Geocentrism.co.uk

Geocentrism refers to any theory that places the Earth at the centre of the Universe or the Solar System. It covers everything from Ptolemy’s scheme from two thousand years ago to modern re-evaluations of Cosmology. This site is concerned with the latter.

Geocentrism is a difficult topic, but the evidence for the Earth being in a favoured position in the Universe is far, far stronger than most people realise.  I was going to add a page on Geocentrism to www.christianrethink.co.uk, but decided the topic needed a site of its own. For convenience I’m using a copy of the Christian Rethink site for the basic design, and gradually adding relevant articles. Please come back later!

For now, here’s a quick guide to some of the things you need to know in order to come to a conclusion on Geocentrism:

The Ether (also called Aether or Luminiferous Ether.)

Interferometer

Einstein’s two Relativity Theories

Aberration of light

Sagnac Experiment

Michelson-Morley Experiment

Airey’s “Failure” Experiment

Stellar Parallax

Big Bang

Michelson-Gale Experiment

Copernican Principle

Tychonic Geocentrism

Mach’s Principle

Cosmological Principle

Newton’s Bucket Experiment

Ptolemy

Twin Paradox

Coriolis Force

A main proponent of Geocentrism today is Robert Sungenis . Googling his name will bring up a lot of thought-provoking material.

 

 

 

The Churches are in error in many ways. Their support of Darwinism is but one example. This column highlights a number of others.

The origin of this site goes back a decade to when I first attempted to understand Einstein’s Relativity Theories. I was troubled by the assertion that light always travels at the same speed regardless of anything else at all. This is counter-intuitive to say the least. It also seemed strange to me that there are still two theories (Special and General) rather than one unified theory. And beyond that, the existence of an Ether (effectively denied by Einstein) had always made sense to me. Googling back then, I looked at the Michelson-Morley and Michelson-Gale experiments, but being busy with other things I think I confused them! Geocentrism popped up, but seemed to have little going for it. And almost every site I looked at seemed to confirm Relativity. In due course I gave up, guessing that Einstein was probably right, and that may be it didn’t matter anyway.

At the time I was doing this I was already convinced that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was false, but still working through some details, particularly with respect to geological processes. Fast forward to today, and I find Darwin’s Theory not just false, but hilarious. And at some point over recent years I had at last become aware of Nicola Tesla and what a great scientist he was. These things coming together prompted some fresh questions:

Why were Darwin and Einstein promoted as possibly the greatest scientists ever, when at least one of them was not great at all?

Why has Tesla been almost air-brushed out of history, when he really was great?

If Darwin can be lauded for producing a grossly defective and godless theory that most people believe, could the same be true of Einstein?

Could Relativity be a can of worms that directs people away from scientific evidence for God, in particular the possibility that the Earth is in a favoured place in the Universe?

And so, with much more time at my disposal, I began looking again. I soon found the crucial Sagnac Experiment, which I had never heard of previously. Things moved on, and I felt it justified a website which was a ready reference to all the key experiments, arguments, and other matters relevant to Geocentrism. Right now (April 2019) it’s barely getting its umbilical cord cut. Please come back later when it’s grown up a bit!

In the last ten years there has been an explosion of material about Flat Earth on the web. Flat Earth is easy to disprove. The curvature of the Earth has been obvious to sailors for thousands of years. The Greek Eratosthenes made a remarkably accurate estimate of the diameter of the spherical Earth two hundred years before Christ. And if you are in any doubt, look at a view of the Southern Hemisphere on Google Earth, and try booking some Southern Hemisphere flights. You will soon see that flight times do not permit flying right across the Northern continents, which a Flat Earth would require!

So why the upsurge in Flat Earth interest? It certainly has nothing to do with an increase in evidence for it. A possible reason is that there is more evidence for Geocentrism on the web than ever before, and people are coming to recognise its strength. For many, this is anathema. Yet the Geocentric or “Favoured Position” evidence is extremely hard to refute. Creating confusion between Flat Earth and Geocentrism is a relatively easy way to discredit the latter. (Flat Earthers, if they even exist apart from internet trolls, also promote Geocentrism.)

The “official” reason would be that Science makes an a priori assumption that there is no god, and everything must be explained without reference to such. An a priori, or prior assumption, is one that is made without research or evidence. As Wikipedia puts it, you don’t even need to get out of bed to arrive at it.

A more realistic explanation is that most scientists, like most people, want nothing to do with God. Anything that points to the Earth being in a favoured position in the Universe also points to a Creator. Therefore, given two possible explanations of an observation, the one chosen and promoted will always be the one that points away from God.

 

Evolution versus Creation, Geocentrism versus the Earth in some random corner of the Universe: both have clear implications for belief in God. In both debates science is held to be firmly on the side of atheism; and we all “know” that science cannot be wrong.

For anyone considering these matters, the place to start is Evolution. It is much easier to get to grips with the science there, which is mainly Biology, than with the Geocentrism issue. The science behind the latter is not only Physics, but  it involves a lot of rather esoteric Physics. If you are already convinced that Darwin was badly wrong, you may have the motivation to plough through all the science relating to Geocentrism. If not, it is incomparably easier to research Evolution. And once convinced that Evolution is false, it becomes clear that Darwin is venerated for totally defective science. Knowing that gives a great motivation to question Einstein’s elevation to “Mega-genius”. He is the kingpin in upholding a view of the Universe which is every bit as godless as Darwin’s.

In the first column on the homepage there are short articles pointing to errors in the evolution theory. On the science page there are many external links for further study.

Some people are interested in Geocentrism simply as one of the possibilities of the structure of the Universe. This might be prompted by unease with Relativity, the evidence for the Ether, or simply a desire to know the truth whatever it may be. But the great significance of Geocentrism, whether absolute Geocentrism (the Earth as the absolute centre of the Universe) or the Earth in some “Privileged Position”, is that it proves an Intelligent Creator. Given the vastness of the Universe, the possibility of the Earth being in some special position by chance alone is unthinkable.

 

This article covers a number of issues with Einstein that show him in a different light from the usual characterisation of slightly eccentric mega-genius.

Einstein is invariably connected with, and credited with, the famous formula e=mc². In essence the formula shows that energy and matter are the same “stuff”. It also shows that a very small amount of matter, when converted, produces a vast amount of energy. e=mc² is inextricably connected in the public imagination with Einstein, his alleged incredible genius, and Relativity. And the public did not reach this imagination on their own; it was constant (and continuing) media hype that provided it.

The first part of the truth is that a substantial assortment of scientists had already worked on the equivalence of matter and energy. James Clerk Maxwell, Johann Soldner, Michael Faraday, Samuel Preston, Julius Mayer, J. J. Thomson, Freidrich Hasenöhrl, and Philipp Lenard to name some. The e=mc² formula and the similar e=4/3mc² were both known. Giving all the credit to Einstein, or, indeed, giving any of the credit to Einstein is a clear aberration. Some people consider Einstein a plagiarist (one who copies the work of others without attribution.) That is a far more accurate assessment than “mega-genius”.

The second part of the truth is that there is in any event no essential connection between Relativity and e=mc². The former is highly questionable, the latter is not only arrived at without Relativity, but is proved experimentally every time a Nuclear Reactor fires up or an Atomic Bomb is detonated. The connection between the well-proven e=mc², Einstein’s supposed genius, and Relativity, is totally bogus. And the scale of the promotion of it suggests deliberate action.

A further issue is with the question of the Ether. This substance, if you can call it that, is the medium through which light waves are often believed to travel. Since light has all the normal characteristics of a wave, yet travels in a vacuum, it is logical to assume the existence of a medium through which it travels. But this medium is completely undetectable in any other way. The Michelson-Morley Experiment (MMX) was set up to detect it through its interaction with light and the motion of the Earth around the Sun. The result was negative. There were three possible conclusions from this:

1 The Ether doesn’t exist.

2 The local Ether is dragged along with the Earth.

3 The Earth is stationary.

Michelson still believed, in spite of his result, that the Ether existed; but Einstein and others leapt on the first possible conclusion. MMX therefore played a major role in the genesis of Relativity Theory. However, it had not disproved the Ether. Further experiments were needed to understand which of the three conclusions was correct.

Thus Einstein reached a conclusion that space really is just that. There is absolutely nothing there. But the later Sagnac Experiment showed that the Ether does exist. And Einstein himself came to the view that space was actually filled with Space-Time, and that Space-Time is curved. How can absolute nothingness be curved? There must be something there. Further, modern Cosmology supposes the existence of Dark Energy and Dark Matter, which actually make up most of the mass of the Universe. Is this undetectable matter and energy what would previously have been called the Ether?

Further still, Einstein in his 1920 Leiden Lecture (here ) confirmed his own belief in the existence of an Ether!

Finally, Einstein’s “Thought Experiments” cannot pass without mention. I remember, as a teenager, watching an Einstein documentary on a Black and White TV of the time. I was deeply impressed, just as I was meant to be, by the fact that his brilliance enabled him to carry out these Thought Experiments. The truth, of course, was never mentioned. Science depends on real experiments carried out in the real World. Whatever may go on in someone’s imagination is just that: imagination.

In view of all the above, it is necessary to view Einstein and Relativity in a far more critical way. And also to consider the third possible conclusion of MMX: that the Earth is not moving with respect to the Sun.