they are divorced from reality.

In the following quotes from renowned high priest secular experts, religious belief, not the scientific method, is the guiding principle to protect the sacred doctrines of materialism, evolutionism, and big bangism. This religion is disguised as science.

Note the difficulty that honesty and open-mindedness present to notable big bang proponents. It's understandable, they, like all of us, have been thoroughly brainwashed since in the crib looking up at solar system mobiles.

Moreover, if the cosmology doctrine fails, their whole belief structure collapses since their doctrines about origins, evolution, and the very nature of humans would be jeopardized.

Definitions to help understand the following quotations--
>Copernican heliocentric model--the Earth spins, rotates around the sun and galaxy, and gyrates through the universe
>Ptolemaic geocentric model--the Earth is the center of a universe that rotates around it
>Michelson-Morley experiment--an experiment using the speed of light that determined that the Earth was motionless. It voids the moving Earth like the double-slit experiment voids materialism.
>Relativity---Einstein invented relativity to counter the Michelson-Morley proof that the Earth does not move. Relativity is a belief, a religious tenet disguised as science. (The backbone of relativity is the belief that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. However, that has been proven wrong by Nobel Prize winners. https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/win-nobel-prize-physics-scientists-210200546.html)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no intent to prove anything here other than not all experts agree that the standard cosmology is a proven paradigm. Readers should do their research, as I have, to see what facts, reason, and science support.



American PS "Although dark energy may seem a bit contrived to some, the oxford theorists are proposing an even more outrageous alternative. They point out that it's possible that we simply live in a very special place in the universe … The suggestion flies in the face of the Copernican principle … any theory that suggests that we're special is most likely wrong (religious assertion) … Dark energy may seem like a stretch, but it's consistent with the venerable (hallowed) Copernican principle. The proposal that we live in a special place in the universe, on the other hand, is likely to shock many scientists."—American Physical Society. 'Dark Energy: is It Merely an Illusion?' ScienceDaily, 29 September 2008. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080926184749.htm.
(Dark matter and dark energy were both invented doctrines to explain mathematical problems related to mass, gravity, and star formation that conflict with the Copernican model and big bang. It's like god-religions invoking miracles, approved doctrines, and holy spirits when beliefs contradict facts.)


Baker "… failure [of Michelson-Morley] to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the Earth must be 'at rest' (science) ... Yet we have known (belief) since Galileo that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Why should it be at rest in space?" physicist, Adolph Baker


Barbour "thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo ... it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the earth moves ..."—physicist. Julian Barbour


Barnett "we can't feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the earth actually is in motion … "The Michelson-Morley … experiment was tried again by Morley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of the Earth through the ether was zero."—Science writer, author of The Universe and Dr. Einstein, Lincoln Barnett


Born "… from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right."—physicist, Max Born, 'Einstein's Theory of Relativity, 1962, pp. 344, 345


Bouw "Again, once more for the record: it has been shown at least six different ways this century alone that the equations and physics used by NASA to launch satellites are identical to the equations derived from a geocentric universe. Thus, if the space program is proof of anything, it proves geocentricity and disproves heliocentrism. The evidence for heliocentrism is even weaker than the evidence for evolution."—astronomer Gerardus D. Bouw, PhD.


Chown "... so what would it mean if the outcome were that the Copernican principle is wrong? It would certainly require a seismic reassessment of what we know about the universe … if the Copernican principle fails, all that goes [with] that (the big bang) goes out the window too ... If we are in a void, answering how we came to be in such a privileged spot in the universe would be even trickier."—Marcus Chown, physics and astrophysics science writer, "Is the Earth at the heart of a giant cosmic void?" New Scientist, Nov. 12, 2008, pp. 32-35


Clifton "… Alternatively, it could be the case that the Copernican principle is invalid, and that the data has been interpreted within an inappropriate theoretical framework. If we were to live in a special place in the universe, near the centre of a void where the local matter density is low, then the supernovae observations would be accounted for without the addition of dark energy."—Timothy Clifton, Oxford astrophysics member, PhD . "Living in a void: testing the Copernican principle with distant supernovae" Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (13): 1302 (sep 2008).


Cohen "There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove that the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun. the sun moves in an orbit around the Earth in a year. Furthermore, the daily rotation of the heavens is communicated to the sun and planets, so that the Earth itself neither rotates nor revolves in an orbit."—physicist, Bernard Cohen

Coleman "...the easiest explanation was that the Earth was fixed . . . such an idea was not considered seriously, since it would mean in effect that our Earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe, with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage by moving around it."—physicist, James Coleman


Coleman
"The explanation which had the most appeal in accounting for the negative result of the Michelson Morley experiment was one that was literally dreamed up for the purpose … Objections to the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction hypothesis were rampant … because there was no evidence to prove that such an effect took place."—James a. Coleman, professor of physics and chairman of the department of physics


Davies "Often the simplest of observations will have the most profound consequences, it has long been a cornerstone of modern science,(religion) to say nothing of man's cosmic outlook, that the Earth attends a modest star that shines in an undistinguished part of a run-of-the-mill galaxy. Life arose spontaneously and man evolved on this miscellaneous clump of matter and now directs his own destiny without outside help. This cosmic model is supported by the big-bang and expanding universe concepts, (doctrines, not science) … The argument advanced by George Ellis in this article is more complex than this, but his basic thrust is to put man back into a favored position in the cosmos. His new theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations, even though it clashes with the thought that we are godless and making it on our own."—editor of Nature Magazine, Paul Davies


Dreyer "The Earth-centered system is in reality absolutely identical with the system of Copernicus and all computation of the places of the planets are the same for the two systems."—astronomer, J. Dreyer


Eddington
"There was just one alternative; the Earth's true velocity through space might happen to have been nil … The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion … " Sir Arthur Eddington, Physicist, 'Space, Time and Gravitation, p. 20


Einstein "...to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked...that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. (real science and facts) Before the theory of relativity was put forward (not a scientific theory but fabrication to attempt to salvage Copernicus), it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result… I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment (science) … the sun is at rest and the Earth moves, or 'the sun moves and the Earth is at rest, would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems … though the Earth is revolving around the sun." (obstinate belief)—'The Evolution of Physics,' Albert Einstein, physicist



Ellis "… and one must emphasize here that standard cmb anisotropy studies do not prove the Copernican principle: they assume it at the start (like all religions do) …I can construct for you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical (religious) grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that . . . This assumption is made because it is believed to be unreasonable that we should be near the center of the universe."—George Ellis, Physicist, "Inhomogeneity Effects in Cosmology," arxiv:1103.2335v1 (Mar 2011). General Relativity and Gravitation 9 (2): 92 (1978).
"I can construct for you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical (religious) grounds … we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that… because of the foundational nature of the Copernican principle for standard cosmology, we need to fully check this foundation. And one must emphasize here that standard cmb anisotropy studies do not prove the Copernican principle: they assume it at the start."—Physicist. George Ellis "Inhomogeneity Effects in Cosmology" arxiv:1103.2335v1 (Mar 2011).


European "one of the most surprising findings is that the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave radiation temperatures at large angular scales do not match those predicted by the standard [big bang] model."—the European space agency, Planck probe, 2013


Ferguson "… you may be chagrined ... to realize that because of the concept of relative motion, no one can prove that the Earth moves."—Kitty Ferguson, Science Writer


Gardner ". . . nothing except inconvenience prevents us from choosing the Earth as a fixed frame of reference . . . if we choose to make the Earth our fixed frame of reference, we do not even do violence to everyday speech. We say that the sun rises in the morning, sets in the evening; the big dipper revolves around the north star … One could just as legitimately assume the Earth to be fixed and the entire universe, with its great spherical cloud of black-body radiation, to be moving. The equations are the same . . . " Martin Gardner, Scientific American Physics and mathematics author, 'The Relativity Explosion', pp. 184-185


Glancoll "This null result (of the Michelson-Morley experiment) was one of the great puzzles of physics at the end of the nineteenth century … is tantamount to assuming that the Earth is the central body of the universe."—Douglas Glancoll, 'physics: principles with applications,' 1985, pp. 613-614 and 1980, p.625.


Hawking "Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true . . . one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the Earth or the sun to be at rest … all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe...there is, however, an alternative explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too … We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe … to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked... That all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result."—physicist, Stephen Hawking, 'Relativity - The Special and General Theory', cited in 'Stubbornly Persistent Illusion', 2007, p. 169.


Hoyle "Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is 'right' and the Ptolemaic theory is 'wrong' in any meaningful sense, the two theories....are physically equivalent to one another. Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published in a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors will turn you down . . . we know now that the difference between a heliocentric and a geocentric theory is one of motions only, and that such a difference has no physical significance … instead of adding further support to the heliocentric picture of the planetary motions, the Einstein theory goes in the opposite direction, giving increased respectability to the geocentric picture."—Fred Hoyle, inventor of the 'big bang' term, 'Nicolaus Copernicus: an essay on his life and work,' p. 87


Hubble "... the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young … such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth... This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility...the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs..... Such a favored position is intolerable... Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position...must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape" - Edwin Hubble, the leading observational cosmologist of the 20th century, Monthly notices of the royal astronomical society, 17, 506, 1937.


Humboldt "I have already known a long time that we do not yet have proof for the system of Copernicus, but I shall not take the risk to be the first one attacking it."—Alexander Von Humboldt, Earth scientist and biogeographer


Jaffe " The data [of Michelson-Morley] were almost unbelievable... There was only one other possible conclusion to draw - that the Earth was at rest."—Bernard Jaffe, physical sciences author, Michelson and the Speed of Light, 1960, p. 76 -Bernard Jaffe, physicist



Katz "The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center … That is the Copernican dilemma … - Jonathan Katz, PhD, physics professor, "The biggest bangs: the mystery of gamma-ray bursts, the most violent explosions in the universe."—pp. 84. 90-91 (oxford university press. 2002).


"No longer could astronomers hope that the Copernican dilemma would disappear with improved data. The data (from Michelson-Morley) were in hand, and their implication inescapable: we are at the center of a spherically symmetric distribution of gamma- ray-burst sources, and this distribution has an outer edge."—astrophysics professor, Jonathan Katz


Krauss "but when you look at cmb map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the Earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. (because it conflicts with belief) We're looking out at the whole universe ... that would say we are truly the center of the universe."—physicist, Lawrence Krauss


Lieu "Cosmology is not even astrophysics: all the principal assumptions in this field are unverified (or unverifiable) in the laboratory, and researchers are quite comfortable with inventing unknowns to explain the unknown … cosmology has been propped by a paralyzing amount of propaganda which suppress counter evidence and subdue competing models."—Richard Lieu, professor physics and astronomy, 'Acdm cosmology: how much suppression of credible evidence, and does the model really lead its competitors. Using all evidence?'. 2007. Abstract.


Lorentz "Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest . . ."—physicist, Henrick Lorentz


Michelson "this conclusion directly contradicts the explanation...which presupposes that the Earth moves … My experiment proves the Earth does not rotate."—physicist, Albert Michelson, discoverer of the speed of light and experimental proof the Earth is not moving



Neugebauer "The Copernican solar theory is definitely a step in the wrong direction for the actual computation as well as for the underlying kinematic concepts."—Otto Neugebauer, mathematician, most productive historical scholar of our age, 'On the Planetary Theory of Copernicus' 1968', p. 103


Norton "Michelson and Morley found shifts in the interference fringes, but they were very much smaller than the size of the effect expected from the known (believed to be) orbital motion of the Earth."—physicist, John Norton


Otis "In the effort to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment ... The thought was advanced that the Earth might be stationary ... Such an idea was not considered seriously (it would conflict with belief), since it would mean in effect that our Earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe, with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage by revolving around it.' - Arthur Otis, Light Velocity and Relativity, p. 58.


Pauli "… the failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the Earth's motion on physical phenomena …"—physicist, Wolfgang Pauli, 'The Theory of Relativity', 1958, p. 4.

Peddyhoff
One can of course believe anything one likes as long as the consequences of that belief are trivial, but when survival depends on belief, then it matters that belief corresponds to manifest reality. We therefore teach navigators that the stars are fixed to the celestial sphere, which is centered on a fixed Earth, and around which it rotates in accordance with laws clearly deducible from common-sense observation, the sun and moon move across the inner surface of this sphere, and hence per force go around the Earth. This means that students of navigation must unlearn a lot of the confused dogma they learned in school, most of them find this remarkably easy, because dogma is as may be, but the real world is as we perceive it to be. If Andrew Hill will look in the Journal of Navigation he will find that the Earth-centered universe is alive and well."—Darcy Peddyhoff, Royal Air Force College, Cranwell, Lincolnshire, England, 'New Scientist,' 1979, vol. 83 no. 1168 p. 543 (In fact, all navigation instruction, including that from NASA, assumes a stationary Earth.)



Plait "I have two things to say that might surprise you: first, geocentrism is a valid frame of reference, and second, heliocentrism is not any more or less correct."—Astronomer, Phil Plait, PhD (The big bang hypothesis requires that all should be random with Earth not at the center. Nix the big bang and Earth can be center.)


Poincaré "a great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth's movement. The results were always negative . . . we do not have and cannot have any means of discovering whether or not we are carried along in a uniform motion of translation."—Henri Poincaré, physicist


Popov ."—Using Mach's principle, we will show that the observed diurnal and annual motion of the Earth can just as well be accounted as the diurnal rotation and annual revolution of the universe around the fixed and centered Earth."—Luka Popov, University of Zagreb


Reichenbach ". . . it makes no sense, accordingly, to speak of a difference in truth between Copernicus and Ptolemy: both conceptions are equally permissible descriptions. -physicist, Hans Reichenbach


Russell
". . . all motion is relative, and there is no difference between the two statements: 'the Earth rotates once a day' and 'the heavens revolve about the Earth once a day.' the two mean exactly the same thing . . . But to say more for Copernicus is to assume absolute motion, which is a fiction. . ."—Bertrand Russell, mathematician, logician


Singal "The apparent alignment in the cosmic microwave background in one particular direction through space is called 'evil' because it undermines our ideas about the standard cosmological model....the Copernican principle seems to be in jeopardy."—astrophysicist, Ashok Singal


Starkman "… it is very difficult to explain within the context of the canonical inflationary lambda cold dark matter of cosmology [the big bang]....the observations disagree markedly with the predictions of the theory."—· astrophysicists: Glenn Starkman, Craig Copi, Dragan Huterer, Dominik Schwarz


Valkenburg "The Copernican principle states that humans are not privileged observers of the universe and provides our philosophical basis (religious belief) for assuming that on the largest scale the universe is spatially homogeneous. While it is one of the foundational aspects of modern cosmology, this assumption remains untested outside of the standard paradigm (means untested without believing a result beforehand) Though it may seem pedantic to test something so obvious, the standard paradigm itself is built on shaky foundations, relying on an unexplained, gravitationally repulsive, dark- energy component for observations to fit the model. The implications of this cannot be overstated. Assuming that the laws of physics do apply equally everywhere in the universe, the only non- Copernican configuration possible is one in which we live in a place that originates from special initial conditions. Testing the Copernican Principle by Constraining Spatial Homogeneity."—Wessel Valkenburg, Valerio Mara, Chris Clarkson, Instituut- Lorentz for Theoretical Physics


Varshni "It is shown that the cosmological interpretation of the red shift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result: namely, that the Earth is the center of the universe… it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the universe. Consequently, both the special and general theory of relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes."—Y. P. Varshni, PhD, physicist, astrophysicist, Astrophysics and Space Science 43-1976


Whitrow " … when men were debating the rival merits of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. The result (of Michelson-Morley) would surely have been interpreted as conclusive evidence for the immobility of the Earth … " physicist, G. J. Whitrow


Wolfson "if it [Earth] isn't moving (science) … that may be an absurd possibility but maybe it's true. I think you can see that this is not going to be very philosophically satisfying … it suffices to rule it out on this philosophical (belief) ground."—physicist, Richard Wolfson


Wolfson "Never, never, in any orientation at any time of year, any shift in the interference pattern; none; no shift; no fringe shift; nothing … This was an experiment that was ten times more sensitive than it needed to be … It didn't detect it. What's the conclusion from the Michelson-Morley experiment? The implication is that the Earth is not moving..."—physicist, Richard Wolfson
 
I would love to hear about where you’re at currently with the concept of timelines. I assume many others would enjoy hearing about it too. I can’t recall you going into any detail on it in the last year or so.
I tap out on timelines. Jessa Reed seems to have a real grasp of it, and while I listened to a ton of her explanation of it I always just left it alone - like maybe it’s just not in my wheelhouse.
I have an interview coming up with pmh Atwater that has me thinking along these directions. it's a couple weeks out but I look forward to sharing it with you
 
Have you considered a few shows as a trialogue?

Those old ones with McKenna, Sheldrake, and …the math guy, forgot his name… were real gems.

In a trialogue a 3rd person has the opportunity mediate or recapitulate points to help get through stalemates. A 3rd person also allows more time to prepare a statement and less time to make it making statements more pithy.
sure... set it up and I'll do it. just make sure you get to skeptiko-worthy participants
 
Alex--

Modern Cosmology is a Religion


Way back, leaders of religions proclaimed that Earth was the center of the universe and that they were special intermediaries between gods and the people.

However, over the ages, people saw their lives improve by intelligent invention and manipulation of the material world, not by homage to religion and its irrationality and injustice that violated reason and conscience. So, religion and its gods were rejected in favor of matter....

Nice post, and very interesting. I have a question: if geocentrism were true, wouldn't that restore the idea of epicycles to account for the observed retrograde motion of planets as viewed from earth?

Everyone seems to be saying there's no difference between geocentrism and heliocentrism when it comes to making calculations for, say, navigational purposes, but epicycles aren't mentioned (unless I've missed it).

This is a genuine question, by the way: I'd be happy with whatever explanation of retrograde motion turned out to be true.
 
Nice post, and very interesting. I have a question: if geocentrism were true, wouldn't that restore the idea of epicycles to account for the observed retrograde motion of planets as viewed from earth?

Everyone seems to be saying there's no difference between geocentrism and heliocentrism when it comes to making calculations for, say, navigational purposes, but epicycles aren't mentioned (unless I've missed it).

This is a genuine question, by the way: I'd be happy with whatever explanation of retrograde motion turned out to be true.
Astronomers explain that some retrogrades are apparent but not real, others are real. Not sure if this is from the perspective of a big banger or a geocentrist.
At this point in my awakening, what the details of cosmology are is less important than learning the extent of the lies and why they are lying.
https://www.asifthinkingmatters.com/blog/category/lies-as-big-as-the-universe
Thanks for the comment and question.
 
Astronomers explain that some retrogrades are apparent but not real, others are real. Not sure if this is from the perspective of a big banger or a geocentrist.
At this point in my awakening, what the details of cosmology are is less important than learning the extent of the lies and why they are lying.
https://www.asifthinkingmatters.com/blog/category/lies-as-big-as-the-universe
Thanks for the comment and question.

Well, if heliocentrists are correct, it seems to me that epicycles are out, and if geocentrists are correct, they are in. I can't think of an alternative, so at the moment I see it as being one or the other, but not both. Which, I don't know.

As to your point about being lied to, I agree. Everyone lies, though not everyone is always aware when they're lying. Where the parroting stops and the deception begins isn't always easy to determine. I see one objective in life as ruthlessly trying to determine to what extent one is governed by lies, either one's own or others'. We're all governed by lies to greater or lesser extents.

Tell me, are you the author of the site you mention (and which I will be perusing), or is it produced by someone with whom you happen to agree?
 
Well, if heliocentrists are correct, it seems to me that epicycles are out, and if geocentrists are correct, they are in. I can't think of an alternative, so at the moment I see it as being one or the other, but not both. Which, I don't know.

As to your point about being lied to, I agree. Everyone lies, though not everyone is always aware when they're lying. Where the parroting stops and the deception begins isn't always easy to determine. I see one objective in life as ruthlessly trying to determine to what extent one is governed by lies, either one's own or others'. We're all governed by lies to greater or lesser extents.

Tell me, are you the author of the site you mention (and which I will be perusing), or is it produced by someone with whom you happen to agree?
Agreed. We are swimming in a sea of lies trying to find some islands of truth.
I am the author of that site.
 
Alex--

Modern Cosmology is a Religion


Way back, leaders of religions proclaimed that Earth was the center of the universe and that they were special intermediaries between gods and the people.

However, over the ages, people saw their lives improve by intelligent invention and manipulation of the material world, not by homage to religion and its irrationality and injustice that violated reason and conscience. So, religion and its gods were rejected in favor of matter.

(The illogic that the Creator with infinite incomprehensible power--as opposed to a man-made god--has anything to do with man-made religions was not even considered.)

It was concluded that with no gods and only matter, there would be no reason for Earth to be a special focal point in the universe. This required an alternate explanation for reality and existence.

So a new secular religion was born. Its tenets are:


A big bang of nothing created an infinite meaningless universe containing atomic dust that gravitationally accreted into heavenly bodies including our Earthball moving in several different directions at 2.8 million mph and holding an atmosphere next to the vacuum of space while spontaneously forming life from primeval sludge that then evolved into complicated rocks called humans with no free will.
Its high priests are the authorities and experts in the secular state who now determine what the masses are to believe. Just like god-religions, indoctrination, and fear are their tools of obeisance and compliance. Both religions cause immeasurable human suffering because they are divorced from reality.

In the following quotes from renowned high priest secular experts, religious belief, not the scientific method, is the guiding principle to protect the sacred doctrines of materialism, evolutionism, and big bangism. This religion is disguised as science.

Note the difficulty that honesty and open-mindedness present to notable big bang proponents. It's understandable, they, like all of us, have been thoroughly brainwashed since in the crib looking up at solar system mobiles.

Moreover, if the cosmology doctrine fails, their whole belief structure collapses since their doctrines about origins, evolution, and the very nature of humans would be jeopardized.

Definitions to help understand the following quotations--
>Copernican heliocentric model--the Earth spins, rotates around the sun and galaxy, and gyrates through the universe
>Ptolemaic geocentric model--the Earth is the center of a universe that rotates around it
>Michelson-Morley experiment--an experiment using the speed of light that determined that the Earth was motionless. It voids the moving Earth like the double-slit experiment voids materialism.
>Relativity---Einstein invented relativity to counter the Michelson-Morley proof that the Earth does not move. Relativity is a belief, a religious tenet disguised as science. (The backbone of relativity is the belief that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. However, that has been proven wrong by Nobel Prize winners. https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/win-nobel-prize-physics-scientists-210200546.html)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no intent to prove anything here other than not all experts agree that the standard cosmology is a proven paradigm. Readers should do their research, as I have, to see what facts, reason, and science support.



American PS "Although dark energy may seem a bit contrived to some, the oxford theorists are proposing an even more outrageous alternative. They point out that it's possible that we simply live in a very special place in the universe … The suggestion flies in the face of the Copernican principle … any theory that suggests that we're special is most likely wrong (religious assertion) … Dark energy may seem like a stretch, but it's consistent with the venerable (hallowed) Copernican principle. The proposal that we live in a special place in the universe, on the other hand, is likely to shock many scientists."—American Physical Society. 'Dark Energy: is It Merely an Illusion?' ScienceDaily, 29 September 2008. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080926184749.htm.
(Dark matter and dark energy were both invented doctrines to explain mathematical problems related to mass, gravity, and star formation that conflict with the Copernican model and big bang. It's like god-religions invoking miracles, approved doctrines, and holy spirits when beliefs contradict facts.)


Baker "… failure [of Michelson-Morley] to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the Earth must be 'at rest' (science) ... Yet we have known (belief) since Galileo that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Why should it be at rest in space?" physicist, Adolph Baker


Barbour "thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo ... it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the earth moves ..."—physicist. Julian Barbour


Barnett "we can't feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the earth actually is in motion … "The Michelson-Morley … experiment was tried again by Morley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of the Earth through the ether was zero."—Science writer, author of The Universe and Dr. Einstein, Lincoln Barnett


Born "… from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right."—physicist, Max Born, 'Einstein's Theory of Relativity, 1962, pp. 344, 345


Bouw "Again, once more for the record: it has been shown at least six different ways this century alone that the equations and physics used by NASA to launch satellites are identical to the equations derived from a geocentric universe. Thus, if the space program is proof of anything, it proves geocentricity and disproves heliocentrism. The evidence for heliocentrism is even weaker than the evidence for evolution."—astronomer Gerardus D. Bouw, PhD.


Chown "... so what would it mean if the outcome were that the Copernican principle is wrong? It would certainly require a seismic reassessment of what we know about the universe … if the Copernican principle fails, all that goes [with] that (the big bang) goes out the window too ... If we are in a void, answering how we came to be in such a privileged spot in the universe would be even trickier."—Marcus Chown, physics and astrophysics science writer, "Is the Earth at the heart of a giant cosmic void?" New Scientist, Nov. 12, 2008, pp. 32-35


Clifton "… Alternatively, it could be the case that the Copernican principle is invalid, and that the data has been interpreted within an inappropriate theoretical framework. If we were to live in a special place in the universe, near the centre of a void where the local matter density is low, then the supernovae observations would be accounted for without the addition of dark energy."—Timothy Clifton, Oxford astrophysics member, PhD . "Living in a void: testing the Copernican principle with distant supernovae" Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (13): 1302 (sep 2008).


Cohen "There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove that the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun. the sun moves in an orbit around the Earth in a year. Furthermore, the daily rotation of the heavens is communicated to the sun and planets, so that the Earth itself neither rotates nor revolves in an orbit."—physicist, Bernard Cohen

Coleman "...the easiest explanation was that the Earth was fixed . . . such an idea was not considered seriously, since it would mean in effect that our Earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe, with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage by moving around it."—physicist, James Coleman


Coleman "The explanation which had the most appeal in accounting for the negative result of the Michelson Morley experiment was one that was literally dreamed up for the purpose … Objections to the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction hypothesis were rampant … because there was no evidence to prove that such an effect took place."—James a. Coleman, professor of physics and chairman of the department of physics


Davies "Often the simplest of observations will have the most profound consequences, it has long been a cornerstone of modern science,(religion) to say nothing of man's cosmic outlook, that the Earth attends a modest star that shines in an undistinguished part of a run-of-the-mill galaxy. Life arose spontaneously and man evolved on this miscellaneous clump of matter and now directs his own destiny without outside help. This cosmic model is supported by the big-bang and expanding universe concepts, (doctrines, not science) … The argument advanced by George Ellis in this article is more complex than this, but his basic thrust is to put man back into a favored position in the cosmos. His new theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations, even though it clashes with the thought that we are godless and making it on our own."—editor of Nature Magazine, Paul Davies


Dreyer "The Earth-centered system is in reality absolutely identical with the system of Copernicus and all computation of the places of the planets are the same for the two systems."—astronomer, J. Dreyer


Eddington "There was just one alternative; the Earth's true velocity through space might happen to have been nil … The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion … " Sir Arthur Eddington, Physicist, 'Space, Time and Gravitation, p. 20


Einstein "...to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked...that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. (real science and facts) Before the theory of relativity was put forward (not a scientific theory but fabrication to attempt to salvage Copernicus), it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result… I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment (science) … the sun is at rest and the Earth moves, or 'the sun moves and the Earth is at rest, would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems … though the Earth is revolving around the sun." (obstinate belief)—'The Evolution of Physics,' Albert Einstein, physicist



Ellis "… and one must emphasize here that standard cmb anisotropy studies do not prove the Copernican principle: they assume it at the start (like all religions do) …I can construct for you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical (religious) grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that . . . This assumption is made because it is believed to be unreasonable that we should be near the center of the universe."—George Ellis, Physicist, "Inhomogeneity Effects in Cosmology," arxiv:1103.2335v1 (Mar 2011). General Relativity and Gravitation 9 (2): 92 (1978).
"I can construct for you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical (religious) grounds … we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that… because of the foundational nature of the Copernican principle for standard cosmology, we need to fully check this foundation. And one must emphasize here that standard cmb anisotropy studies do not prove the Copernican principle: they assume it at the start."—Physicist. George Ellis "Inhomogeneity Effects in Cosmology" arxiv:1103.2335v1 (Mar 2011).


European "one of the most surprising findings is that the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave radiation temperatures at large angular scales do not match those predicted by the standard [big bang] model."—the European space agency, Planck probe, 2013


Ferguson "… you may be chagrined ... to realize that because of the concept of relative motion, no one can prove that the Earth moves."—Kitty Ferguson, Science Writer


Gardner ". . . nothing except inconvenience prevents us from choosing the Earth as a fixed frame of reference . . . if we choose to make the Earth our fixed frame of reference, we do not even do violence to everyday speech. We say that the sun rises in the morning, sets in the evening; the big dipper revolves around the north star … One could just as legitimately assume the Earth to be fixed and the entire universe, with its great spherical cloud of black-body radiation, to be moving. The equations are the same . . . " Martin Gardner, Scientific American Physics and mathematics author, 'The Relativity Explosion', pp. 184-185


Glancoll "This null result (of the Michelson-Morley experiment) was one of the great puzzles of physics at the end of the nineteenth century … is tantamount to assuming that the Earth is the central body of the universe."—Douglas Glancoll, 'physics: principles with applications,' 1985, pp. 613-614 and 1980, p.625.


Hawking "Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true . . . one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the Earth or the sun to be at rest … all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe...there is, however, an alternative explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too … We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe … to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked... That all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result."—physicist, Stephen Hawking, 'Relativity - The Special and General Theory', cited in 'Stubbornly Persistent Illusion', 2007, p. 169.


Hoyle "Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is 'right' and the Ptolemaic theory is 'wrong' in any meaningful sense, the two theories....are physically equivalent to one another. Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published in a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors will turn you down . . . we know now that the difference between a heliocentric and a geocentric theory is one of motions only, and that such a difference has no physical significance … instead of adding further support to the heliocentric picture of the planetary motions, the Einstein theory goes in the opposite direction, giving increased respectability to the geocentric picture."—Fred Hoyle, inventor of the 'big bang' term, 'Nicolaus Copernicus: an essay on his life and work,' p. 87


Hubble "... the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young … such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth... This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility...the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs..... Such a favored position is intolerable... Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position...must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape" - Edwin Hubble, the leading observational cosmologist of the 20th century, Monthly notices of the royal astronomical society, 17, 506, 1937.


Humboldt "I have already known a long time that we do not yet have proof for the system of Copernicus, but I shall not take the risk to be the first one attacking it."—Alexander Von Humboldt, Earth scientist and biogeographer


Jaffe " The data [of Michelson-Morley] were almost unbelievable... There was only one other possible conclusion to draw - that the Earth was at rest."—Bernard Jaffe, physical sciences author, Michelson and the Speed of Light, 1960, p. 76 -Bernard Jaffe, physicist



Katz "The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center … That is the Copernican dilemma … - Jonathan Katz, PhD, physics professor, "The biggest bangs: the mystery of gamma-ray bursts, the most violent explosions in the universe."—pp. 84. 90-91 (oxford university press. 2002).


"No longer could astronomers hope that the Copernican dilemma would disappear with improved data. The data (from Michelson-Morley) were in hand, and their implication inescapable: we are at the center of a spherically symmetric distribution of gamma- ray-burst sources, and this distribution has an outer edge."—astrophysics professor, Jonathan Katz


Krauss "but when you look at cmb map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the Earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. (because it conflicts with belief) We're looking out at the whole universe ... that would say we are truly the center of the universe."—physicist, Lawrence Krauss


Lieu "Cosmology is not even astrophysics: all the principal assumptions in this field are unverified (or unverifiable) in the laboratory, and researchers are quite comfortable with inventing unknowns to explain the unknown … cosmology has been propped by a paralyzing amount of propaganda which suppress counter evidence and subdue competing models."—Richard Lieu, professor physics and astronomy, 'Acdm cosmology: how much suppression of credible evidence, and does the model really lead its competitors. Using all evidence?'. 2007. Abstract.


Lorentz "Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest . . ."—physicist, Henrick Lorentz


Michelson "this conclusion directly contradicts the explanation...which presupposes that the Earth moves … My experiment proves the Earth does not rotate."—physicist, Albert Michelson, discoverer of the speed of light and experimental proof the Earth is not moving



Neugebauer "The Copernican solar theory is definitely a step in the wrong direction for the actual computation as well as for the underlying kinematic concepts."—Otto Neugebauer, mathematician, most productive historical scholar of our age, 'On the Planetary Theory of Copernicus' 1968', p. 103


Norton "Michelson and Morley found shifts in the interference fringes, but they were very much smaller than the size of the effect expected from the known (believed to be) orbital motion of the Earth."—physicist, John Norton


Otis "In the effort to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment ... The thought was advanced that the Earth might be stationary ... Such an idea was not considered seriously (it would conflict with belief), since it would mean in effect that our Earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe, with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage by revolving around it.' - Arthur Otis, Light Velocity and Relativity, p. 58.


Pauli "… the failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the Earth's motion on physical phenomena …"—physicist, Wolfgang Pauli, 'The Theory of Relativity', 1958, p. 4.

Peddyhoff
One can of course believe anything one likes as long as the consequences of that belief are trivial, but when survival depends on belief, then it matters that belief corresponds to manifest reality. We therefore teach navigators that the stars are fixed to the celestial sphere, which is centered on a fixed Earth, and around which it rotates in accordance with laws clearly deducible from common-sense observation, the sun and moon move across the inner surface of this sphere, and hence per force go around the Earth. This means that students of navigation must unlearn a lot of the confused dogma they learned in school, most of them find this remarkably easy, because dogma is as may be, but the real world is as we perceive it to be. If Andrew Hill will look in the Journal of Navigation he will find that the Earth-centered universe is alive and well."—Darcy Peddyhoff, Royal Air Force College, Cranwell, Lincolnshire, England, 'New Scientist,' 1979, vol. 83 no. 1168 p. 543 (In fact, all navigation instruction, including that from NASA, assumes a stationary Earth.)



Plait "I have two things to say that might surprise you: first, geocentrism is a valid frame of reference, and second, heliocentrism is not any more or less correct."—Astronomer, Phil Plait, PhD (The big bang hypothesis requires that all should be random with Earth not at the center. Nix the big bang and Earth can be center.)


Poincaré "a great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth's movement. The results were always negative . . . we do not have and cannot have any means of discovering whether or not we are carried along in a uniform motion of translation."—Henri Poincaré, physicist


Popov ."—Using Mach's principle, we will show that the observed diurnal and annual motion of the Earth can just as well be accounted as the diurnal rotation and annual revolution of the universe around the fixed and centered Earth."—Luka Popov, University of Zagreb


Reichenbach ". . . it makes no sense, accordingly, to speak of a difference in truth between Copernicus and Ptolemy: both conceptions are equally permissible descriptions. -physicist, Hans Reichenbach


Russell ". . . all motion is relative, and there is no difference between the two statements: 'the Earth rotates once a day' and 'the heavens revolve about the Earth once a day.' the two mean exactly the same thing . . . But to say more for Copernicus is to assume absolute motion, which is a fiction. . ."—Bertrand Russell, mathematician, logician


Singal "The apparent alignment in the cosmic microwave background in one particular direction through space is called 'evil' because it undermines our ideas about the standard cosmological model....the Copernican principle seems to be in jeopardy."—astrophysicist, Ashok Singal


Starkman "… it is very difficult to explain within the context of the canonical inflationary lambda cold dark matter of cosmology [the big bang]....the observations disagree markedly with the predictions of the theory."—· astrophysicists: Glenn Starkman, Craig Copi, Dragan Huterer, Dominik Schwarz


Valkenburg "The Copernican principle states that humans are not privileged observers of the universe and provides our philosophical basis (religious belief) for assuming that on the largest scale the universe is spatially homogeneous. While it is one of the foundational aspects of modern cosmology, this assumption remains untested outside of the standard paradigm (means untested without believing a result beforehand) Though it may seem pedantic to test something so obvious, the standard paradigm itself is built on shaky foundations, relying on an unexplained, gravitationally repulsive, dark- energy component for observations to fit the model. The implications of this cannot be overstated. Assuming that the laws of physics do apply equally everywhere in the universe, the only non- Copernican configuration possible is one in which we live in a place that originates from special initial conditions. Testing the Copernican Principle by Constraining Spatial Homogeneity."—Wessel Valkenburg, Valerio Mara, Chris Clarkson, Instituut- Lorentz for Theoretical Physics


Varshni "It is shown that the cosmological interpretation of the red shift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result: namely, that the Earth is the center of the universe… it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the universe. Consequently, both the special and general theory of relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes."—Y. P. Varshni, PhD, physicist, astrophysicist, Astrophysics and Space Science 43-1976


Whitrow " … when men were debating the rival merits of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. The result (of Michelson-Morley) would surely have been interpreted as conclusive evidence for the immobility of the Earth … " physicist, G. J. Whitrow


Wolfson "if it [Earth] isn't moving (science) … that may be an absurd possibility but maybe it's true. I think you can see that this is not going to be very philosophically satisfying … it suffices to rule it out on this philosophical (belief) ground."—physicist, Richard Wolfson


Wolfson "Never, never, in any orientation at any time of year, any shift in the interference pattern; none; no shift; no fringe shift; nothing … This was an experiment that was ten times more sensitive than it needed to be … It didn't detect it. What's the conclusion from the Michelson-Morley experiment? The implication is that the Earth is not moving..."—physicist, Richard Wolfson

I like all of this. Nevertheless, I think that it is shear idiocy when people say things like "the earth is shaped in the form of whatever you think it is." Can we apply the same kind of thinking to mountains or lakes? Oceans? Some dumb fuck wants to think that a mountain is a cloud and flies a plane into it? Does that work? Also, this prevailing, yet absolutely retarded thinking, that says reality is created as a number of idiots believe an amount of bullshit! I am sure that I will be accused of some moral imprecations here, but you can take a billion idiots and let them believe one screw will be imbedded into a piece of wood.....guess what....NOTHING HAPPENS!
 
Back
Top