Gab@StFerdinandIII - https://unstabbinated.substack.com/
Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Corona, 'The Science' or Scientism, Islam, the State, the cult of Gender Fascism, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion...
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
Cosmic Background Radiation is used as a proof of the ‘Big Bang’ a discredited theory, where supposedly a singular ‘egg’ containing all the elements within the universe ‘exploded’, creating everything, including life on this planet, and this explosion left a radiation imprint in the cosmos. As previous posts have outlined, this theory and its CMB derivative is entirely fabricated and wrong. However, it is even worse for the Banging-faithful. CMB as properly understood, actually undermines and negates the Big Bang model. Hanging yourself on your own petard and all that.
The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) is radiation in the form of microwaves (the same which are produced in a microwave oven) which is supposedly the residual energy left over from the Big Bang that was said to have occurred 13.7 billion years ago. The original temperature of the Big Bang explosion was believed to have been about 3000 degrees Kelvin and this is said to have cooled down to the present 2.75° Kelvin of the CMB 13.7 billion years later as the universe expanded. No evidence exists for these suppositions, just models and thought experiments.
[A problem with this dogma is that our universe supposedly has a diameter of 93 billion light years, or roughly 550 billion-trillion miles. 13.7 billion years is not enough time for this distance to be created at the speed of light.]
In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson ‘discovered’ the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation or ‘CMB’. It was hailed as one of the greatest discoveries ‘ever’ (or ‘evah’ in climate-speak), ‘confirming’ the Catholic Fr. Georges Lemaître’s theory, from the 1930s (Penzias and Wilson, 1965).
There was, however, a generational-long history of CMB ‘discovery’, including Reber (d. 2002) whose discoveries in the early 1940s of the CMB were widely published in many peer-reviewed journals and the Canadian astronomer Andrew McKellar (1941) who discovered interstellar gas radiating at 3º Kelvin. The Americans Penzias and Wilson (1965) received credit for this ‘insight’ because they interpreted the CMB in line with the Big Bang theology - a burgeoning field with enormous financial support. But the ideas of CMB date to at least 1895. Forecasts of the temperature of CMB have been all over the place:
· In 1895, C. E. Guillaume, determined that the cosmic temperature (or CMB) should be 5° or 6° K (Guillaume, 1896).
· In 1926 Sir Arthur Eddington posited that the space between the heated bodies of the universe would cool down to a temperature slightly above absolute zero, and his chosen figure was between 2.8° and 3.18° K (Eddington, 1926).
· Seven years later (1933), Erhard Regener obtained the figure of 2.8° Kelvin, and stipulated that it was a homogeneous energy field.
· Nernst posited 0.75° Kelvin in 1938; Herzberg 2.3° K in 1941; Finlay-Freundlich, using the theory of “tired light” said it should be between 1.9° to 6° K.
One of the main tenets of the Big Bang theory is that the currently agreed 2.728ºK temperature is the result of radiation released in the reaction of electrons and protons that were in the process of forming hydrogen about one million years after the initial explosion. Since the temperature during this reactive state is said to have been 3,000 ºK, the resulting 2.728ºK is said to be the result of a hydrogen flash redshift factor of z = 1,000, although few have an explanation why there were no objects in the cosmos with z factors between 10 and 1000.
Sir Fred Hoyle dubbed this theory “The Big Bang” to register his scepticism regarding its scientific validity, although Hoyle tenaciously held to an equally weak view called “The Steady State” theory, which holds that the universe is infinite yet comes into being little by little (Physics Today, Nov 1982). Although Big Bang advocates claim that their theory predicted the existence of the CMB, their prediction was quite higher than the present 2.728° Kelvin as given in the list above (Gamow, 1961).
Few dispute the rather obvious fact that the CMB exists, but what is disputed is precisely why it exists and what it means. All in all, there is little to persuade the critical observer that a Big Bang produces the CMB, as opposed to merely the natural minimum of heat expected in a universe at equilibrium. As Andre Assis puts it:
Usually it is claimed that the CBR (cosmic background radiation) is a proof of the big bang and of the expansion of the universe as it had been predicted by Gamow and collaborators….However, we performed a bibliographic search and found something quite different from this view….we have found several predictions or estimations of this temperature based on a stationary universe without expansion, always varying between 2 K and 6 K. Moreover, one of these estimates [C. E. Guillaume] was performed in 1896, prior to Gamow’s birth in 1904! The conclusion is that the discovery of the CBR by Penzias and Wilson in 1965 is a decisive factor in favour of a universe in dynamical equilibrium without expansion, and against the big bang (Assis, pp. 189-190).
Not only can the CMB be shown to be unsupportive of the Big Bang theory, but it is obvious that the low Kelvin temperature is consistent with non-expanding models of the universe, e.g., geocentric models of the universe. This is anathema to ‘The Science’.
The reality that a low “residual energy” CMB invalidates the Big Bang and actually points to the Earth as the barycentre of the cosmos is sometimes admitted by ‘The Science’. Joseph Silk of the University of California (Berkeley) lamented:
Studies of the cosmic background radiation have confirmed the isotropy of the radiation, or its complete uniformity in all directions. If the universe possesses a center, we must be very close to it…” (Silk, pp. 399-400).
If observed anywhere else in the universe the CMB will appear heavily anisotropic (or heterogenous, dissimilar). If viewed from the Earth the CMB appears to be isotropic or homogenous. This cannot be tolerated by ‘The Science’, therefore there have been some furious attempts to dismiss this fact by presuming, in addition to its isotropy, that the universe is also homogeneous, since all Big Bang and Steady-State cosmologies require both isotropy and homogeneity (Ellis, p. 92). Yet this is not what their own evidence shows.
The Earth-viewed observation of CMB isotropy serves as the absolute frame of reference, anathema to Special Relativity and the cult of Einstein. But there it is. As V. J. Weisskopf states:
It is remarkable that we now are justified in talking about an absolute motion, and that we can measure it. The great dream of Michelson and Morley is realized….It makes sense to say that an observer is at rest in an absolute sense when the 3K radiation appears to have the same frequencies in all directions. Nature has provided an absolute frame of reference. The deeper significance of this concept is not yet clear (Weisskopf, 1983).
Einstein’s make-believe world of ‘Relativity’ relied on no absolutes, no frame of reference, no ether and no inconstancy in the speed of light, including the ‘acceleration’ of the universe pace the Big Bang dogma. He was wrong on every assumption. More here
The Sloan Digital Sky Survey or SDSS, now more than 25 years old, was financed and created to provide the most accurate mapping of the galaxies, quasars, and other objects in the universe to date. It is a long-running project currently in phase 5. Hundreds of astronomers, dozens of institutions and observatories from around the globe are involved mapping out hundreds of thousands of galaxies, quasars, objects and of course the ever-elusive ‘dark matter’, without which, the entirely of the Big Bang theology fails. In their own words, the Sloan Sky survey:
…will map in detail one-quarter of the entire sky, determining the positions and absolute brightnesses of more than 100 million celestial objects. It will also measure the distances to more than a million galaxies and quasars… The SDSS addresses fascinating, fundamental questions about the universe…will tell us which theories are right – or whether we have to come up with entirely new ideas.
The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) is a joint project of The University of Chicago, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, The Johns Hopkins University, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck- Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, University of Pittsburgh, Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington. Funding for the project has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the participating institutions, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, and the Max Planck Society.
A long list of the great and good institutions. The ‘establishment’ of academic cosmology no less. Yet as they declare in their mission statement, creating and developing new ideas will need to be undertaken, along with the decommissioning of the Big Bang religion and much of Copernicanism. The SDSS simply does not support either. Not that anyone is told this.
In fact, ‘The Science’ as it always has done when faced with evidence which eviscerates its dogma, will simply declare that the observations in fact support and confirm their theology! Indeed, it is ‘exactly as they expected’. We have heard the same for 200 years from the drugs-pharmaceutical industry, not to mention the non-sciences of evolution, medicine, virology, space exploration, and climate theology. In every sphere and cult within ‘The Science’ the above declarations are the standard mantra. Just ignore the evidence, obfuscate, issue propaganda, delete evidence and declare in ever-so confident tones that ‘The Science’ has been vindicated. After this confident assertion, supported by tortured data sets, collect your money.
By 2003, the SDSS had already discovered that the Earth seemed to be in the center of the known universe. Since then, the data has simply accumulated in support of this observation. However, howls of outrage and name-calling are sure to follow if this idea is either distributed or worse believed. But there it is.
The SDSS confirms that the Earth in the center of two wedge-shaped galaxy segments near the ‘barycenter’ or center of universal mass. The SDSS also shows that galaxy density decreases as the distance from Earth increases, implying a concentric proportion leading to the Earth. This means that the Bangers cannot use the excuse that the view if from the observer, namely our Earth, and therefore ‘distorts’ the known universe’s map.
If one were to perform a similar survey from another part of the universe, these concentric proportions would not appear. This means that the centrality of Earth provided by the Sloan Digital Survey is thus consistent with the quantization of redshift values that have been accumulated for five decades or more (Varshni, Alp). Once again, the ‘Copernican Principle’ is violated and no proof whatsoever can be offered in its defense. The ‘Copernican Principle’, is simply that the Earth is an unimportant little flattened spheroid at the centre of nothing and therefore by extension, humans are a blind chance artefact of no great import, probably evolved from panspermic space dust.
But the facts don’t support this misanthropy or its associated dogma. Concentricity and the heterogeneous distribution of galaxies are in defiance of mainstream cosmology’s claims and models including its vaunted ‘Copernican Principle’. The fact that the universe is not isotropic and does not show the same properties in every direction, as predicted by this ‘Principle’, means we have an anisotropic or heterogenous universe. Given these facts, if the observer view was to change from the Earth to somewhere else in the universe, we can see that the mathematical theorems underlying galaxy formation are wrong and this viewer would conclude that the Earth is at the center. Astronomer Harold Slusher wrote:
If the distribution of galaxies is homogeneous, then doubling the distance should increase the galaxy count eightfold; tripling it should produce a galaxy count 27 times as large. Actual counts of galaxies show a rate substantially less than this. If allowed to stand without correction, this feature of the galaxy counts implies a thinning out with distance in all directions, and that we are at the very center of the highest concentration of matter in the universe….This would argue that we are at the center of the universe.
When galaxy counts are adjusted for dimming effects, it appears that the number of galaxies per unit volume of space increases with distance. From this we still appear to be at the center of the universe, but now it coincides with the point of least concentration of matter (Slusher, pp. 12-13).
SDSS data, which again confirms anisotropy and heterogeneity, contradicts the Copernican Principle and what Bang theology predicts and demands. More here
Energy = mass (x) the speed of light squared. There are many problems with this equation, which Einstein did not invent, but interpreted as part of his fantasy world of Relativity. Prior to Einstein, various physicists including Isaac Newton, Jules Henri Poincaré, and Olinto De Pretto had proposed the equation. Einstein derived the equation starting from the result of relativistic variation of light energy. He appropriated the equation and its concepts without due attribution – which was a distinctive Einsteinian feature. Why bother acknowledging the work of others? He rarely if ever did.
This short post will briefly describe the basic mistakes within the E=MC2 equation. Many other posts go through the 1905 Special Theory of Relativity (STR) and why it is wrong (you can start with the fact that space is not a vacuum). This post will add to these postulates.
STR as a theory is at its core, riddled with paradoxes and contradictions (see Herbert Dingle for the clock paradox). So too is Einstein’s interpretation of E=MC2. Einstein took this simple equation and then contorted it with paradoxical ideas of mass and energy.
What does the equation mean?
Einstein’s general interpretation, kE=MC2 defines a relationship between mass and kinetic energy.
1. when a body of mass is accelerated it gains mass and energy
2. when a body of mass is decelerated it loses mass and energy
3. the mass increase/decrease for all matter is proportional to each body’s kinetic energy (relative to a common position of rest for all matter)
What does this actually mean? For Einstein in this interpretation of E=MC2, energy and mass coexist together. The key is the kinetic energy for that body and its mass. If we take an object and accelerate it at a given velocity, the kinetic energy in that velocity will contribute to the overall mass of that body. This is achieved through ‘Joules’ or the measurement of kinetic energy. One Joule has a mass of 10-17 kg. A kilogram of mass will therefore weigh 1017 Joules. In this interpretation a Joule of energy is a quantity of energy, and it is also a quantity of mass. Thus, bodies in motion will possess both Joules of kinetic energy and Joules of kinetic mass. If the body in motion slows down, it will be losing kinetic energy, and Joules. Its mass should therefore decrease as well.
Einstein refused to accept this. He did not believe in deceleration to be a meaningful measurement or concept which can be independently differentiated from an acceleration. He also did not believe that an absolute position of rest could be determined because the mass changes caused by motion, in his view, can never be measured locally. Einstein did not believe in any absolutes as there are anathema to STR. All of these suppositions are simply wrong.
Einstein never performed experiments. He was a thought philosopher with mathematical skills. Einstein’s did not understand that the primary meaning of E=MC2 is to define the mass of photons (light) as the truest measure of a mass (the base as it were of mass measurement). Einstein arbitrarily declared, based on his own ego one assumes, that the photon was a particle without mass. This error now permeates all of science. It is absurd. A particle with no mass would have no momentum or motion.
All particles have mass. Photons have a mass of at least 10-50 kg.
In his thought experiments Einstein used Planck’s Constant to make the transformation between the mass of an atom and the energy of a massless photon. By failing to give the photon mass, he was unable to divide Planck’s constant into its component parts h=MλC, namely that the mass of a photon times its wavelength times the speed of light. Rejecting the mass of the photon completely upends the point of E=MC2.
If we admit that the photon has a mass, there is no case where that mass is converted into energy.
· Any mass will have energy that can be measured
· Energy has mass that can be weighed
· Mass and energy by definition cannot be separated into the mass of matter and the energy of photons
We can conclude that mass and energy are the two primary parameters of both matter and photons. One cannot exist without the other. There is no such thing as the long cherished metaphysical idea ‘pure energy’. Back on planet Earth we only have pure ‘mass-energy’.
Positrons and anti-matter are discussed in some other posts. Positrons were discovered from 1928-1932 and Einstein could never wrap his head around the concept that antimatter and positrons were the latticework of space. Space has never been a ‘vacuum’. Space is full of antimatter and positrons which are real particles with real mass. This means that matter cannot be converted into energy.
How does this work?
· Photons are produced by atoms
· Photons are made from equal pieces of positive matter (proton) and negative matter (electron).
· Neither a proton nor an electron can produce a photon by itself
· A photon is the result of a joint effort between a proton and an electron with each contributing an equal amount of their mass and energy to make the photon
In this process, the creation of a photon (light particle), requires an equal quantity of positive matter (positron) and negative matter (electron). There is no way to convert ordinary matter into photons except in the extremely small quantities produced by atomic radiation.
A core tenet of STR is that there is nothing in space, just a frictionless vacuum. We know this is entirely wrong. You can start with radiation which permeates space and makes speace travel impossible. Radiation has energy and mass. Beyond this the universe is absolutely filled with positive matter (protons) and negative matter (electrons).
The problem for Einstein’s view of mass and energy is that when two particles couple together to form a hydrogen atom for example, they emit a series of photons in a process that begins very much like the annihilation between a positron and electron. Both the proton and the electron will lose equal amounts of mass to the emitted photons as they drop down into the ground state where the process stops and the atom becomes stable. Einstein never supported antimatter nor the real process of photon creation.
Einstein failed to understand that all photons travel at C (speed of light which we know can vary through the ether), through the same inertial reference frame (inertial meaning the existing motion of the object) and not just relative to observers. Einstein made the speed of light relative to the observer’s frame. While it is true, as Einstein claimed, that all observers will measure the speed of light to be (c) in any frame, it is not true they measure the same quantity.
Einstein never proved his assumption of ‘relative’ motion, which by itself is wrong. The Doppler effect (measuring the relative motion between a source and observer), means that we can measure the difference between acceleration and deceleration, and between motion and rest. Just because Einstein never bothered to measure absolute rest, does not mean that absolute rest does not exist. For example, there is the absolute motion of photons which Einstein ignored. If photons move with absolute motion, then the motion of matter must also be absolute. Einstein should have known that:
· M=E/C2 (to rearrange the equation) which defines a body of matter’s excess mass associated with its absolute motion through rest
· When a body of matter is accelerated to any velocity (v) relative to this frame, its mass increases with its kinetic energy KE=MC2
· At a velocity of about 86% of the speed of light, a body’s mass is doubled with a kinetic mass that is equal to its rest mass
The above can only occur within a single frame of reference for all matter. We know that matter gains mass when it is accelerated, and it also gives up that mass when it is decelerated. All photons and all electrons in a given reference frame have identical masses.
Therefore, a precious tenet of Einstein’s theorems and STR, that there are no absolutes, is fundamentally wrong. The most basic mistake was made by Einstein, namely, by using the Doppler effect he concluded that all motion itself was intrinsically relative. Einstein failed to believe in a fixed frame that connected all forms of motion. However, with a more careful look at the Doppler effect, one must conclude that a common absolute motion for all photons must exist.
That E=MC2 is wrong will never be taught at school or shown in the science propaganda. Despite the rather basic mistakes of Einstein, ‘The Science’ has enshrined this equation to demi-god status. Yet it is utterly incorrect and leads real science down the wrong path.
This equation also has nothing much to do with ‘nuclear fusion’ or fission, which is the oft-cited ‘proof’ of the equation. Nuclear reactions do not support the theorem for the reasons outlined in this post. As well the ‘mass’ used in the equation must exist. Only existing matter can create matter. Einstein’s fantasy world rejected this, believing that matter can magically be called upon to appear. This alone negates the equation, but the postulates in this post add further weight to why the equation is of little use.
E=MC2 is another classic example of Scientism.
As previous posts have summarised, space is full of particles, matter, and fields. Radiation by itself contains form, energy, and material. Since the medieval period this complex of matter in space was termed an ‘ether’’. Einstein’s STR dogma that the ‘ether’ does not exist is wrong and that by itself nullifies his relativity theory which was an attempt to ‘relativise’ away the literally thousands of experiments from 1810 to his time, which did not find Earth mobility or a diurnal rotation. The ‘ponderable’ ether also abrogates the world’s most famous scientific equation E = mc2. This equation is simply wrong.
The micro-world of atoms and particles is still a recent discovery when viewed historically. The electron was discovered in 1897 by J. J. Thomson; the proton in 1911 by Rutherford, Wein, et al., the neutron in 1932 by James Chadwick, and the positron was first identified in 1928 by Paul Dirac and confirmed in 1932 by the American Carl Anderson (1905-1991).
Anderson and Victor Heiss of Austria won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1936 for the discovery of the positron, the first known particle of ‘antimatter’. Positrons are electrons ejected from atoms by interaction with high-energy photons (or light particles). Anderson arrived at his discovery through his intensive research into gamma, x-rays and cosmic rays. While studying photographs of cosmic rays in cloud-chambers, Anderson discovered a number of tracks whose orientation indicated they were caused by positively charged particles, but particles too small to be protons.
In 1932 Anderson announced that the particles were ‘positrons’ or particles with the same mass as electrons but positively charged. Paul Dirac had predicted their existence in 1928. Anderson’s claim was verified the next year by the British physicist Patrick M. S. Blackett. In 1937, Anderson would also discover the short-lived meson. Theoretical discoveries have named some two hundred more nuclear particles, but most, like the meson, are unstable.
In his discovery of the positron, Anderson found that when gamma radiation of no less than 1.022 million electron volts (MeV) was discharged in any point of space, an electron and positron emerged from that point. Anderson also found the converse to be true, that when an electron collides with a positron, the two particles disappear, and produce two gamma-ray quanta which disperse in opposite directions, but with a combined energy of 1.022 MeV. As one set of authors describe his discovery:
“On August 2, 1932, Anderson obtained a stunningly clear photograph that shocked both men. Despite Millikan’s protestations, a particle had indeed shot up like a Roman candle from the floor of the chamber, slipped through the plate, and fallen off to the left. From the size of the track, the degree of the curvature, and the amount of momentum lost, the particle’s mass was obviously near to that of an electron. But the track curved the wrong way. The particle was positive. Neither electron, proton, or neutron, the track came from something that had never been discovered before. It was, in fact, a “hole,” although Anderson did not realize it for a while. Anderson called the new particle a “positive electron,” but positron was the name that stuck. Positrons were the new type of matter – antimatter – Dirac had been forced to predict by his theory.” (Crease and Mann, ed., T. Ferris, p. 78)
An exciting discovery. As with all ‘Science’ the key is the interpretation of what happened. Given the above description a valid inference is the following:
· space is composed of a lattice of very stable electron- positron pairs
· when the proper quanta of radiation are administered, these pairs will either temporarily deform the lattice or jolt the electrons and positrons out of alignment and release them into the view of our bubble chambers
This is what Anderson’s discovery amounts to. There is no need to invent magical processes of ex-nihilo matter creation. But of course, such an explanation is a problem for ‘The Science’. It disproves Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity (STR), much in vogue and well-funded by 1932, and the emerging (at that time) quantum mechanics model of the micro-universe (which also disproves STR but few are aware of this). Anderson, like many others, had mechanically proven that space was not a void – it contained material and lots of it, a fact we know today to be true.
After Anderson’s discovery two eminent philosophers-of-science, Einstein and Werner Heisenberg weighed in. Einstein needed to save Relativity and Heisenberg quantum mechanics. Relativity theory believes that there is a physical relationship between energy and matter and that space is a vacuum containing no ‘ponderable ether’, to quote Einstein. We know that both assumptions are wrong. But few will have been told this.
In viewing Anderson’s 1932 result Einstein had no choice but to conclude that the appearance and disappearance of the electron-positron pair was an example, as he called it, “of the creation and annihilation of matter.” This ex-nihilo creation of matter is still the strongest proof for the formula E = mc2 or Energy is equal to mass of an object times the speed of light squared. Not only could energy magically become mass, but mass could magically transform into energy. This formula has become the standard interpretation of all subatomic particles. It is pure speculation and it is wrong.
Einstein’s equation E = mc2 gives the amount of energy E that can be obtained if a mass m is completely turned into energy. This relation can be turned around: if two gamma rays with total energy E collide, they may produce a mass m. However, this is only possible if particles whose masses are m or less can be created (visible light cannot turn into matter because there are no particles with small enough masses). The smallest-mass particles are electrons (negatively charged) and positrons (positively charged), each with a mass corresponding to 0.511 MeV of energy.
The standard ‘Science’ description of how E=Mc2, and how matter is created ex-nihilo, is the following.
Because an electric charge is never created or destroyed, electrons and positrons can only be created in pairs, one of each, with zero total charge.
Two gamma rays, each of energy 0.511 MeV or more, colliding head-on, can therefore produce an electron-positron pair.
If the collision is not head-on, then the necessary energy is greater.
If the gamma rays have more energy than the minimum required, the extra appears as kinetic energy of the newborn matter – the electron and positron are born in motion (Katz, p. 46).
This means pace ‘The Science’, that matter is literally created out of nothing. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that matter can arise from nothing, and this contradicts the first law of thermodynamics. So here we have Einstein and STR in direct opposition to a known and proven scientific principle.
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as the law of conservation of energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but it can be changed from one form to another.
Matter cannot simply be created out of nothing. For the equation to work, m must be defined and its origination declared. The equation achieves neither.
English theoretical physicist Paul Dirac had predicted the discovery of the positron in 1928. Dirac’s famous equation predicted that the entire universe was composed of electron-positron pairs, or as they are now termed ‘electropons’. The most unique aspect of Dirac’s analysis was that his equation required two sets of electropon pairs, positive pairs and negative pairs (Dirac, 1928). Dirac however, believed in an active, absolute ether, echoing the same belief found in Newtonian physics, Maxwell’s electro-magnetism and the equations of Lorentz. For ‘The Science’ the ether was anathema. Relativity does not work with an ether.
In 1933 Dirac was awarded a Nobel with Erwin Schrodinger for discoveries of atomic theory productivity. Dirac was famed as a founder of the quantum mechanics movement, quantum field theory, and a critic of STR. Ethereally self-created matter is a convenient philosophical position, not a scientific position, Dirac declared in 1933:
“To get an interpretation of some modern experimental results one must suppose that particles can be created and annihilated. Thus, if a particle is observed to come out from another particle, one can no longer be sure that the latter is composite. The former may have been created. The distinction between elementary particles and composite particles now becomes a matter of convenience. This reason alone is sufficient to compel one to give up the attractive philosophical idea that all matter is made up of one kind, or perhaps two kinds, of bricks.” (Ferris, 1991, pp. 80- 81).
Even in Dirac’s world of quantum mechanics ‘space’ is filled with pairs of ‘virtual’ particles and antiparticles that are constantly materializing in pairs, separating, and then coming together again and annihilating each other. These particles are called virtual because, unlike actual particles, they cannot be observed directly with a particle detector, yet according to Einstein, Hawking et al, they are self-created by the energy of universal gravitation (when in doubt always invoke ‘gravity’!). ‘The Science’ maintains that these self-created pairs of matter can be measured, and their existence has been confirmed by a small shift (the “Lamb shift”) they produce in the spectrum of light from excited hydrogen atoms (Hawking, pp. 107-108).
Hawking and ‘The Science’ try too hard. Dirac and many others who believed in the ether and the first principle of thermodynamics, proposed a more logical and less mystifying interpretation, namely, that the electron-positron pairs are not created through a gravitational-energy force but are already present, jarred loose by radiation. Radiation itself obviously possesses mass and energy. It is a ‘force’ which permeates space and which makes space travel, even to the moon, impossible for living creatures (the moon landing fraud). This ‘Diracian’ interpretation would again destroy the Big Bang, Relativity and even quantum mechanics. It is however the most obvious, sensible and reasonable. Occam’s razor and all that.
Einstein and his Relativity cult were not the only ones offended and horrified by Anderson’s positron experiment. Quantum mechanics was also under threat. Werner Heisenberg, the leader of the quantum movement, tried just about everything to destroy Dirac and his ether, except hiring an assassin. Heisenberg loathed Dirac, referring to his work as “learned trash which no one can take seriously” (Werner Heisenberg, Letter to Wolfgang Pauli, February 8, 1934). Open science, tolerance, bi-directional learning and all that.
For six years Heisenberg and his colleagues tried to find an error in Dirac’s equation, but to no avail. Failing miserably, they decided on deceit and mendacity. Although Dirac’s equation required the negative energy electropon pairs to be raised to positive energy pairs, Heisenberg circumvented this process by claiming that the positive energy pairs were merely “created” and had no origin from negative energy. Similarly, as Dirac’s equation required the positive energy pairs to go back intermittently to the negative energy state, Heisenberg reinterpreted this to mean that the positive pairs were “annihilated.”
(Dirac’s equation which baffled Heisenberg, and predicted antimatter or positrons)
If there was any inadvertent crossover between the negative and positive, Heisenberg’s quantum mechanics coined the words “vacuum fluctuation” or “Zero-Point fluctuation” to take care of that problem. More word salads from ‘The Science’. Thus, we reveal the dubious origin of the “creation/annihilation” interpretation of Carl Anderson’s 1932 experiment, all due to fraud and the use of terminological inexactitudes. Yet this corruption and deceit is now ‘mainstream science’ and ‘consensus’.
The Anderson discovery was also important for another reason. It revealed that space consists of very dense yet very stable electropon pairings, perhaps in some type of lattice or crystalline structure. You would expect ‘The Science’, to understand that light traveling through a dense medium would be affected. Physics had already been forced to consider this with Einstein’s Nobel Prize- winning theory in 1905 of the photoelectric effect, or the process by which a photon of the right frequency releases an electron from metal, confirmed by Arthur Compton in 1923.
It was therefore known by 1932 that light can be affected by, and produce, physical effects when it interacts with atomic particles. The Sagnac experiment of 1923 had also revealed that the speed of light was inconstant due to the ether around the Earth. There were literally thousands of interferometer results from 1867-1932 with measured Earth mobility of 1-4 km/sec which identifies an ether. This should have suggested to ‘The Science’ that light was being physically affected by some kind of substance in space. We should already know that deeply held religious-scientific beliefs such as the Earth moving at 108.000 km per hour, are not easily jettisoned.
One of the great myths of the modern age is that Einstein was the most prolific and important scientist in history. This is curious since he was largely wrong and purloined most of his ideas from others. Einstein was a philosopher with mathematical skills. He was not a scientist, not a practical engineer, not a physical experimenter. Einstein never bothered to perform a single mechanical proof to support his thought experiments. He ignored his critics and would never directly respond to experiments which disproved Copernicanism, diurnal rotation or the obvious inconsistencies and illogical suppositions of Relativity.
Many posts on this substack elaborate why most of his Special Theory of Relativity (STR) is wrong. The General Theory of Relativity (GTR) which added back the ‘ether’ that STR withdrew, is only marginally more useful. Dozens of scientists and literally hundreds of thousands of experiments have disproved Einsteinian physics as posted on this substack. An exception to the above would be time dilation, another concept which Einstein did not invent but is attributed to him, which annihilates long ages (gravity slows down ‘clocks’ meaning Earth time and space time are very different, a day on Earth could be a light year in space).
What most people do not understand is that Einstein was trying to ‘save the phenomena’ of Copernicanism and the Earth’s rotation and plug the holes in Newtonian gravity and mechanics. Copernicanism has never been physically proven. It is still just a theory. Many posts outline why this is a factual statement. Einstein failed to provide any evidence to support Copernicanism, he simply accepted it as a starting point and created make-believe theories and maths to discount and discredit 100 years or more of experiments which had thoroughly ‘debunked’ the idea of the Earth’s mobility.
This is why his theory was eventually supported and enshrined as dogma. Now unfortunately we are mired in his paradigm of ‘Relativity’ a wrong turn which began long before Einstein, dating back to Galileo and is the nexus of a massive U$25 billion or larger, per annum industry. Money, power, prestige, awards, tenure and all that. $cientism.
During the early 20th century ‘quantum mechanics’ was pursued. This micro-universe of particles and molecules was absolutely anathema to Einstein and his STR (special theory of relativity) regime. No ether, no material, no ‘ponderable matter’ was allowed to exist in Einstein’s make-believe world of space. He called space a vacuum, the ultimate nothingness of nothing. It was a complete void in his unproven theories. This thought experiment is entirely incompatible with the evidence of our micro-universe and the composition of space including radiation. Quantum mechanics by itself disproved Einstein’s theories, but both will be replaced by the planckton universe (see below). We should also mention the obvious that radiation permeates space which contains pressure and material impact, so space cannot be a vacuum.
Most if not all of today’s physical theorists believe that inner and outer space hold a vast assortment of particles and fields. ‘Particles’ and ‘fields’ are words which are interchanged denoting some sort of physical matter in space. One example is the concept of neutrinos. Some believe that our universe is bathed in a primary ether particle, the neutrino. Neutrinos are extremely small entities with a tiny mass and can apparently travel through the empty space of the atom and do so at the speed of light. Having no charge, they can only affect other masses by their high kinetic energy. Fifty trillion of them are said to pass through our human body every second.
Neutrino-physics and the interaction with atomic particles, may help explain everything from gravity to how light travels, to how planets revolve around the Sun in either a Copernican or Tychonic system, with a neutrino ‘wind’ accounting for ‘inertia’ in planetary travel (see Tsau, 2005). Many scientists also discuss particles that are even smaller than neutrinos, including gravitons, maximons, machions, etherons, axions, newtonites, higgsionos, bosons, etc. String theorists like Brian Greene call these sub-neutrino particles the space-filling ether, the very ether that Einstein’s STR dismantled and his GTR later reimposed.
In classical physics the idea of a vacuum is simply the absence of matter. But this means nothingness and is fundamentally wrong. So ‘The Science’ now redefines Einstein’s original STR idea of a vacuum which meant nothing, to be a ‘relativity ether’ in which the vacuum of space now contains some mass and material but not enough to affect movement or transference of light or moving objects. This is the classic word-salad to ‘save the phenomena’. It is nonsense (more below).
In opposition to STR, quantum mechanics using the [Heisenberg] uncertainty principle forces physics to regard a ‘vacuum’ as a very complex system. For example, a particle-antiparticle pair can ‘pop’ into existence in empty space, provided that the two annihilate each other in a time so short that the violation of energy conservation implicit in this process cannot be detected.
The vacuum, then, is maybe more akin to a pan of popcorn than a featureless, vast empty hold of absolute nothing. Nobel laureate Robert Laughlin offers a good summary:
“The existence and properties of antimatter are profoundly important clues to the nature of the universe….The simplest solution – and the one that turned out to be experimentally correct – was to describe space as a system of many particles similar to an ordinary rock. This is not a precisely correct statement, since Paul Dirac formulated the relativistic theory of the electron…but in hindsight it is clear that they are exactly the same idea…. This…has the fascinating implication that real light involves motion of something occupying the vacuum of space….The properties of empty space relevant to our lives show all the signs of being emergent phenomena characteristic of a phase of matter” (Laughlin, pp. 103-105).
So space is not empty, it is occupied. Quantum mechanics has the ability to measure the effects of these particles. It does not know what the particles are, nor can it accurately predict what these particles will do in every case (as opposed to being able to predict what atoms will do). This is why physicists refer to particles that ‘pop in and out of existence’ and this is also why quantum mechanics theory will eventually be replaced.
“…according to quantum mechanics, empty space is not empty. Rather, the vacuum is filled with fields and particles that constantly pop in and out of existence. The problem is that when physicists estimate how much energy is contained within those fields and particles, they come up with a number…that is insanely large, 10120 times greater than what we observe” (Discover, October 2005, p. 56).
There are only 1080 of particles in the universe. Where these particles come from and where they go is unknown (Trefil, p. 100).
Adding to the quantum complexity are ‘Planck’ dimensions, named after the physicist Max Planck (1858 – 1947) due to his formulation of the quantum ħ, the smallest unit of energy. It is in this world that lengths come as small as 10-33 cm; mass as ethereal as 10-5 grams; and time as short as 10-44 seconds. Comparing the Planck length to the size of an atom (10-13 cm) or an electron (10-20 cm), a Planck particle is 100 million trillion times smaller than an atom, and 1 million million times smaller than an electron!
Planck length is derived from the formula √(Għ/c3), where G is the gravitational constant, ħ is Planck’s constant of angular momentum, and c is the speed of light, (see Ginzburg, 1976).
How does modern science know ‘plancktons’ exist? The logic of quantum physics leads them there. Stephen Hawking describes it as part of the uncertainty principle:
“[T]he uncertainty principle means that even “empty” space is filled with pairs of virtual particles and antiparticles…(unlike real particles, they cannot be observed directly with a particle detector)….If it weren’t – if “empty” space were really completely empty – that would mean that all the fields, such as the gravitational and electromagnetic fields, would have to be exactly zero. However, the value of a field and its rate of change with time are like position and velocity of a particle: the uncertainty principle implies that the more accurately one knows one of these quantities, the less accurately one can know the other. So, if a field in empty space were fixed at exactly zero, then it would have both a precise value (zero) and a precise rate of change (also zero), in violation of that principle. Thus there must be a certain minimum amount of uncertainty, or quantum fluctuations, in the value of the field (Hawking, pp. 122-123)
Quantum fluctuations must therefore exist and by default, insanely small particles are popping in and out of existence. The apparent appearance and disappearance of plancktons is 10-44 seconds. Some physicists even describe these particles as ‘virtual’, appearing and disappearing through black-holes (John Wheeler, 1957). Wheeler also wrote that black holes, if they existed, presented a huge problem for physics (“Those Baffling Black Holes,” Time, Sept. 4, 1978).
Wheeler in a speech also stated: “To me, the formation of a naked singularity (ie a black hole), is equivalent to jumping across the Gulf of Mexico. I would be willing to bet a million dollars that it can’t be done. But I can’t prove that it can’t be done” (New York Times, March 10, 1991). Hawking agreed with Wheeler describing space to be alive with ‘turbid random activity and gargantuan masses’, while ‘wormholes’ provide passage to other universes (Hawking (b) pp. 104-123). Before he died Hawking recanted from his support of black holes, his entire life’s work in essence, saying they are incompatible with quantum mechanics. More here
It was known 100 years ago that the 1905 Special Theory of Relativity or STR was wrong. Many contemporaries of Einstein eviscerated his make-believe world of flux and change, a universe with no fixed absolutes in which reality itself was optional, subject to endless unproven ‘dimensions’, untestable but necessary to support Copernicanism and the Big Bang. Einstein admits that his theory of Special Relativity is bunk by creating his General Theory of Relativity (1915-19), which included the ‘ether’, a ‘medium’ identifying absolute space, which he absolutely detested pre-1905. The insertion of an ether in his GTR is more than enough to kill off STR. If STR is bunk, then the Big Bang theory is also junk and invalidated. Copernicanism remains just a theory, still unproven regardless of confident expostulations and online apologia to the contrary.
As many other posts have detailed if there is an ether, or if the speed of light is inconstant or not confined to 186.000 miles per second velocity, or is impacted by the medium not the velocity of the ‘observer’, then STR is destroyed. Indeed, all these suppositions are true. Since STR is just a mathematical concept and lies at the heart of both heliocentricity and Big Bang theology, they too must be jettisoned or at the very least, be coerced to provide some real tangible evidence for their claims.
In 1905, in his STR paper, ‘the greatest scientist in world history’ declared:
“The introduction of a ‘light ether’ will prove to be superfluous, because the view here to be developed will introduce neither a ‘space at absolute rest’ provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity vector to a point of empty space in which electro-magnetic processes take place.” (Einstein, 17, Sept. 26, 1905).
As this post and the next will outline, space is not empty. What Einstein was really attempting to do was refute the Fizeau (1851) and Michelson experiments (1881, 1887) which had inadvertently disproved heliocentricity and Earth mobility, as well as diurnal rotation. To do this, he needed to remove all absolutes from ‘The Science’. The absolutes of space and time were for Einstein, the core reasons why Earthly mobility was not measurable.
As a diehard Copernican faithful, Einstein’s religious-philosophical outlook was paramount in his abstract mental experiments. Only Relativity could explain why we can’t measure the Earth’s 108.000 km per hour trot around the Sun, or why we can’t mechanically prove the Earth’s rotation. No absolutes were to be allowed including space and rest (an example being the Earth’s immobility). All objects must be in relative motion in a ‘vacuum’ or ‘absolute’ nothingness. A vacuum does not mean an absence of material reality. It means the absolute nothingness of no material or physical reality.
Relativity and its pseudo-make-believe world of maths and theories would therefore come to the Copernican rescue and save ‘The Science’. But it was mandatory for Einstein that no absolute ether was to be allowed. Ether or the medium of space, was however central to Maxwell, Lorentz and Poincare’s mathematics and theorems and an indispensable foundation for electromagnetic theory and physics.
Einstein consumed and reused Maxwell and Lorentz’s maths almost in toto within his STR and GTR frameworks, without bothering to reference his debt to their theories or affirming his reuse of their hard work. His disciples and cheerleaders praise this lack of referencing as ‘saving time’ because the annotations are ‘so obvious’. Or maybe it simply denotes laziness, a capacity to mislead and hints of fraud. Such attitudes and actions were typical of Einstein as they were with Galileo.
Eleven years later in 1916, the acclaimed ‘greatest scientist in history’ wrote:
…in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical, as we will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity. It does remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states…once again “empty” space appears as endowed with physical properties, i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to special relativity. One can thus say that the ether is resurrected in the general theory of relativity….Since in the new theory, metric facts can no longer be separated from “true” physical facts, the concepts of “space” and “ether” merge together. (Einstein, “cited in Kostro, p. 2).
So, in 11 years, the ‘greatest scientist who ever existed’, the massive brain which overshadows all others, completely overturns his own personal theory and the attempt to save Copernicanism and embraces the ‘absolute’ reality that space is not a ‘vacuum’ and is not ‘nothing’. And how many people know this? The cheerleaders of ‘The Science’ praise this of course as ‘science correcting itself’. No. It has nothing to do with real science, but with trying to ‘save the phenomena’ of Copernicanism and its misanthropic ‘principle’.
As a committed Copernican Einstein was horrified by the litany of failed 19th century experiments which disproved the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, and its diurnal rotation (many posts on this substack outline these). Such redounding failures led Einstein and ‘The Science’ to believe that perhaps the ether had no effect on objects because, as these experiments had apparently proved, a light beam traveling with the Earth’s velocity of 30 km/sec against the ether (the purported speed of our planet as it races around the Sun), experienced no reduction in its speed when compared to a light beam that was not traveling against the ether.
Given that light speed seemed independent of an ether, perhaps it was possible to jettison the concept altogether? The underlying assumption for Einstein and ‘The Science’ was always that the Earth was mobile. The possibility of immobility was dismissed. This bias left only 2 suppositions for Einstein and ‘The Science’ when looking at the litany of failed 19th and 20th century experiments which could not prove the Earth’s mobility.
(a) that ether traveled with the Earth in its revolution around the Sun; or
(b) there is no ether, and light itself is an absolute
Einstein decided that the ‘ether train’ around the Earth, dragged by the Earth in its sprint around the Sun, could not exist. It would be too close to Newton’s ‘absolute space’. He therefore plumped for option b, that there is no ether, and the speed of light is an absolute.
Einstein could now rewrite physics and history. He could reference the failed heliocentric experiments from Arago and Fizeau, to Michelson and Sagnac, as supportive of his Relativity theory, based as it was on the constant speed of light and ignore that these experiments did not prove the constancy of light speed (Sagnac proved that light was inconstant) and ignore that they disproved Earth mobility.
Very convenient. More here
Previous posts have looked at the paucity of real evidence for heliocentricity. Remarkably these failures in experimentation or evidence, are always turned into ‘proofs’ by ‘The Science’. Other models which can explain the same phenomena are dismissed out of hand due to the philosophical-world or universe-view that heliocentricity ‘must be right’. The reality is that there is not a single mechanical proof to support Copernicanism. This post will look at 3 standard text-book proffered ‘proofs’ for heliocentricity, namely, star streaming, the Doppler effect and geocentric (and Tychonic) geometrical complexity.
The standard textbook list of ‘proofs’ for heliocentricity usually include this list:
1. Newton’s theory of gravitational attraction
2. The Stellar Parallax
3. Stellar aberration of the Sun
4. The Foucault Pendulum
5. The bulge at the Equator
6. Geosynchronous satellites
7. Space probe measurements
8. Retrograde motion
9. Star-streaming (this post)
10. The Doppler effect (this post)
11. Geometric complexity of geocentrism (this post)
Star-streaming is the optical phenomenon occurring when stars seem either to spread apart from each other or come closer together. Streaming can include a clustering of stars, or the ‘shredding’ of stars within an area of a galaxy. Astronomers have been uncovering the stellar remains of ripped clusters and galaxies, since the first streams were discovered in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (another interesting future topic which also upends Copernican theory). Recently a star stream supposedly 10 times longer than the milky way, was discovered and named the ‘Giant Coma stream’.
(CGI representation of streaming stars)
The concept of star-streaming is due at least in part to an optical illusion. If you ride in a car that is moving parallel to a forest, you will notice as you move past, that some trees seem to spread out from each other, whilst others converge. This is due to the relative motion between you ‘the observer’ and the trees as objects. The effect is only optical, not real.
The first astronomer to notice this effect in the heavens was William Herschel who in 1783, discovered that the Sun appears to move through the stars. He isolated thirteen such stars and found that as the Sun moved through them, they were spreading apart from a point in the constellation Hercules. He then isolated thirty-six stars and found similar results. Friedrich Argelander, an assistant to Friedrich Bessel, found similar results with 390 stars in 1830. In 1842 Otto Struve confirmed the results. The Doppler effect is real and has been verified since 1842.
As in the case of parallax discovered in 1838, these star-streaming results were invariably touted as proof of the heliocentric system. Star-streaming, however, provides no proof of anything. The reason is simple. The optical illusion of the separation of the stars can be caused either by the Earth moving past the stars or the stars moving past a fixed Earth. Both will produce the same phenomenon of star-streaming. This is akin to the example above, with a car moving past the forest analogy and the observer’s optical impression of clustering and separating trees.
If we look at the ‘Giant Coma stream’, which is an intergalactic cluster of stars, the identification of star-streaming has no relationship to heliocentricity. No one knows why stars cluster or are torn apart, or are randomly clustered, with most in science ascribing the destruction or attraction to larger galaxies acting on smaller.
(The intergalactic stellar stream (highlighted) was spotted in galaxy cluster 231 million light-years from Earth. (Image credit: William Herschel Telescope/Román et al.)
The Giant Coma stream, however, is apparently a very fragile structure, composed of mutually attracting and repelling galaxies. Modern science would expect such a constellation to be torn apart by a larger galaxy, but this has not occurred. Observing such a phenomenon stretching across galaxies does not prove that your platform (the Earth) is moving. It simply means you are observing a phenomenon that modern science cannot explain and that your platform might well be immobile and the star stream, pace Mach and Einstein, in relative motion.
The Doppler Effect (or Doppler Shift) was discovered by Christian Doppler in 1842. This effect occurs when the source of wave emission moves closer or farther away from the observer. The waves are compressed when the source moves closer and stretched when the source moves farther away. This phenomenon does not occur, however, when the receiver moves closer or farther away from a stationary source since the waves coming to the receiver are the same in both cases.
Light acts in a similar manner. If the source of light is moving closer to the observer, the light waves are compressed or ‘blue-shifted’; while if the source of light is moving farther away from the observer, the light waves are stretched or ‘red-shifted’. More
The standard textbook list of ‘proofs’ for heliocentricity usually include this list:
1. Newton’s theory of gravitational attraction (this is false)
2. The Stellar Parallax (is a false claim)
3. Stellar aberration of the Sun (ibid)
4. The Foucault Pendulum (proves nothing)
5. The bulge at the Equator (this post)
6. Geosynchronous satellites (this post)
7. Space probe measurements (this post)
8. Retrograde motion (this post)
9. Star-streaming
10. The Doppler effect
11. Geometric complexity of geocentrism
Previous posts have looked at the paucity of real evidence for heliocentricity. Remarkably these failures in experimentation or evidence, are always turned into ‘proofs’ by ‘The Science’. Other models which can explain the same phenomena are dismissed out of hand due to the philosophical-world or universe-view that heliocentricity ‘must be right’. The reality is that there is not a single mechanical proof to support Copernicanism. This post will look at 4 textbook proffered ‘proofs’, namely, the bulge at the equator, geo-synchronous satellites, space probes, and retrograde motions.
Like your average middle-aged man, the Earth has a noticeable bulge around its waist. Arthur Eddington, the English Quaker, who did more than anyone else to make Einstein a world-wide celebrity, discussed two possible causes for this phenomenon:
“The bulge of the Earth’s equator may be attributed indifferently to the Earth’s rotation or to the outward pull of the centrifugal force introduced when the Earth is regarded as non-rotating” (Eddington p. 24)
‘The Science’ has no quibble with Eddington’s explanation from a century ago.
The above means that the Earth will be subjected to both centrifugal gravitational pulls, and centripetal Coriolis forces, when it is rotating in a fixed universe (Copernican); or if the universe is rotating around a fixed Earth. (Tychonic, geo-centric). These two forces create the ‘oblation’ of the Earth, regardless of the model in question. These forces are what induce a flattening at the poles, and the paunch around the stomach or equator. It has nothing to do with either a spinning Earth, or a mobile Earth.
Such an explanation is similar to that of the Foucault pendulum, another non-proof of heliocentricity which ignores centripetal forces and the Coriolis force. Given that other models can easily explain the Earth’s oblation and bulge at the equator, this cannot be considered proof of anything. In fact, the Tychonic model with its emphasis on the Coriolis force and the Euler force, is likely a more elegant and reasonable explanation than that offered by Copernicans (source, Britannica 3).
A geosynchronous satellite is usually defined as:
“…an orbital period the same as the Earth’s rotation period. Such a satellite returns to the same position in the sky after each sidereal day, and over the course of a day traces out a path in the sky that is typically some form of analemma. A special case of geosynchronous satellite is the geostationary satellite, which has a geostationary orbit – a circular geosynchronous orbit directly above the Earth's equator. Another type of geosynchronous orbit used by satellites is the Tundra elliptical orbit.”
Does an object orbiting a complete cycle within a sidereal day (star time, 23 hours 56 minutes, 4 seconds), really prove heliocentricity?
At about 22,242 miles from our planet’s surface there is a balance of forces between gravity, the inertial forces of the Earth, the Sun, the Moon, and the stars. At this altitude the satellite will be in a geostationary orbit, remaining indefinitely in the same position in space. In the heliocentric view, the satellite needs enough speed to keep up with Earth’s rotation.
In the Copernican vision, given that the Earth rotates on its axis at 1054 mph at its equator, the geosynchronous satellite must be given a velocity of about 7000 mph in the west-to-east direction to keep up with Earthly rotation. Since space is virtually frictionless, the 7000-mph speed will be maintained mainly by the satellite’s inertia, with additional thrusts interspersed as needed to account for anomalies. If the satellite keeps the 7000 mph, it will remain at 22,242 miles above the planet and not be pulled down by the Earth’s gravity.
This follows the Newtonian model in which the inertia of the geosynchronous satellite causes it to move in a straight line, or its inertial path, but the Earth’s gravity seeks to pull it toward Earth. The result is that the satellite will move with the Earth in a circular path.
In the Tychonic-geocentric version, the Earth and the satellite are stationary while the universe, at the altitude of 22,242 miles, is rotating at 7000 mph east-to-west. Identical to the heliocentric version, the satellite must be given a velocity of 7000 mph (west-to-east) to move against the 7000-mph velocity of the rotating space (east-to-west). The combination of the universe’s centripetal force (centrifugal plus Coriolis) against the satellite’s speed of 7000 mph, along with the Earth’s gravity on the satellite, will keep the satellite hovering above one spot on the fixed Earth (source Britannica 3).
The satellite’s altitude above the Earth will determine the velocity needed to keep the satellite at this chosen altitude. Due to the pull of gravity, the closer the satellite is to Earth the faster it must move to counteract gravity and maintain its altitude.
The heliocentric system explains this phenomenon by viewing the Earth as rotating with a 24-hour period, while the geostationary satellite remains motionless in space. Newton’s law of gravitation provides a mathematical framework to explain the locus of the balance. In the Copernican model therefore, at a specific location on Earth right over the equator, one will see the satellite directly overhead at one specific time during the day.
In the geocentric system, however, the Earth is not rotating; rather, the whole of space is rotating around the Earth, which carries the satellite with it (Wikipedia, geocentrism entry). In this case we might call it a stellar-stationary satellite instead of a geostationary satellite. For some, this is a puzzling phenomenon since it appears that the satellite should just fall to Earth, but this can be explained in both the heliocentric and geocentric systems. More
(The former medical student Foucault, at the Pantheon in Paris in 1851, with his 200 foot bobbing block)
The standard textbook list of ‘proofs’ for heliocentricity usually include this list:
1. Newton’s theory of gravitational attraction (this is false, previous post deals with this)
2. The Stellar Parallax (ibid)
3. Stellar aberration of the Sun (ibid)
4. The Foucault Pendulum (this post)
5. The bulge at the Equator
6. Geosynchronous satellites
7. Space probe measurements
8. Retrograde motion
9. Star-streaming
10. The Doppler effect
11. Geometric complexity of geocentrism
This post will look at the mighty Foucault pendulum. Across the world, there are probably thousands of shrines in secular buildings and desacralized churches, which show a replica of Foucault’s apparatus. Museums, the UN, laboratories, university labs, and former churches offer a chapel to the ‘great man’ Foucault and his machine, which in the mid-19th century, ‘proved’ heliocentricity and made a mockery of those geocentric religious ignoramuses and their mystical dogma. A fine story which sadly does not stand up to scrutiny.
Foucault was a mid-19th century French Catholic medical school dropout and part-time photographer. He has been historically repositioned as a ‘physics researcher’. Maybe ‘opportunist’ is a better career description.
At the ripe age of 32 he performed a public experiment which delighted the Sun-worshippers. In 1851 he suspended a 61-pound ball from a 200 foot wire at the pantheon in Paris and set it swinging. He drew a line in the sand below the apparatus and predicated that the pendulum would move 11.25 degrees in 60 minutes, which it did. Applause all around. This apparently proved the Earth’s motion. So, we are told.
The logic is the following:
1. Foucault’s first and primary assumption is that the Earth rotates itself once per 24 hours, moving west to east
2. In one day based on this assumption, the pendulum should swing between 0, or not moving (which would be equivalent to the equator) and 360 degrees (the poles), meaning that at the poles the pendulum should rotate the full 360 degrees
3. If we draw lines in the sand for this swinging pendulum, n would be the intersection angle between the first line witnessed after the swinging begins, and a line drawn 24 hours later (in reality the specific day time is 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds– this is a sidereal day or star time, slightly different than the solar time of 24 hours)
4. Another assumption is that there is no relative motion. This means that if we swing the pendulum north to south it won’t affect the plane it moves in, this is due to the underlying assumption that the Earth rotates west to east and cannot ‘twist’ itself underneath the pendulum
5. Foucault’s equation predicts the Earth’s movement based on the object’s latitude, with n=360°sin(θ), where θ is the latitude
Long before Galileo, medieval naturalists and scientists had studied the pendulum and time keeping. Mechanical clocks were first built in the 14th century and were complex instruments. In these clocks the pendulum is anchored in one plane, it does not move, it is stationary. Foucault’s contraption allowed the anchor to rotate, which allowed the pendulum to move and rotate over a given time.
Using Foucault’s apparatus, we could start swinging it between the 12 and 6 o’clock position, rotate the anchor and within one hour the pendulum should move to swing between the 1 and 7 o'clock position. Over 12 hours and 24 hours, the pendulum should again be swinging back at the 12 o’clock to 6 o’clock position.
To be fair, if you have tried a Foucault pendulum replica, they often don’t work (personal experience), but let’s assume it can work.
What ‘convinced’ the heliocentrists was the rather obvious fact that at different latitudes, there should be different effects on the pendulum. At the North Pole or 90 degrees, the plane of the pendulum will rotate a full 360 degrees each 24-hours, or about 15 degrees per hour. As one moves farther from the North Pole in a southerly direction, the pendulum will slow down its rotation.
In Paris, Foucault found that the plane of the pendulum rotated 11.25 degrees in the first hour – just as he predicted. At the equator there would be no movement of the pendulum, given it is at ‘0 degrees’. Below the equator the rotation begins anew but in the opposite direction to that observed in the northern hemisphere.
There are many models to explain these observations, by themselves they don’t prove anything. More here
“If, therefore, under all circumstances, and especially in the comparison of days when the sign of aberration has changed, the apparent value of the geographical latitude [i.e., column (B) - (A)] is sensibly constant, it proves that the True Aberration is the same as the Received Aberration, or at least that one is not a multiple of the other.” (George Airy, 1871, p. 37)
Simply put, Airy could not confirm Stellar aberration. And he is far from alone.
There are 11 commandments which are deployed as proof of Copernicanism. The observed phenomena used as proofs are however, cogently explained from another viewpoint and model. If another explanation can be applied, than Copernicanism with its attendant scientific theology and observational support is just a theory, and cannot be accepted as proof.
The standard list, used in textbooks and by online gatekeeps of what constitutes ‘proofs’ for Copernicanism beyond the ‘law of gravitational attraction’ includes:
1. Newton’s theory of gravitational attraction (dealt with in 2 previous posts)
2. The Stellar Parallax
3. Stellar aberration of the Sun
4. The Foucault Pendulum
5. The bulge at the Equator
6. Geosynchronous satellites (this post)
7. Space probe measurements (this post)
8. Retrograde motion (this post)
9. Star-streaming
10. The Doppler effect
11. Geometric complexity of geocentrism
This post will cover points 1 and 2, namely the Stellar parallax and aberration. Further posts will go through the rest of the standard list of supposed proofs for heliocentricity.
George Airy in 1871, could not prove Stellar aberration, a claim that had gone unchallenged by that time, for almost 150 years. Using a water-filled telescope, Airy proposed to confirm both Bradley’s 1725 claim of stellar aberration, and that of the German Klinkerfues in 1867. As with Arago’s attempt in 1810, along with many others who tried and failed, Airy could find no proof of stellar aberration or light aberration (Antonello, 2014) . Airy was a committed Copernican who was dismayed at his own findings.
Many experiments have since reconfirmed Airy’s findings as other posts here have outlined (Michelson, Sagnac, Miller etc). Unfortunately the flat-earthers enthusiastically refer to the Airy experiment, giving ‘The Science’ a convenient and easy target to disparage the reality of what he and others discovered. We should not conflate factual evidence from real experiments with the non-science that the Earth is a pancake surrounded by an ice wall.
This valid cosmological phenomenon has been consistently advocated as the vindicator of heliocentrism. Science textbooks and online apologia will usually declare that Friedrich Bessel (1784–1846) discovered heliocentrism’s long-awaited proof when in 1838, he observed a very slight shift in the position of the nearby star Cygnus against the background of a more distant star.
There are some who claim that Giovanni Pieroni, a friend of both Galileo and Kepler, may well have discovered the parallax in the early 17th century or 200 years earlier. Copernican astronomers usually praise Bessel as the great proof-giver of heliocentricity ignoring Pieroni (he was a Catholic after all). However, the ugly reality is that parallax does not prove heliocentrism.
A standard definition of a stellar parallax is:
Parallax is the apparent displacement of an object because of a change in the observer's point of view.
This concept is of course central to the theory of Relativity which has been well savaged in other posts. A parallax is used to measure the distance to a star.
From this image, using the heliocentric view of a parallax, we can describe how a parallax measurement would work (Ostlie and Carrol, pp. 57–59).
1. In this model, the Earth is orbiting the Sun;
2. In December, whilst on one side of the orbit, we pull out our telescope and observe 2 stars which are viewed at the same time;
3. One star is near to the Earth, and the other appears further away;
4. For simplicity let’s assume that both stars are aligned vertically in the same plane, that is, one star is at a higher position in our telescope lens than the other, but both are on the same vertical line;
5. Six months later in June we take another look at these 2 stars;
6. If the stars are not in a vertical alignment any longer, and have deviated from the y axis, than we have a ‘parallax’;
7. The parallax motion means that the closer star appears to have shifted to the right off the vertical plane;
8. The shifting of the nearer star is due to the mobile orbit of the Earth around the Sun, since we have viewed this star from 2 different orbital locations, one in December, one in June, now separated by 186 million miles (the diameter of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun);
9. Since stellar parallax can now be detected among a select few stars, most astronomers have generalized this interpretation to include all Stars, and offer this as proof for the Earth’s movement around the Sun.
Sounds pretty good. When analysing Copernicanism, I found this to be a somewhat convincing argument.
Note that this evidence was proferred almost 300 years after Copernicus issued his theory, or in the case of Pieroni 80 years post-Copernicus, and was never referenced by Galileo in his dispute with the Church over evidence for heliocentricity. Stellar parallax is the second reported ‘observational proof’ in support of heliocentricity if we follow the standard narrative and credit Bessel in the mid-19th century. Stellar aberration (below) was the first reported proof, some 200 years after Copernicus if we ignore Pieroni. When the Church asked Galileo for proof, this is what it meant. The evidential proofs took hundreds of years to develop.
Yet when you look into the stellar parallax as with the Galilean phases of Venus, you will quickly uncover that the Tychonic geo-helio-centric system explains the same phenomenon quite nicely. This information will never be given to you, nor is it discussed within ‘The Science’ and its ‘educational systems’. This is called a bias. More here
(The gallant Copernicus leading mankind to insignificance and irrelevance)
“Most scientists refused to accept [Copernicus’s] theory for many decades — even after Galileo made his epochal observations with his telescope. Their objections were not only theological. Observational evidence supported a competing cosmology,the “geo-heliocentrism” of Tycho Brahe. The most devastating argument against the Copernican universe was the star size problem. Rather than give up their theory in the face of seemingly incontrovertible physical evidence, Copernicans were forced to appeal to divine omnipotence.”
(The Case Against Copernicus by Dennis Danielson and Christopher M. Graney)
The ‘star size problem’ was an early objection to Copernicanism, given that the stars must be far away, yet they are visible and defined. This implies a massive size, hundreds if not thousands of times bigger than our Sun for example. Yet their appearance in the sky is small and uniform. The only way to explain this is by invoking a divine presence, or appealing to the distortion of light and optical illusions.
Optical explanations were not forthcoming until the mid 18th century though even now there is dispute about the validity of these claims. Stars are still seen as ‘points of light’, and very few adequate explanations exist which satisfy the ‘star size’ issue, though it is generally ignored in modern science, which views the ‘optical illusion’ explanation as sufficient.
Putting this issue to the side, we can list the standard textbook ‘proofs’ for heliocentricity which will be discussed and analysed in sequence:
1. Newton’s theory of gravitational attraction (this is false, see the previous post and this post below)
2. The Stellar Parallax (#2-11 covered in future posts)
3. Stellar aberration of the Sun
4. The Foucault Pendulum
5. The bulge at the Equator
6. Geosynchronous satellites
7. Space probe measurements
8. Retrograde motion (this post)
9. Star-streaming
10. The Doppler effect
11. Geometric complexity of geocentrism
Previous posts have looked at the paucity of real evidence for heliocentricity. Remarkably these failures in experimentation or evidence, are always turned into ‘proofs’ by ‘The Science’. Other models can explain the same phenomena but are dismissed out of hand due to the philosophical-world or universe-view that heliocentricity ‘must be right’. The reality is that there is not a single mechanical proof to support this theory (posts outlining this are shown at the end). This deposition follows from the problems with Newton’s law of gravitation which cannot explain how planets and constellations behave and why it does not support heliocentricity.
‘The Science’ and its heliocentric model explain that within our solar system the planets revolve around the Sun, and our milky way galaxy revolves around a center of the Universe whose location has never been identified. In this theory, which is a part of the discredited Big Bang dogma, gravitational attraction between smaller and larger bodies ‘holds’ the patterns of orbits and the relationships between planets. There are many issues with this theory. A simple one is the following question.
Problem Statement: Given that approximately 1 million Earths fit into the Sun, why doesn’t the Sun simply consume our Earth?
Related to this we can ask, why doesn’t the Earth consume the moon given that the Earth’s diameter is 4 times that of the moon? The answer is that there are issues with the ‘laws’ of gravity, given they don’t explain the observed phenomena nor answer the simple question above. Gravity is a weak force, so some other ‘forces’ must be at work.
A second model which offers an answer to the above question is the Tychonic-Ptolemaic concept, where the Earth is immobile at the center of the universe and the planets in our solar system either revolve around the Earth (Ptolemy), or the planets revolve around the Sun and this collection revolves around the Earth (Tychonic). Tycho Brahe’s model is thus a mixture of heliocentricity and geocentricity, based on thousands of observations and calculations. Mathematically, even using modern scientific standards and observations, both the Ptolemaic and Tychonic models are valid, though no one is told this.
Video, summary overview of the Heliocentric, Tychonic and Ptolemaic models
In the Tychonic model the entire universe revolves around the Earth. The Earth may still rotate (the neo Tychonic or semi-Tychonic model) or be immobile as Tycho Brahe believed. The massive force used to generate the phenomenal speeds to rotate the universe around the Earth is a logical objection to this model of planetary movement. These objections, as outlined below, can however be answered using the standards and principles of modern science (Assis, pp. 190-191).
I am not suggesting that the model is right or wrong, but as will be shown, mathematically using modern science’s own postulates there is no argument against this model. The model also explains phenomena that Newtonian and standard Copernicanism cannot. I am only looking at Socratic proofs to resolve the problem statement:
‘Why doesn’t the Sun consume the Earth?’
The point is that the observational evidence, the universal forces which are confirmed by modern science including the Coriolis force, the Euler force and centrifugal forces (which are discussed below), the existing mathematics and models, and the affirmed principles and ‘laws’ of modern science, do not disprove the Tychonic system, but actually confirm much of what it postulates. The Tychonic model addresses the problem statement posted above, whilst heliocentricity does not provide an answer, hence the use of Dark Matter (a made up never-found constant to balance equations akin to Einstein’s steady-state model constant) and extended maths to Newton’s and Einstein’s equations.
In the neo-Tychonic model, the gravitational attraction of the Sun with the Earth is balanced by a real gravitational-centrifugal force generated by the annual rotation of distant masses around the Earth (with a component having a period of one year). In this model the Earth can remain at rest, a constant distance from the Sun. Modern science can have no objection to this idea of geo-helio-centrism due to the duality of its own force laws and the theory of Relativity.
Using Mach’s Principle and Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity which employs the same; we can see that the neo-Tychonic model where the Earth is at rest in the center of the universe and has the Sun revolving around it, is not madness. Universal distant matter (e.g., galaxies) which rotate around the Earth could create a centrifugal force, which is like gravity, but actually counteracts the force of gravity, keeping the Sun a certain distance from the motionless Earth, namely, 91-94 million miles. These forces would be the ‘Coriolis force’ (more below). This could help explain why the Earth does not fall into the Sun, or why our moon does not missile bomb the Earth (Popov, 383-391).
As Einstein admits:
“We need not necessarily trace the existence of these centrifugal forces back to an absolute movement of K' [Earth]; we can instead just as well trace them back to the rotational movement of the distant ponderable masses [stars] in relation to K' whereby we treat K' as ‘at rest.’…On the other hand, the following important argument speaks for the relativistic perspective. The centrifugal force that works on a body under given conditions is determined by precisely the same natural constants as the action of a gravitational field on the same body (i.e., its mass), in such a way that we have no means to differentiate a ‘centrifugal field’ from a gravitational field….
This quite substantiates the view that we may regard the rotating system K' as at rest and the centrifugal field as a gravitational field….The kinematic equivalence of two coordinate systems, namely, is not restricted to the case in which the two systems, K [the universe] and K' [the Earth] are in uniform relative translational motion.” (Einstein’s October 1914 pp. 69, 71).
Einstein has confirmed that a Tychonic or Ptolemaic universe is certainly feasible and possible. It is as least as credible as the Copernican faith which has the Earth moving through the ether (a medium largely denied by ‘The Science’) at 108.000 km per hour. Quite a clip. Many posts have discussed that no mechanical proofs for this have ever been presented (listed at the end). It is only 500 years since the days of Copernicus. Take your time. More here
There is a severe paucity of proof for heliocentricity. The theory is simply accepted as fact, without mechanical and observational verification. There is voluminous evidence from the 19th and 20th centuries which contradicts and disputes both heliocentricity and its apologist framework, the Special Theory of Relativity. The errors and lack of mechanical proofs are covered extensively in a previous set of posts.
In this post we will have a hard look at what is incorrectly forwarded as Newton’s key ‘law’ that smaller bodies always orbit larger. This is usually offered as ‘proof’ of heliocentricity, but as we will see when discussing the greater universal forces at work, this is not the case. In fact, this supposed ‘law’ provides more evidence for geocentrism than Copernicanism, a consideration that is anathema to ‘The Science’.
Newton neither said nor proved that a smaller object must always orbit the larger. Newton merely stated that when we have two or more bodies in a rotating system, all bodies will revolve around the center of mass (also known as the center of gravity). It is a natural effect and phenomena that the ancients probably well understood:
“That the center of the system of the world is immovable: this is acknowledged by all, although some contend that the Earth, others that the sun, is fixed in that center” (Isaac Newton, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Book 3: The System of the World, Proposition X, Hypothesis I)
Our own solar system and ‘milky way’ galaxy is not a closed system. It is open and a part of a far larger universe. This is one of the problems with Einstein’s thought experiments - he assumes a closed system. If we did have a closed system and there were only 2 planets namely the Earth and Sun, then the corrupted Newtonian claims that the smaller object or Earth would orbit the larger body the Sun, would likely be sensible and valid. But that is not our reality. There is a little factor called ‘the rest of the universe’ which Newtonians and Copernicans often ignore. The universe is estimated to contain five sextillion stars. Quite a mass of weight one would imagine.
In Newtonian physics the center of our solar system must find its location at the ‘center of mass’, which would consider all the bodies and masses within our solar system (ignoring for the moment the rest of the universe). The displacement of this center within our solar system would of course not be the Sun itself, but would find its locus at quite an appreciable distance from the Sun. Now add in the rest of the universe beyond our solar system. The ‘center’ would need to migrate and be displaced even further from our Sun. There is no proof that the center of universe is located with our Sun. Such a claim, if ever made, has no empirical evidentiary support.
As Fred Hoyle the famed physicist and astronomer (who believed in panspermia, and space-travelling ‘viruses’) stated: “If a new body is added to the set from outside, or if a body is taken away, the “center” changes” (Hoyle, p. 85). This makes perfect sense. We should take into account the weight within our solar system, our own galaxy and other galaxies (new planets, comets, collisions causing destruction etc) when assessing mass attraction, gravity and the impact on inertial motion.
If we add in the ‘weight’ of the universe there must be an enormous impact on bodies within our solar system. This implies that there is no ‘law’ that the Earth must revolve around the Sun given the displacement of this center. It might well be that the Sun and planets revolve around the Earth in a Tychonic or Ptolemaic system, which current scientific observations would support as easily as they would support a Sun-centric view. Or it might imply a completely different model not yet considered by ‘The Science’.
Given the size and mass weight of stars and bodies in our universe, there will be many local centers of mass. These federated and local systems do not impinge or supersede the center of mass for the universe itself. This means that each galaxy will have its own center of mass. This seems logical. While the constellation of planets in our solar system will have a center of mass near the Sun; and while the moons of the planets have a center of mass near their respective planet, these are only local centers of mass.
When we consider all the mass of the universe, there is only one place where the universe’s center of mass exists. Newton’s principle given above that the ‘center of the system of the world is immovable’ does not mean that heliocentricity is proven. There are many models which fit the observational data. If for example, the universe was in rotation, Newton’s laws would demand that it rotate around its singular center of mass. This could be the Earth (or not). As Hoyle states it, the equivalence between heliocentricity and geocentricity was recognized not only in geometry, but also in the gravitational and inertial dynamics:
“…we can take either the Earth or the Sun, or any other point for that matter, as the center of the solar system. This is certainly so for the purely kinematical problem of describing the planetary motions. It is also possible to take any point as the center even in dynamics, although recognition of this freedom of choice had to await the present century” (Hoyle, p. 82)
Most physicists accept the concept that, “Mass there governs inertia here.” Newton never took the mass of the universe into account, and this is a primary inadequacy of his theory of motion (Misner, et al pp. 543).
Newton failed to consider the gravitational and inertial forces found in the rest of the universe when he composed his laws of motion. The missing parts of his theory directly affect the choice one makes for either Copernicus, Ptolemy or Tycho Brahe. As the Brazilian physicist, Andre Assis, puts it:
“Leibniz and Mach emphasised that the Ptolemaic geocentric system and the Copernican heliocentric system are equally valid and correct…the Copernican world view, which is usually seen as being proved to be true by Galileo and Newton…Despite the gravitational attraction between the sun and the planets, the earth and other planets do not fall into the sun because they have an acceleration relative to the fixed stars. The distant matter in the universe exerts a force…..on accelerated planets, keeping them in their annual orbits.” (Assis, pp. 190-191)
This is an important point, ‘The distant matter in the universe exerts a force…..on accelerated planets’. Without such forces, the Earth would indeed be swallowed by the Sun.
The principle of ‘equivalence’, based on Kepler and Mach’s maths, was enunciated by Einstein to explain uniform acceleration in an ‘inertial system’. The Special Theory of Relativity does not account for acceleration, nor non-linear motions. There are no absolutes in STR, and everything must be relative (many posts have gone through the proofs of why STR is unscientific).
But if we accept at face value Einstein’s incorrect model of the universe, we can see that heliocentricity is just a theory as given by this principle of equivalence. STR has never proven heliocentricity, nor has it done much to fix the gap in Newton’s laws of inertial motion. Einstein uses 2 systems, one called ‘A; and the other ‘I’ to explain:
“Let A be a system uniformly accelerated with respect to an “inertial system.” Material points, not accelerated with respect to I, are accelerated with respect to A, the acceleration of all the points being equal in magnitude and direction. They behave as if a gravitational field exists with respect to A, for it is a characteristic property of the gravitational field that the acceleration is independent of the particular nature of the body. There is no reason to exclude the possibility of interpreting this behavior as the effect of a “true” gravitational field (principle of equivalence) (Einstein, p. 14.)
A is a system in uniform motion with respect to another system within a defined grid or system. Within A but outside of I, objects are accelerated whose movement will not only be impacted by the gravitational attraction within system A, but also from the total mass of attraction which includes I. This indicates that within our own solar system, not only the Sun but the planets and every other moving object in our system (comets, asteroids, moons), are controlled by the galaxies and the collective attraction and weight. This ‘true gravitational field’ or principle of equivalence removes the mystery out of inertia and why the planets travel in precise orbits.
“Kepler’s standpoint is particularly interesting, since he was deeply impressed by Tycho Brahe’s ‘demolition’ of the crystal spheres. Kepler posed the problem of astronomy in the famous words: “From henceforth the planets follow their paths through the ether like the birds in the air. We must therefore philosophize about these things differently.” (J. Barbour, p. 9.)
Kepler, the Protestant astronomer whose maths were the first theoretical proofs to support Copernicanism, came up with a rather ‘Machian’ solution. Kepler’s maths suggested that the planets could not possibly follow such precise orbits by a mere inspection of empty space. The elliptical and complicated journeys must be guided and driven in their motion by the real masses in the universe, namely, the Sun and the sphere of the fixed stars. This insight by Kepler pre-empted that of Mach by some 300 years and is perfectly aligned to what most physicists believe today, namely that the mass of the universe is an essential ‘force’ which accounts for the observational data on planetary motions.
This supports Mach’s principle which was in large measure a restatement of observations by the English astronomer George Berkeley in the 1700s:
(Encyclopedia Britannica) “Mach’s principle, in cosmology, hypothesis that the inertial forces experienced by a body in nonuniform motion are determined by the quantity and distribution of matter in the universe. It was so called by Albert Einstein after the 19th-century Austrian physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach. Einstein found the hypothesis helpful in formulating his theory of general relativity—i.e., it was suggestive of a connection between geometry and matter”
The Kepler-Berkeley-Mach ‘principle’ means that there are absolutes including mass and gravitational attraction. Even Newton admitted that this was valid.
(Galileo (1564-1642), facing the inquistion)
We have all heard the story of Galileo from the early 17th century. The honest, independent, objective, ‘scientist’, trying to drag the superstitious post-medieval world into light and knowledge. Attacked, tortured, and demonised by the Catholic inquisition for ‘proving’ that the Sun was the centre of our solar system and the true object of worship. His truths ignored due to Biblical ignorance and rank stupidity. Lesser mortals, debased by religion, unable to comprehend his proofs and genius, refused to enter the door of science he was opening, closing it. The hairshirt wearing, idol-worshipping, cowering and despairing Church with its unclean, unkept, illiterate monks had declared war on ‘The Science’. We all know this to be true. Teacher say, TV say, books say, ‘The Science’ say. Twas the Dark Ages before the ‘Enlightenment’.
But the truth is that Galileo was never accosted, tortured, beaten or even demonised for his views. In fact, he lived a long, salubrious life, entirely funded by the de Medici’s and the Church.
According to our modern education hagiography, the following is ‘true’ about Galilei Galileo:
1. Proved heliocentricity (it took some 200 hundred years after Galileo, before some proofs were offered, namely stellar parallax and light aberration which can also be explained by the Tychonic model, as covered in other posts)
2. Invented the telescope
3. Discovered Sunspots
4. Identified comets
5. Dropped weights from the leaning tower of Pisa proving the ‘law’ of accelerated gravity
6. Invented the incline plane to prove that an object falling down an incline will roll up an incline for the same distance as the declination
7. Discovered the important properties of a pendulum
8. Based on the pendulum discovered time keeping
9. Was the first to push ‘experimental science’
Busy guy. Except that none of the above is true (Kuhn, p. 10). Galileo did not invent the telescope and his customised production was largely inferior to that of Kepler’s. He did not prove heliocentricity whatsoever (more below). It is unlikely he performed the weight dropping experiment, nor did he discover the attributes of a swinging pendulum, the incline motion of an object proceeding from a declination; nor did he uncover secrets leading to time keeping or navigation.
Christopher Scheiner discovered Sunspots. Jesuits long before Galileo had traced and explained the life cycle of comets, contrary to Galileo’s claim that they were ephemeral. Scientific experimentation using defined methods dates to at least the 12th century. Galileo was the same character who yelled and pounded his desk that the moon had an atmosphere. It doesn’t and if you landed on it, you wouldn’t survive more than 10 minutes due to radiation exposure.
Regarding the fictitious Tower of Pisa-weight dropping, Galileo said that the heavier object fell fastest in contravention of the supposed ‘law’ attributed to him:
“Experience shows….in the beginning of its motion the wood is carried more rapidly than the lead; but a little later the motion of the lead if so accelerated that it leaves the wood behind…I have often made a test of this.” (Lane Cooper, Aristotle, Galileo, and the Tower of Pisa, 1935)
‘The Science’ claims that Galileo invented the law of accelerate gravity or the equation d = ½ g (t2) + v*t, where d = distance, g = gravity, t = time and v = velocity. He didn’t. Observations date back to the 6th century with Philoponus and include many experiments from the 16th century, including one from Simon Stevin from the Tower at Pisa in 1586. There is no evidence that Galileo performed any such experiment at Pisa, though he claims to have done so many times. If he had bothered, he would not have written the above.
Galileo was born in the late 16th century and performed his work during the early 17th. He was an educated man and much of what he ‘discovered’ was already known. In fact, he was taught about objects, motions, pendulums, and time. He did not invent any of these concepts. Yet as with so many – Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and countless other ‘great scientists’-- Galileo never bothered to reference the work, nor the efforts of others. As with Einstein, you won’t find more than a few tangential attributions by Galileo to those who did the hard work of experimentation, or who discovered the theorem in question.
Galileo admits the paucity of his experimentation, and like Einstein was more interested in philosophy and abstractions than actual proof:
“…in order to demonstrate to my opponents, the truths of my conclusions, I have been forced to demonstrate them by a variety of experiments, though to satisfy myself alone I have never felt it necessary to make many.” (J.H. Randall, The Making of the Modern Mind, 1976, p. 235)
There are little extant proofs which confirm that Galileo did much in the way of mechanical experimentation.
It is necessary to put the Galileo myth in the context of its era. The Protestant revolt, beginning in 1517, had sundered Western Christendom in two. State powers viewed the Protestant church as a convenient entity to subsume into the secular political structures. The ‘reformation’ was more about national power and control than about religion. Catholic dogmas and received wisdom were under attack in every sphere. In many countries it was against the law to be Catholic. The Church had been forced to retreat from much of northern Europe and felt itself surrounded by the heresy to the north, and the Muslims to the east and south. The early 17th century was a time of flux and real danger. The Church had little interest in more internal convulsions generated by ‘science’.
Einstein’s doubt:
Einstein: “I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards.” (Letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 in Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 400).
Einstein to astronomer Erwin Freundlich in 1913: “If the speed of light is in the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false” (ibid., p. 207).
Einstein: “My whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false.” And so, they are Einstein. Miller was right pace the first quote, and Sagnac was right confirming the second quote
.
Georges Sagnac’s experiments, which disproved the constancy of the speed of light, and proved an ether, were rather miraculously, incorporated, and consumed by ‘The Science’ to support time dilation and STR! Sagnac’s effect, which is used in GPS, measurement, and gyroscope technologies, disproved STR of course. Sagnac proved there are absolutes when measuring light speed and the ether which STR does not support. Experiments using Sagnac’s method which followed his 1913 effort, also found the same. Not a single Relativist can point to an experiment disproving Sagnac.
Sagnac never confronted Einstein and his fantasy-world directly. But Dayton Miller did. Miller like those before him who registered negative results when trying to prove STR and the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, was a Copernican Sunworshipper. He was a very well-known American physicist and a key figure in the US science establishment. He was not a man to be ignored.
Dayton Miller’s biography in summary:
· PhD in science in 1890 from Princeton University
· President of both the American Physical Society (1925-1926) and Acoustical Society of America (1913-1933)
· Chairman of the division of Physical Sciences of the National Research Council (1927-1930)
· Chairman of the physics department of Case School of Applied Science (aka: Case Western University)
· Active member of the National Academy of Sciences.
During a 31-year period from approximately 1902-1933, Miller produced over 300.000 experimental tests which confirmed the 19th and early 20th century’s interferometer measurements including Sagnac’s, that no mechanical mobility or motion of the Earth could be detected, and there appeared to be an ether. Miller’s experimentation is the most thorough and detailed study in history of trying to prove heliocentricity and the Earth’s movement through an ether. All he found was that the Earth appeared immobile and that an ether acted on the Earth.
So, what did Miller do?
Dayton Miller constructed (to paraphrase Joe Biden), the most extensive and sophisticated interferometer experiment in history. Miller built the largest and most sensitive collection of equipment ever devised to record and measure the ‘interference’ readings of light beams. As a devout Copernican he was simply trying to prove the theory of heliocentricity and STR.
(Miller’s Interferometer machine on Mount Wilson)
Miller took great care with his creation. At extraordinary cost he floated the interferometer device on a pool of mercury to eliminate friction. He employed different bases including, wood, metal and concrete. Miller performed tests at different times of the day, different seasons of the year, different altitudes, including the Mount Wilson observatory near Pasadena California, and at different latitudes with differing light sources. He produced his observations over a 3 decade long period.
Miller also took precautions against thermal distortions by insulating the apparatus in one- inch cork and by applying uniform parabolic heaters and taking account of human body heat. He covered the interferometer in glass so that drift would not be inhibited. He used a 50x magnification telescope to observe the fringes, which allowed him to see down to the hundredth scale. Miller even switched to an interferometer made of aluminum and brass to eliminate possible effects from magneto-constriction.
It was a comprehensive and largely incorruptible setup. Beyond reproach or critique.
The first round of testing ensued from 1902-1916, when Miller performed over 200,000 different readings. By contrast, the 1887 Michelson-Morley had a total of 36 readings on an apparatus that was much smaller and less accurate. The second round occurred between 1921 and 1933, when Miller performed over 100,000 trials (D. C. Miller, “The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth,” Reviews of Modern Physics 5, 352-367, 1933).
In total we have some 300.000 measurements.
Albert Einstein
“Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.’’ [quoted in “What Life Means to Einstein: An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck” Saturday Evening Post, October 26th, 1929, p. 11]
Imagination is the basis of much of modern ‘science’. Two previous posts outlined the lack of evidence for a mobile Earth, both pre-and-post 1905, which is the year ‘The Science’ issued Einstein’s opus magnus on Relativity. The Special Theory of Relativity’s main purpose was to remove the inconvenient relevancy of studies which could not find a mobile Earth. Einstein through the abstraction and ‘imagination’ of STR sought re-impose the accepted dogma of heliocentricity.
STR achieves this by erecting a universe with no fixed absolutes, no rules, and in essence, no logic. In this fantasy world, no mechanical measurement is needed to prove that the Earth moves, because none can be made. This is because pace STR, a moving Earth which is an unproven assumption, negates the ‘law of inertial reference’ and makes any calibrated measurement impossible. This is called an illogical tautology. What they are saying is that the Earth moves and we don’t need to have mechanical, physical proof. We should just accept the premise.
For 500 years our world-views have been irrevocably impacted by the purported fact that the Earth is moving at the astonishing pace of 108.000 km / hour through the universe. Yet the proofs are simply not in evidence. As Einstein and all physicists and astronomers have admitted, there are no mechanical proofs detailing and confirming that the Earth is hurtling along at 30 km per second.
The few who have thumbed through Copernicus’ 1543 exposition on the revolution of the orbits, will know that maybe 20 pages try to explain the idea. The rest, some 180 pages is filler, full of tables and observations that don’t prove heliocentricity and could as easily prove geo-centricity. The Copernican model was first and foremost a philosophical exercise, yet has been assumed since the late 16th century to be ‘correct’. Newton’s entire system, which Einstein energetically tried to uphold, is based on Copernican acceptance, but like Einstein, Newton provided no proof.
Since the late 16th century ‘The Science’ has never bothered to verify the Copernican claim. This is not a scientific approach and is based on what is called an ‘appeal to authority’. The reality is that every physicist and astronomer since the 17th century has assumed Copernican veracity, appealing to various scientific figures as sources of proof. This includes Einstein, who wrote that Copernicanism should be taken as the starting point. This is a philosophical a priori belief, not a fact establshed from scientific measurement.
[An example is Gailelo. Any who have studied Galileo know that he did not prove heliocentricity. Indeed Galileo may have recanted his Copernican faith. At the end of this post is provided an interesting letter that no one knows about, dictated by Galileo in which he apparently apostasies from the Copernican theology (see footnote A)].
Even though no mechanical proof exists that the Earth is mobile, Einstein demanded that we still believe it moves at the astonishing pace of 108.000 km / hour, an incomprehensible velocity (speech Kyoto Japan, Dec. 14 1922, ‘How I created the theory of Relativity’). Relativity cannot be interpreted unless one understands that it is far more a philosophical and imaginative framework, than a scientific endeavor.
By 1905 Einstein and a small group within ‘The Science’ had to save the heliocentric-phenomena which was being assaulted by interferometer calculations, which showed that the Earth’s movement, as measured by these light-sensitive machines, is about ~5 km per second, not the purported or expected 30 km / second. Many other 19th century experiments also failed to confirm diurnal rotation. In fact all of these experiments called into question heliocentricity, suggesting that the Earth was immobile.
Niall Ferguson to his credit recognizes the role faith plays in both the development of reason, and of the political-economy and its social-environmental evolution. His comments are worth reading at some length. On page 264 he gets to the crux of the matter as to why the West is better than the Rest [to quote his own depiction]:
“Religions matter. In earlier chapters we saw how the 'stability ethic' of Confucianism played a part in imperial China's failure to develop the kind of competitive institutional framework that promoted innovation in Western Europe....But perhaps the biggest contribution of religion to the history of Western civilization was this. Protestantism made the West not only work, but also save and read. The Industrial Revolution was indeed a product of technological innovation and consumption.”
All true. Though Weber's Protestant read, work and save ethic, is indeed a prime source of European dynamism it must also be said that the Catholic Church saved Europe and should be given joint credit for its rise to dominance. The Roman church developed the economy, fought wars of liberation and defence against Islam [including the Crusades which bought Europe 500 years of time to develop]; stimulated the creation of schools, universities, enquiry and debate; and financed science and art. The balance sheet of the Catholic Church is usually taught as a negative. This is nonsense. Even with the sordid foibles, corruption and inquisitorial nature of the Church, its influence in European development is undeniably positive and decisive.
The 'Great Republic' is a book compiled from many essays which Churchill wrote about America, during his many years in politics. This book was formed and edited by his grandson, Winston S. Churchill who was also for a time, an MP in the British Parliament. The book makes for interesting reading because it covers all of American history, including the Revolution, the Civil War, slavery, America's role in two World Wars, and even the creation of Canada. One of the more interesting chapters is named 'The American Constitution'. It is a good read because it gives the reasons why America, and its key foundational text is so outstandingly unique.
One has to wonder what Churchill would say today of the American government's disregard for this document? What would be his reaction to the destruction of the rules of political engagement which allowed in very large part, the creation of the modern world and of American exceptionalism? The Federal government alone now consumes close to 30% of national income, with ownership of key sectors such as auto manufacturing and banking. One doubts very much, that Churchill would be impressed by the totalitarian pretensions of the unDemocratic or anti-Republican parties.
One of Churchill's strengths in his 66 year long political career, was his defense of both democracy; and of the Constitutional division of powers. He admired the US foundational texts as being unique in human history, and the bedrock of the Republican ideal. The US Constitution was not just an piece of parchment concocted by rich, white men, who owned slaves – but rather the apogee of genius, crafted by highly intelligent men, who were successful in life, and knew how a prosperous and well-functioning nation state should be developed.
“Socialism seeks to pull down wealth; Liberalism seeks to raise up poverty.”
[Churchill May 14 1908, Dundee Hall speech].
This is little book a wonderful and new product for Churchilliana. The publishing firm, General Books, copied a number of Churchill's speeches between 1906 and 1912 using optical character recognition software. These full length reproductions were then turned into a book of some 138 pages. They are a fine compilation on Churchill's vision of 'Liberalism', or the establishment of what some might call welfare-capitalism, which merges aspects of socialism and communal responsibility, with trade, free[ish] markets, and aspects of capitalism.
These speeches formed the ideology and political convictions of Churchill the politician during the social-reforming era of 1906 to 1912. This was when the modern welfare state and its important components was created. Churchill became a minister of power during 2 governments serving as MP for Manchester North-West [1906-8], and Dundee [1908-22]. He entered the Cabinet in 1908 until 1910 as President of the Board of Trade and served as the Home Secretary from 1910 to 1911. These crucial 5 years from 1907 to 1912 were essential to restoring the communal health of Great Britain and the many 'have-nots'. Churchill's speeches make the argument as to why this is so and why a safety net of health, insurance, poor relief, and wage floors is necessary. Conservatives might be shocked but yes we do need a minimum welfare state.
The usual lament is that 'we don't build anything anymore' in advanced economies. This is not true. 15 % of GDP is in manufacturing and if one adds in software and technology development – which is a manufacturing process – the number is 30%. IT accounts for about 15% of US GDP making it the single most important industry. There are three factors about manufacturing which the mainstream media never reports.
Euro, soon to be a Zeuro. Europe has long been infected with the disease which first appeared with some force in the mid 19th century from the revolutionary slogans of 1848 to the mindlessness of Nietzsche's sad little writings which attempted to create 'supermen' out of a culture which was becoming socialist. All people, cultures, ideas and nations are equal. Fairness means everyone is the same. Equality is where all people and states are equally poor and miserable. Any 'gaps' in wealth, productivity, talent or initiative must be 'reduced' by government. If you try hard you are a criminally liable idiot, a threat to the state. Life is a large vacation punctuated by periods of unproductive, unsatisfying labour. The tenets of Christian civilization – rationality, gratitude, humility, hard-work, the reduction of the ego, the Golden Rule – are all relics of superstition and stupidity. Narcissism, self-absorption, 'free' benefits, TV and cults are the coveted idols of sophistication.
When your society is built upon the foundations of Rousseau and modern cultural Marxism it is bound to fail. When a currency is created to 'hide the decline', and allow governments more unfettered access to printed money currency, regulations, taxation, and power, the end is only a matter of time. Of course European 'leaders' now 'demand' a fiscal union. That is after all the whole point of the Euro exercise. Create a monetary disaster which implodes fiscal reality, and then offer 'solutions' which involve more government centralization and unfettered power.
Fiat currencies will disappear at least in their current form. When Nixon abolished the Gold Standard in 1971 he did so for self-interested reasons. He was aping the failed but short term policy of Lincoln during the Civil War – print more money all the time – to fund the war effort. That lasted only 4 years, and the inflationary effects were real but eaten up within 5 years by a rebounding economy, growing large and powerful on a unified Continental sized market. Nixon's feat has endured 40 years with a huge increase in the printing of money aligned with zero interest rates in the past 10 years, guaranteeing some form of future financial destruction. There are laws of economics, and we can't ignore them, though the big brains which run the world often times do.
US debt took off post 1971, when the US dollar was decoupled from the Gold standard.
The ancient Greeks set up the Oracle of Delphi as a temple to Apollo the Sun and Music God. The high priestesses were stoned on Datura leaves and mumbled some nonsense to any who brought a question. They were revealing what the 'Earth Mother' forecast. But like Nostradumuses sayings, much of what these stoned women muttered was completely inane and incomprehensible. No matter. The Delphic cult believed. This is essential. Muslims believe they are the chosen ones destined by the moon deity for an after-life of pleasure and endless sex [at least for Muslim men]. Our new Earth Mother cult has to give the cult members a combination of Delphic surety and Islamic rewards. It must in other words, transcend mere paganism and take on the attributes of a religion. To this end I propose the establishment – with tax money – of Churches in every single urban center, with the name of 'Earth Mother Institute'. Thus they will not look like a 'normal church' and won't be vilified by really smart people or the media. We will teach that by following our cult, your life will be purified, you will be moral, you will be superior, and at some point, because you are 'one with nature', you will be rewarded in both this life and the next.
Climate Change is a mythical problem premised on grand lies and fraud. Witness some real world facts: Co2 Emissions today are at their 2nd lowest level in history.
During the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today.
The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm
Ice Ages are the norm:
“For ninety percent of the last million years, the normal state of the Earth's climate has been an ice age. Ice ages last about 100,000 years, and are punctuated by short periods of warm climate, or inter-glacials. The last ice age started about 114,000 years ago. It began instantaneously. For a hundred-thousand years, temperatures fell and sheets of ice a mile thick grew to envelop much of North America, Europe and Asia. The ice age ended nearly as abruptly as it began. Between about 12,000 and 10,000 years ago, the temperature in Greenland rose more than 50 °F.”
The UN IPCC scam
The fact that Co2 does not cause anything is a scientific fact. The Earth is not a greenhouse and ergo there can be no forcing of water vapour causing global cooling. There are over 1 million impact variables in the earth's convection system. The most common climate is an ice age – a reality completely divorced from Co2 levels or human activity. The sun has more to do with climate patterns than human activity.
No one from the Marxist-Globalist Globaloney Warming cult can explain the creation and the ending of the last ice age. Nor can they posit why Co2 levels which are at their 2nd lowest level in the last 2 million years have any ties to temperature, in spite of local climactic conditions and physical thermodynamics – both of which disprove 'global temperature' as utterly meaningless. The cult can't explain local variations or why the IPCC fraudulent data confirms that the earth is cooling, not warming. IPCC models [26 of them], have proven utterly futile at predicting any real world climate events or temperatures – a fact again left unexplained by the Eco Fascist cult.
Socialist reduction
Socialism always fails. States cannot afford socialized programs. If you deem health care to be a human right than nationalize food, housing, water bottle distribution, and clothing. Health care is no different than any other market. If a socialized system is truly necessary than we should at least have the rational intelligence to allow a functioning market to co-exist in which private insurances, care, and access are subject to price points and supply and demand factors. Not only would that alleviate the stress on state budgets it would improve the morality of the system by both decreasing costs and death rates. The modern dark-age mantra of 'socialism is good' is absurd. Time to move on.