Advanced Flat Earth Theory

DARK FLOW: THE PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE SECOND FLAT EARTH DOME

Dark flow has been described as taking a hammer and beating the living tar out of Einstein’s gravitational theory of the universe.

“Dr. A. Kashlinsky (PhD Cambridge, England), a senior staff scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, has been studying how rebellious clusters of galaxies move against the backdrop of expanding space. He and colleagues have clocked galaxy clusters racing at up to 1000 kilometres per second - far faster than our best understanding of cosmology allows. Stranger still, every cluster seems to be rushing toward a small patch of sky between the constellations of Centaurus and Vela.

So what is behind the dark flow? It can't be caused by dark matter, Kashlinsky says, because all the dark matter in the universe wouldn't produce enough gravity. It can't be dark energy, either, because dark energy is spread evenly throughout space. That, leaves only one possible explanation, he concludes: something lurking beyond the cosmic horizon is to blame.”

"I firmly believe that this is the effect of something outside of our universe."


One of the most disturbing and surprising discoveries of cosmology was made by Alexander Kashlinksy and his team at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. According to Francis Reddy and Rob Gutro:

“Using data from NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) scientists have identified an unexpected motion in distant galaxy clusters. [The two types are ball-shaped clusters filled primarily with elliptical galaxies made up of mostly old supergiant red stars and more open shaped clusters (not necessarily ballshaped) made up of spiral galaxies with mostly younger white, yellow-blue white stars.] The cause [of this unexpected motion], they suggest, is the gravitational attraction of matter that lies [about 32-34 billion light years away] beyond the observable universe [that is outside the 13.7 billion light year Universe].

“Kashlinsky calls the collective motion . . . ‘dark flow’ in the vein of more familiar cosmological mysteries: dark energy and dark matter. The [even] distribution of matter in the observed universe cannot account for this motion,’ he says . . .

“In 2000, Kashlinsky and Fernando Atrio-Barandela from the University of Salamanca, Spain, showed that astronomers could, in essence, amplify the [kinematic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect] SZ term [a minute shift of microwave background’s temperature which indicates the direction the cluster is actually moving]. The trick, they found, is to study large numbers of clusters.

“The astronomers teamed up with Dale Kocevski, at the University of California, Davis and Harold Ebeling . . . to identify some 700 X-ray clusters that could be used to find the subtle spectral shift. This sample included objects up to 6 billion light-years – or nearly half of the observable universe – away.

“. . . The astronomers detected bulk cluster motions of nearly 2 million miles per hour. The clusters are heading toward [or away from] a 20-degree patch of sky between the constellations of Centaurus and Vela.

“What’s more, this motion is constant out to at least a billion light-years.

‘Because the dark flow already extends so far, it likely extends across the visible universe,’ Kashlinsky says.

“The finding [that only galaxy clusters moving toward or away from a point between Centaurus and Vela] flies in the face of predictions from standard cosmological models, which describe such motions . . .

“All large-scale motion [in the universe] should show no preferred direction. . .”

“Kashlinsky and his team suggest that their [galaxy] clusters are responding to the gravitational attraction of matter that was . . . far beyond the observable universe. . .”

According to Amanda Gefter, these “galaxy clusters [are] racing at up to 1,000 kilometers [620 miles] per second – far faster than our own understanding of cosmology allows.

Stranger still, every cluster seems to rush toward a small patch of sky between the constellation of Centaurus and Vela.” The implications for the Big Bang theory are staggering, as Gefter shows, according to:

“Luciano Pietronero, of La Sapienza University, in Rome, Italy, and Francesco Sylos Labini, of the Enrico Fermi Center of Rome, Italy . . . the standard [Big Bang] cosmological model is wrong, and that a different model might explain the motion of galaxy clusters that Kashlinsky found. ‘This is just another element pointing toward the fact that the standard picture of galaxy formation is not correctly describing what is going on in the real universe,’ Pietronero says.”

According to the Big Bang theory, inflation caused the matter in the Universe to be very evenly distributed throughout it. The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation indicates that matter in the Universe – including Dark Matter – was generally quite evenly distributed everywhere. Therefore, there is nothing in the known universe that will gravitationally pull only galaxy clusters to or away from it. This attractor must, therefore, lie beyond the known Universe.

According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe is about 13.7 billion years old; yet the gravitational attractor, tugging only on galaxy clusters, is some 32-34 billion light years away. Additionally, this gravitational force is unique and selective in its action; only affecting galaxy clusters, but not everything else. Gravity undoubtedly must affect the motion of all massive bodies and, therefore, since it is pulling the galaxy clusters, it should be pulling everything else to it, not just galaxy clusters, based on Newtonian Law.

In terms of Einstein, the identical problem exists. A massive object outside the Universe has warped space to cause galaxy clusters to move toward or away from it; that warping of space should do the same for all matter in the Universe. In terms of Dark Energy, all galaxies are supposedly moving away from each other and, therefore, would not also, at the same time, permit only galaxy clusters to not follow this expansion, but move to or away from a preferred area. If Dark Energy existed, these galaxy clusters should also be moving away from one another in different directions.
These clear-cut findings defy the Big Bang theory and, thus, have made the Dark Flow evidence very unwelcome for many cosmologists.

(C. Ginenthal: Newton, Einstein, Velikovsky)


Dr. Kashlinsky explains the concept of dark flow:



starts at 21:50


Probing the Dark Flow signal in WMAP 9 yr and PLANCK cosmic microwave background maps:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.4180.pdf


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1828839#msg1828839 (ether CMBR)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1824970#msg1824970 (fake Andromeda galaxy photographs)

As evidenced by the statements attributed to Newton, there are two gravitational forces at work: terrestrial gravity (a force of pressure) and planetary/stellar gravity (a rotational force).

Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:

1. Terrestrial gravity

2. Planetary/stellar gravity

Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.

Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.
Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':

....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'

4. When two bodies moving towards one another come near together, I suppose the aether between them to grow rarer than before, and the spaces of its graduated rarity to extend further from the superficies of the bodies towards one another; and this, by reason that the aether cannot move and play up and down so freely in the strait passage between the bodies, as it could before they came so near together.

5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.

Therefore, a barrier/dome must exist to separate these two forms of gravitational forces, this barrier consists of a very dense layer of aether and ether.

The second gravitational force, which is a force of rotation, must also be enclosed in a dome in order for its flow to account for the orbits of the stars and of the planets.

Dr. Kashlinsky has simply discovered the existence of the edge of our universe, the second flat earth dome.

QUASARS REDSHIFT: GALAXY NGC 7319

The Picture that Won’t Go Away

"Only in the rarest instances has a single picture altered the direction of a scientific discipline. But in the case of the galaxy NGC 7319 and the "misplaced" quasar in front of it, the message is inescapable: its presence threatened to shatter one of the most cherished themes of mainstream astronomy, the Big Bang.

The rationale for the Big Bang rests substantially on an interpretation of a well-known phenomenon called “redshift”. The term refers to the shift of light from distant galaxies toward red on the light spectrum.

Many years ago, astronomers decided that redshifted objects must be moving away from the observer, stretching out their lightwaves. This “Doppler interpretation” of redshift enabled astronomers, based on the degree of redshift, to calculate both the distances and velocities of the objects. From these calculations, certain conclusions were inescapable. If all redshifted objects are moving farther away, the universe must be expanding. If the universe is expanding, the expansion must have had a starting point—an unimaginable explosion producing a universe of galaxies receding in every direction from the observer.

Then came the Hubble photograph, taken on October 3, 2003. The picture showed a galaxy (NGC 7319) known for its dense clouds that obstruct all objects behind its core. In front of the galaxy's core is a strongly redshifted quasar. In fact, under the prevailing assumptions, the redshift of the quasar would put it more than 90 times farther away from us than the big galaxy behind it."



A higher magnification image of the quasar shows a "jet" of matter extending out from the center of NGC 7319 toward the quasar:




http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/archive/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp


The Discovery of a High Redshift X-Ray Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0409215.pdf


Published in the Astrophysical Journal

Geoffrey Burbidge, a professor of physics and astronomer at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences

"The quasar was found embedded in the galaxy NGC 7319 only 8 arc sec from its centre. According to the Hubble law the galaxy NGC 7319, with a redshift of 0.022, is at a distance of about 360 million light-years. Therefore these objects could not be physically connected to each other if this was true."


At the meeting of the American Astronomical Society held in Texas in 2004, Professor Margaret Burbidge presented a paper that she had co-authored with Arp and several other leading astronomers, including her husband [subsequently published in the Astrophysical Journal]. It detailed the discovery of a high redshift quasar close to a low redshift galaxy. This time, though, the alignment was different in every significant way.

This time, no one could argue. You see, the high redshift [more distant] quasar lay in front of the [less distant redshift] galaxy NGC 7319! There was no longer occasion to debate the veracity of [Arp’s] matter bridge [connecting galaxies with quasars]. The quasar was in the foreground [the galaxy in the background]. In that impressive gathering of astronomy’s who’s who, you could have heard a pin drop. It was a deafening silence.”

“The significance of this discovery is huge. We have direct, irrefutable, empirical evidence that the Hubble law stands on feet of clay, that the observational justification of an expanding Universe is fatally flawed.”

Hilton Ratcliffe


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032 (Sirius - Earth distance, less than 50 km)

QUASARS REDSHIFT II: THE KARLSSON EFFECT

If there is evidence that, in the observable physical universe, where bodies are moving with respect to one another through space, show light coming from these bodies that also exhibit clear quantum levels, then the basis upon which Bohr and the entire quantum establishment bases their case is false. The fact of the matter is that it was shown that this is actually the case, as long ago as 1976. Halton Arp explains:

In 1976, William Trifft, of the Seward Observatory reported a long, careful series of measurements of binary galaxies. These are galaxies so close together and of such similar redshifts [that determines their distances] that they are accepted as being physically associated, presumably orbiting around each other. The startling part of his report, however, was that the differences in redshifts between members of these pairs of galaxies were quantized in steps of 72 km/s [the galaxies were receding from the Earth in whole steps of velocities of 72 kms per second] . . .

Trifft was on sabbatical in Italy and happened to be lecturing on the quantization result when a skeptical member of the class said, ‘Here is a new list of more accurate redshifts from radio measurements of hydrogen; I am sure you won’t find periodicity in here.’

Not only did the quantization appear in this independent set of very accurate double galaxy measurements, but it was the most clear cut obviously significant demonstration of the effect yet seen."

“It would seem difficult, to put it mildly, to have an object with a redshift, which is due to velocity [moving away in space], and then to have this object disappear or dematerialize [like an electron which can only be at either points A, B, etc., without traversing the intervening space] when it [the galaxy] is not traveling at 72 km/s or some multiple [interval] thereof. The quantization, in itself, therefore, establishes the existence of redshifts which are not caused by velocity.”

Although distant galaxies are supposedly receding from one another or at different distances from the Earth, they could not be receding at only specific intervals of velocity. Cars on the highway are traveling at various velocities. If they were doing so in quantum amounts, as do galaxies, they would say be moving at say speeds of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, etc. miles per hour or kilometers per hour and not at 15, 23, 36, 41, 58 miles or kilometers per hour and that they “simply disappear or dematerialize, or tunnel through time when not traveling at these intervals, as the electron cannot disappear or dematerialize when at different points in the atom. Trifft’s work was added to thereafter by William Napier and his co-worker, B. N. G. Guthrie, who continued along the line where Trifft left off, according to D. F. Roscoe:

“Napier began by using Monte Carlo methods to establish than an essential precondition for a rigorous analysis of the type proposed was the availability of a sufficiently large sample of redshifts, each with formal accuracy better than 5 km/s; anything less would result in a real signal a ≈ [approximately] 36 km/s being washed out by measurement errors.

“Napier’s co-worker, Guthrie, performed a very detailed literature search to assemble a sample of 97 redshift measurements of the required accuracy – taking care to reject any that had been used by Trifft in any of his claims. This sample formed the backbone of subsequent Napier – Guthrie analyses . . .

“Since redshift determinations are routinely given in the solar frame of reference, this amounted to the need to correct the redshift in the sample for the Sun’s motion [around] . . . the galactic center. At the time, 1989, the solar vector determinations resided in a very large error box, and so Napier’s analysis had a lot of slack associated with part of it. Even so, it quickly became apparent that a very strong quantization effect emerged for estimated solar vectors anywhere inside the error box . . . Extensive Monte Carlo simulations give a probability of ≈10^-8 for a signal like that . . . to have arisen by chance alone [about 1 chance in a billion].

“Subsequent to this initial publication, the satellite [spacecraft] Hipparchus, has been laundered which has resulted in very refined conventional determinations of the solar vector error box . . . These [were also found to] lie wholly inside the Hipparchus error box determinations.

“This analysis has been repeated on independent (although less accurate) samples . . . with similar results. Napier and Guthries’ parallel analysis of claims for 72 km/s for differential redshifts between galaxies in groups has been similarly successful, and has equally bizarre implications.

“To summarize, Trifft’s original claims have been strongly and independently substantiated by the Napier-Guthrie analysis; this latter analysis has appeared in the mainstream literature and stands increasingly secure as Hipparchus observations continue to tighten the solar error box. Any serious thought about these two effects soon convinces one that the implications for cosmology are profound . . .”

D. F. Roscoe, “Astrophysics in the Dark: Mach’s Principle Lights the Way,” Advances in Chemical Physics Modern Nonlinear Optics, Myron W. Evans ed., (NY 2001), pp. 301-303

Not only does this quantum relationship hold for the redshift of galaxies, but was also
found for quasars, to be discussed below. It is called the Karlsson Effect, named for K. G. Karlsson, who discovered it. Ratcliffe explains:

“If the energy levels of cosmological light are really just a function of remoteness [of bodies in distant space] given the big bang postulates, a smooth distribution of matter in the expanding universe, then we would expect that redshift values should [be] present without digital breaks. The tabulated values would appear randomly, reflecting the suggested patternless distribution of light sources in the cosmos. If, on the other hand, redshift relates somehow to the internal energy of the source . . . , then we might expect something entirely different. Speculation aside, the [standard model of cosmology] does not accommodate periodic redshifts. Are they observed?

“The Karlsson Effect refers to certain values in redshifts of cosmological objects that appear more commonly than others. Preferred values in quasar redshifts were first detected by Margaret and Geoffrey Burbidge in 1967. Four years later, K. G. Karlsson confirmed the effect and derived a formula that constrained the periodicity. That earned him the honor of having his name pinned to an observed effect that was, in the words of [Halton] Chip Arp, ‘one of the truly great discoveries in cosmic physics.’

“Three decades later, with far more comprehensive catalogues of [cosmic object] data to work from, Doctors Burbidge and Napier published a summary of the by now overwhelming evidence for redshift periodicity entitled ‘The Distribution of Redshifts in New Samples of Quasi-Stellar Objects [Quasars]’ . . .

“In 2009, Martin Lopez-Corredoria presented a summary of quasar [quantum] anomalies . . .

“The periods do exit in the SDSS ( Sloan Digital Sky Survey) data if the base value taken is the host galaxy’s redshift and not Z = 0 [redshift = 0] as used by the studies that [previously] found no unusual preferred [quantized redshift] values . . .

New Scientist, for September 16, 1971, page 612, reports the following regarding the
Karlsson Effect:

“Some astronomers have claimed that the redshifts of quasars are not uniformly spread out but instead tend to cluster about certain values. It now looks as if the workers who ‘found these periodicities’ were right . . .

“Dr. K. G. Karlsson, of Uppsala University, has found no less than five [quantum] peaks at particular redshifts. These critical values at which quasar redshifts congregate form a geometric series [one level double, triple, etc. that of a certain value] and it is particularly interesting that the most recently determined redshifts lie close to one or other of these peaks (Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 13, p. 333).

“However, if Karlsson is right, and it certainly looks that way, he has found a relation between the more common quasar redshifts, particularly around [two values] . . . This can only imply a link between quasars and galaxies, because objects with redshifts as low as 0.06 are galaxies, not quasars. His results suggest strongly that redshifts are an intrinsic property of quasars and do not necessarily indicate their distance from us. Moreover, in peculiar galaxies, at least the same sort of effect occurs.”

(C. Ginenthal: Newton, Einstein, Velikovsky)

QUASARS REDSHIFT III: THE KARLSSON EFFECT II

The Karlsson Effect: the redshift is systematically quantised in discrete values along preferred peaks.

In 1967, Burbidge and Burbidge detected what appeared to be a quirky statistic in the redshifts of quasars: A preferred value of z = 1.95. In 1971, by which time the quasar database had expanded significantly, J. G. Karlsson established that quasar redshifts do indeed have preferred peaks, given by the formula (1 + z₂)/(1 + z₁) = 1.23, and tend to fall into the series z = 0.061, 0.30, 0.60, 0.91, 1.41, and 1.96.

This phenomenon was verified by W. G. Tifft in a series of studies from 1976 to 1997,
referenced in the supporting paper Discrete Components in the Radial Velocities of ScI
galaxies by Bell, Comeau, and Russell.

Burbidge and Napier found in 2000 in their paper The Distribution of Redshifts in New
Samples of Quasi-Stellar Objects that:

“The redshift distributions of the samples are found to exhibit distinct peaks…identical to
that claimed in earlier samples but now extended out to higher redshift peaks…predicted by the formula but never seen before.”

In March 2006, M. B. Bell and D. McDiarmid of the National Research Council of Canada published a paper entitled Six Peaks Visible in Redshift Distribution of 46,400 Quasars. They find, “The peak found corresponds to a redshift period of Δz = ~0.70. Not only is a distinct power peak observed, the locations of the peaks in the redshift distributions are in agreement with the preferred redshifts predicted by the intrinsic redshift equation.”

Most recently (2008), Arp and Fulton published their findings The 2dF Redshift Survey II: UGC 8584 – Redshift Periodicity and Rings:

“UGC 8584 was selected by a computer program as having a number of quasars around it that obeyed the Karlsson periodicity in its reference frame…9 of the nearest 10 quasars turned out to be extremely close to the predicted values.”

Hilton Ratcliffe


Bruce Guthrie and William Napier from the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh used the most accurate hydrogen line redshift data. By the end of 1991 they had studied 106 spiral galaxies and detected a quantization of about 37.5 km/s, very close to Tifft's quantum multiple of 36.2 km/s [Schewe & Stein, 1992a, No.61]. By November 1992, a further 89 spiral galaxies had been examined in which a quantization of 37.2 km/s emerged [Schewe & Stein, 1992b, No. 104]. In 1995 they submitted a paper to Astronomy and Astrophysics with the results from a further 97 spiral galaxies showing a 37.5 km/s quantization. Because the prevailing wisdom said the quantization only appeared because of small number statistics, the referees asked them to repeat their analysis with another set of galaxies. This Guthrie and Napier did with an additional set of 117 other galaxies. The same 37.5 km/s quantization was plainly in evidence in this 1996 data set, and the referees accepted the paper [Matthews, 1996, p.759; Corliss, 1996, No. 105, Arp, 1998, p.199-200]. A Fourier analysis of all 399 data points showed a huge spike at 37.5 km/s with a significance of one in a million. The measurement error was about 1/10th the size of the quantization. One comment on the redshift quantization plot stated: "One can see at a glance how accurately the troughs and peaks of redshift march metronomically outward from 0 to over 2000 km/s." [Arp, 1998, p.199].

QUASARS REDSHIFT IV

Einstein: equations of special relativity suggested that the faster objects accelerate, the slower time goes. This can be tested by observation of quasars. Quasars rotate and their light curves exhibit a regular oscillation. Therefore, quasars at the same distance from the Earth, with the same or closely similar light oscillations, compared with quasars in accelerating space farther away, will tick faster than the more distant ones.

In both cases, the speed of light is constant. The more distant quasars should be ticking more slowly than closer ones. This is comparable to the two ultra-quantum logic-clocks, except the experiment/observation was carried out on almost 900 quasars.

“Since the universe is expanding – and the distant quasars are racing away from us – a clock placed in one of the distant galaxies should be running slower than a clock we have on Earth. Therefore, the effect of time dilation for distant objects can be measured if we can observe the ticking clock in the distant galaxy.

“[Mick] Hawkins [of the Royal Observatory, Edinburgh] took advantage of the fact that quasars blink. This blinking, or variability, can be viewed as a ‘ticking clock.’ He used data from [almost 900] quasars monitoring programs stored on the photographic plates to measure the time scales of the blinking. Looking at the time scales for two groups of quasars, [six billion light years away] and the other even farther, [ten billion light years away], there was no measurable difference that meant no time dilation: meaning that for both groups of quasars, the clocks were [ticking] the same.

“Either the Universe isn’t expanding, as Einstein required, or time dilation, as Einstein suggested, is false.”

This is a direct contradiction to relativity theory. If the universe is expanding and
accelerating, as general relativity demands, then the ticking quasars are not experiencing time dilation, and special relativity is invalid and fails. One has to give up general relativity in order to keep special relativity. But if the Universe is expanding and accelerating and time dilation is not being experienced by quasars, special relativity is invalid and fails. One has to give up special relativity in order to keep general relativity.

(C. Ginenthal: Newton, Einstein, Velikovsky)

QUASARS REDSHIFT V

However, if there are direct contradictions to the concept that redshifts are proof of
recession, then those contradictions invalidate redshifts as proof of recession. In this regard, Ratcliffe, citing P. J. E. Peebles standard textbook, The Principles of Physical Cosmology, (Princeton NJ 1993), page 71, that redshifts are not to be found for galaxies that are members of the Local Group of galaxies writes:

“The expansion of the universe means that the proper physical distance between a well-separated pair of galaxies is increasing with time [because the space between them is expanding], that is, the galaxies are receding from each other. A gravitationally bound system [is held together by gravity and is not expanding] such as the Local Group . . . the homogeneous expansion law refers [only] to galaxies far enough apart for these irregularities to be ignored.”

Carl Sagan echoes this concept: “What we see . . . is almost exclusively redshifts, no
matter what distant objects beyond the local group we point our telescope to.”

Therefore, because the Local Group of galaxies, which includes the Milky Way, is tied together by gravity, it could not and should not be able to break those connections. Ratcliffe, however, explains the contradiction:

“We all know that the postulated expansion of space does not occur locally, and ‘local’ includes the Virgo clusters . . . the standard [redshift expansion] theory alludes to a threshold for expansion at around 10 Mpc [megaparsecs] from the Earth, meaning that for the first 350 million light years or so, space does not expand.

Any perceived pattern in these data cannot indicate expansion, in terms of the Big Bang Theory [nor in terms of Einstein’s theory of general relativity]. [Finding a redshift for the Local Group] . . . would be an utter train smash for the Hubble law if only I could find proof in the form of a published data table or graph.

“It wasn’t hard to find. It’s [also] right there in black and white on page 86 of Peebles’ book. Figure 5.4 bears the caption, ‘Test of Hubble’s law using Tully-Fisher distances.’ . . .

“The plot of the diagram shows the Hubble relationship established in the supposed redshift-distance for a sample of galaxies in the vicinity of an object popularly identified as the Great Attractor . . . it has been invoked to explain the peculiar streaming motion of galaxies [toward it] in the neighborhood. A team led by Lydon-Bell discovered in 1988 that peculiar velocities in this region are puzzlingly large around 600 km sec^-1 for the entire Local Group, and this could only be explained by the presence of an extremely massive object somewhere in the direction they were headed...

“The crucial significance of this geographical location is twofold: Firstly, it is local . . . and secondly, the presence in this local of a structure massive enough to divert entire clusters of galaxies [away] from the mooted Hubble [expansion] flow is in defiance of the cosmological Principle [that the large-scale Universe is homogenous and isotropic or the same everywhere], and [this unique flow away from the direction of all other expanding galaxies in space] therefore rules out Hubble expansion in the region being observed. Despite the fact that all parties agree that the galaxies represented in the graph [of the Local Group] occupy a volume of space that is definitely not expanding.

Peebles is quite clear in his conclusion . . . ‘We see that even with the anomaly [of galaxies moving] in the direction of Centaurus [beyond which lies the great attractor], Hubble’s law is quite a good description of the redshift relation.’”

Here is what this means: In the Local Group of galaxies, gravity will not allow expansion, thus it must be static. But at the very same time Hubble’s law of redshifts shows these galaxies are streaming away. That is, in the Local Group, which is static, one can find redshifts.

That is, static space can show redshifts, a complete contradiction to Hubble’s law. Since there are redshifts in the static Local Group of galaxies, then the very same must also apply to distant galaxies. They are also static – not moving apart – but also display redshifts, just like those observed in the Local Group. Ratcliffe puts it this way: “There you have it. Bingo! The Hubble law shows up in nonexpanding space, and would, therefore, manifest itself in a static Universe.”

Or to put it oxymoronically, cosmologically throughout the Universe, we have static shiftless redshifts.

(C. Ginenthal: Newton, Einstein, Velikovsky)

QUASARS REDSHIFT VI

We come to the redshift problem of T Tauri stars that are almost always blueshifted.

The problem is outlined by John Bally and Bo Reipurth.

“The key to understanding T. Tauri stars is the recognition that they are surrounded by disks. . . . Among other things, it was noted that when spectra of T. Tauri stars shows signs of high velocity [stellar wind] shocks associated with outflows, the emission is usually blueshifted, that is [the outflow] is turned toward the observer, whereas redshifts are rare. These shocks are likely to be generated by material moving equally towards or away from the observer, and therefore such a [blueshift] preference should not exist. But if T. Tauri stars are surrounded by disks, the [stellar wind] shocks moving away from the observer will be partly hidden, while the approaching [blueshift] shocks will remain unobstructed.”

John Bally, Bo Reipurth, Birth of Stars and Planets, (Cambridge, UK / NY et al. 2006), p. 95

The problem is that the disks are at the rotational equator of the star and will rarely be
directly in the plane of sight. These disks will be tipped at an angle to the observer, or even perpendicularly to him and, therefore, both the outgoing materials moving away or toward the observer will very rarely interact with the disk material to give either a redshift or blueshift.

“As a final example of the current state of the art in celestial mechanics; let me show you a specific example from The Encyclopedia of the Solar System, a recent book [1999] published by NASA and the Jet Propulsion Lab with the cooperation of many of the top universities in the country. To tie the Sun to a solar disk, we are given evidence from T. Tauri stars . . . of roughly solar mass and they have what appear to be disks, or, to be more precise, they have a lot of dust around them.

There is enough dust to obscure the stars, but it doesn’t. Why? Because it is confined to the disc and isn’t in our plane of sight. So far so good. To confirm this, we look at the emission lines created by a stellar wind. We find that these emission lines are [almost] always blue-shifted. And this is where it gets silly. For the book tells us: ‘This observation is explained if the red-shifted lines that would be associated with gas flowing away from the observer were obscured by the circumstellar disc.’ Anybody see the problem here? There are actually two problems. The first is that if the disc is not in our plane of sight, then it can’t be the cause of any obscuring of shifts, red or blue. The second, [and most important] problem is that the gas flows away from the observer is on the far side of the star [that can’t be seen]. If light from the star goes through it in order to make any emission lines then the light must be [redshifted because it is] going in the opposite direction of Earth. We can’t possibly see it. This whole theory is a comedy of basic logical errors.

“It is not the exception, either, it is the rule. A mistake like this cannot be assigned to [a] single person. This book was edited by a large committee of topflight physicists . . . mistakes like that are nothing less than shocking.”

(C. Ginenthal: Newton, Einstein, Velikovsky)

QUASARS REDSHIFT VII

Let us nail down this question of non-expansion by assuming that quasars are at these great redshift distances, ŕ la general relativity and the Hubble law, but that their sideward/lateral motion must be constrained by special relativity, not exceeding the speed of light. Both are Einsteinian concepts. Here, Ratcliffe reports:

“The illusion of remoteness can be further illustrated by examining the lateral motion of quasars projected by their redshift distances. The results are startling and must surely give grey hairs of those keenly promoting the authenticity of the Special Theory of Relativity. Y. P. Varshni, of the University of Ottawa, did the sums for three examples of quasars with well-established redshift values. . . .

“Just to clarify the point, three well-known quasars . . . are found to have lateral motions that are, respectively, 760 times, 5,200 times, and 2,300 times the speed of light . . . Surely this alone renders the redshift-distance idea worthless? The final nail in the coffin of quasar redshift-distance (as if we needed another nail) is the measurement of the speed of jets [of gas and dust coming out of quasars]. This, too, is proper [or, in a sense, lateral] motion, and is, therefore, a real effect. Over a period of 5 years, from 1979 to 1984, John Biretta, of the Space Telescope Science Institute, measured the ejection [speed] of material from the quasar 3C 345. The increase in angular separation is directly observed and measured. To translate angular separation trigonometrically into linear distance, distance from Earth to 3C 345 is required.

“ . . . Let me reiterate that there is nothing peculiar about these measurements. These are first-order data, presented without modification . . . applying redshift distance to 3C 345, . . . all hell breaks loose. It turns out that 3C 345 should be around five-and-a-half billion light years away, if redshifts are to be believed. That number applied to the measured rate of angular departure means that the system is allegedly expanding transversely at a physical rate of seven times the speed of light.

It matters not a whit whether we agree with the theoretically imposed absolute speed limit of [light] C; the fact of the matter is that those who propose redshift distance do so on the basis of Einstein’s Relativity, and are therefore bound to bow before the absolute barrier imposed by light speed. They cannot have their cake and eat it. At redshift-given remoteness, 3C 345 surpasses the speed of light many times over. In terms of its own founding principles, the Hubble law is unambiguously falsified by Figure 24. [not presented here] . . .

“This is but one of several examples in this book. Isn’t it strange, therefore, that the ostriches of cosmology can continue to bury their heads in the sand of abject denial? In 1999, Halton Arp told the world, “‘Of course, if one ignores contradictory observations, one can claim to have an “elegant” or “robust” theory. But it isn’t science.’”

One can, of course, agree that space is expanding and that these quasars are not moving beyond the speed of light, but why are the jets emanating from them filled with gas and dust, and the jets expanding only in a lateral direction, doing so at seven times the speed of light? If the space in the jets was expanding at seven fold light speed, not only would they expand laterally away from the quasar, they would be expanding in every other direction and over time the jets would not only lengthen laterally, but also vertically and in every other direction. In order to make space expand inside the jet, it must have the unique quality of only expanding in one linear direction and in no other direction. In essence, to try to salvage an expanding universe, space must expand outward in all directions, except in quasar jets, where it only expands laterally. Not only are astronomers, cosmologists and physicists curving space ŕ la Einstein, causing it to expand outward in all directions to fit the Big Bang theory, but then somehow contort its outward expansion in all directions and have it expand in only a lateral direction in quasar jets.

All these different forms of evidence from Hubble’s own work with nebulae, to the Local Group of galaxies which are static but exhibit redshifts to Trifft’s evidence that redshifts are quantized, to Burbidge and Arp’s evidence that a quasar of great redshift is in front of galaxy NGC 7319, to the evidence that T Tauristars, where redshifts are interpreted by light on the opposite side of the stars moving away, which cannot be observed, is actually creating blueshifts as it passes through the disc of gas surrounding it, to Russell’s evidence from Virgo clusters that some of its spiral galaxies are approaching the Milky Way, while others are receding from it, dismantle the Hubble redshift law.

It only takes one well-verified, well-observed contradiction to Hubble’s law to invalidate it, and yet, our sample above, we have five, and these are not confined to just these instances. There are other galaxies, other Local Groups other T Tauri stars, other clusters of galaxies like the Virgo cluster throughout the Universe that have the same constituents in them that deny the Hubble redshift law. That is, untold billions of examples exist that contradict established redshift wisdom. About all this evidence, Ratcliffe argues:

“Isn’t it strange how energetically devoted theoreticians tackle the problem of taming [redshift] anomalies? With whips, trowels, and dollops of fudge, it seems they can get any wayward, prodigal observation back into the fold, and without raising a sweat, realign dissident interpretations with their preferred model. In their hands, square pegs and round holes are raised to an art form. Despite the clear warning of Hubble himself, astronomers succumbed to the urgent need for a way to establish remoteness in space of celestial objects, and the even sexier imperative to drive the exciting new expanding-universe model forward. Consequently, the redshift-gives-distance idea was carved into the wall of astrophysical law.

“From an independent objective point of view, the accepted explanation doesn’t even get to first base. Let me say it again – the only reason, and I mean the only reason, that such a blatantly improbable theory has seen the light of day is because the Standard Model [of the cosmology of the Universe and Einstein’s General Relativity Theory] requires it . . . whatever we decide to do, it is clear at the very least that redshift is not demonstrably proportional to distance – or recessional velocity – in all cases . . .

The Hubble law and attendant redshift-based expansion are a myth. We might even dare, in this age of . . . pseudoscience, call it a Convenient Untruth.”

(C. Ginenthal: Newton, Einstein, Velikovsky)

QUASARS REDSHIFT VIII

“As more distant regions of space were probed and the redshift magnitudes continued to increase, other astronomers also began to have their doubts as to whether the spectral shifts were really produced by motional effects. For example, when Hubble and Humason published their 1931 results, which projected galaxy recessional velocities as high as 7 percent of the speed of light [25,000 miles per second], they began to refer to these as ‘apparent’ [rather than real] velocities, with the idea that the phenomenon might be due to some other cause than the Doppler effect.

“In 1935, with the apparent velocities reaching 13 percent of the speed of light [44,000 miles per second], Edwin Hubble and Richard Tolman coauthored a paper comparing tired-light and expanding-universe hypotheses on the basis of galaxy number count. They suggested that some mechanism other than expansion might be responsible for producing the cosmological redshifts, although they did not entirely rule out expansion as a possibility. A year later, armed with a much better set of galaxy number count data, Hubble wrote a follow-up paper that came out decidedly in favor of tired light.”

Hubble remained steadfastly unconvinced that the Doppler Effect correctly explained his observations and he was at pains to declare it quite emphatically.

Why did Hubble stick to his guns on this question? He wrote an article for Scientific American in April 1942, offering this explanation:

“Since the corresponding velocity of recession is the same fraction of the velocity of light, the nebulae in the most distant cluster observed, if they are actually receding, will appear 13 percent fainter than they would appear if they were stationary. The difference is small but, fortunately, the measures can be made with fair accuracy. The results may be stated simply. If the nebulae are stationary the law of redshifts is sensibly linear; redshifts are a constant multiple of distances. In other words, each unit of light path contributes the same amount of redshift. On the other hand, if the nebulae are receding, and the dimming factors are applied, the scale of distances is altered, and the law of redshifts is no longer linear [but quadratic].”

That is, the light of the most distant nebulae should appear 13 percent fainter or dimmer if they are actually moving away. However, Hubble discovered that they are not 13 percent fainter, meaning that with respect to the Earth, they are stationary. Five years later, in 1947, he wrote:

“. . . it seems likely that red-shifts may not be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the speculation on the structure of the Universe may require reexamination.”

To get around Hubble’s own evidence that the redshifts, if linear, required a static
Universe; Michael Strauss and Daniel Koranyi presented a paper which attempted to show, contrary to Hubble, an expanding Universe did not require a linear dimming of distant nebulae, could also be explained as a quadratic relationship.

What they said was “in effect by treating the entire galaxy luminosity function . . . as a distance indicator, equivalently we can compare flux density . . . with predictions under different redshift-distance cosmologies . . .”

The problem is that “They test the redshift law using redshift law-derived data. The galaxy luminosity and flux density used in this exercise are [both entirely] redshift functions. That’s blatantly circular. No test of the Hubble, completely independent of the same law, has ever been done, to the best of my knowledge.”

Put into other terms, Louis Marmet explained that even cosmologist Allan Sandage, who also tried to discredit Hubble’s linear analysis, as it relates to Richard Tolman’s
requirements to test Hubble, was flawed by the same circular reasoning.

“Sandage explains that the Tolman test should be independent of cosmology, but a calculation of the absolute magnitude [brightness] of the galaxies is required to be able to classify them . . . So although the surface brightness is an absolute quantity, the identification of the galaxies (and, therefore, their absolute luminosities and diameters) is dependent on their cosmology.”

In order to know the absolute luminosities and the diameter of distant galaxies, one
must know their actual distances, not their classified redshift distances. One cannot know either their absolute luminosities and diameter until one knows the galaxies’ distances from Earth. What cosmologists like Michael Strauss, Daniel Koranyi, and even the great Alan Sandage did was use Hubble cosmological redshifts to determine the distance and then claimed these distances to the galaxies only made scientific sense if the Universe was expanding, as per Hubble. The fact of the matter is that since cosmological redshifts was data based on a classification that accords with certain cosmological assumptions about its value, the interpretation of the absolute magnitude [or brightness of the distant galaxy] and also its diameters was an artifact of the classification which was, in reality, still an interpretation. It was a circularly reasoned analysis.

Worse still, is the fact that Hubble’s data did not correlate redshifts to galactic distance,
as Ratcliffe points out:

“The premises established by Edwin Hubble in 1927 . . . are arguably one of the root causes of cosmology’s rampant delinquency. It seems that he was anxious to support what amounted to a foregone conclusion. In his book, The First Three Minutes, Professor Steven Weinberg is most succinct: ‘Actually,’ a look at Hubble’s data leaves me perplexed [as to] how he could reach such a conclusion – galactic distances seem almost uncorrelated with their [redshift] distance . . . It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that . . . Hubble knew the answer he wanted to get.”

(C. Ginenthal: Newton, Einstein, Velikovsky)


"Hubble felt that the data was in better agreement with light having a loss of energy to the  intervening medium proportional to the distance it travels through space by what he called "a new principle of nature" (Hubble 1937).

Ether redshift theory:


https://web.archive.org/web/20060607031454/http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep3-17.htm

"The late Walther Nernst was one of the the most eminent and interesting scientists with whom I came into contact. His scientific instinct was truly amazing - apart from a masterly acquaintance with a vast amount of facts that he could always readily bring to mind, he also possessed a rare command of methods and experimental findings which he excelled in ... "

A. Einstein describing the work published by W. Nernst

What Walther Nernst did was to discover a huge, humoungous, catastrophic error in Hubble's calculations on the interpretation of the red shift.



"if redshifts are not primarily due to velocity shift … the velocity-distance relation is linear, the distribution of the nebula is uniform, there is no evidence of expansion, no trace of curvature, no restriction of the time scale … and we find ourselves in the presence of one of the principle of nature that is still unknown to us today … whereas, if redshifts are velocity shifts which measure the rate of expansion, the expanding models are definitely inconsistent with the observations that have been made … expanding models are a forced interpretation of the observational results"

E. Hubble


And as far as expansion is concerned, Hubble concluded with the following statement:

" … the results do not establish the expansion as the only possible interpretation of redshifts. Other data are available which, at the moment, seem to point in another direction."

" … redshifts are evidence either of an expanding universe or of some hitherto unknown principle of nature …

E. Hubble


The Universe is NOT expanding.

The redshift theory cannot be used to date anything at all pertaining to the age of the Universe.

The only two astronomical methods which can be used to date the age of the Universe are the Faint Young Sun Paradox and especially the Comets' Tails Rate of Dissipasion of Matter.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290 (faint young sun paradox)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1640735#msg1640735 (comets' tails dating)

The age of the Solar System must be less than the estimated upper age of comets.

Comet Halley, as well as other comets, may have only been orbiting in its present orbit for only a few thousand years.

Comet Halley may have been in its current orbit for as little as 3,000 years.

FLAT EARTH GEOCENTRISM: THE ULTIMATE PROOF II

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936055#msg1936055 (part I)

"The mammoth and other megafauna that inhabited the circumpolar regions did not live
there during the Ice Age when that vast expanse of territory was either covered by an ice sheet or was mostly a frozen tundra desert.

They lived there during an exceedingly warm period.

In this period, the vegetation provided food for all these massive animals, so they could thrive there, and that it ended with a pole shift (in the heliocentrical version).

If the pole prior to the last great cosmic upheaval  was only tilted slightly, say about nine to ten degrees, much less than the 23 ˝ degrees tilt today, this would have expanded the temperate zone both northward and southward by about 8.5 degrees in each direction and the plants that could grow in these regions would reflect this by growing and being found there."

If the flat earth theory is right,  then the remains of temperate plants will be found growing about nine to ten degrees farther north and south of their present-day habitats. There would have been a great expansion of the temperate zones north and south and a compression of the torrid and arctic/antarctic zones. Therefore, plants that can only now grow in the temperate zones would have been able to migrate by seed dispersal farther north and south, in order to account for the heliocentrical theory.

It should be noted that the ice rain theory which accounts for the extinction of the mammoths is valid ONLY in the flat earth version: had there been no pole shift, with an ice rain falling in the heliocentrical context, the areas in question would have been exposed immediately to the same amount of sunlight, the snow/ice would have melted in a matter of hours (during the summer), or in a matter of weeks (during the winter).

A pole shift in the heliocentrical context immediately invalidates this very hypothesis (heliocentricity):  the Gizeh Pyramid is perfectly aligned to reveal the winter/summer solstices and the spring/autumn equinoxes as a calendar, the Gizeh pyramid was constructed, we are told, well before the time of the pole shift itself (see part I).

If the flat earth theory is right, temperate plants dated to the hypsithermal will be found around 1,000 miles north of their current global distribution, and other temperate plants’ remains or still living plants will be found about 1,000 miles south of their current global distribution. There are certain types of plants that cannot live well above the Arctic Circle today, even under far warmer conditions with the present orientation of the poles. This is not an assertion or assumption or argument based on words alone, but on well-established botanical, scientific facts.


"E. C. Pielou explains the botanical science behind the fact as to why certain plants cannot nor could not move far beyond their present boundary distribution well north of the Arctic Circle.

“An apparent obstacle to long northward and southward migration of plants is the phenomenon of photoperiodism. As is well-known, many species of plants are genetically programmed to flower only when there are appropriate daylight hours during the twenty-four our day. There are so-called long-day plants and short-day plants . . . They cannot flower until spring advances into summer, the length of the day’ (that is, the number of daylight hours) has reached the required minimum . . . Even when spring is abnormally warm, they cannot be hurried.”

Given the present axial tilt, the periods of light and darkness on the Earth are rigidly fixed and supposedly have remained so for billions of years. Along these same lines, Paul S. Sears, of Yale University, reports:

“No single species of plant or animal . . . can transgress very far beyond its characteristic climate range unless it undergoes evolutionary changes that in turn set new limits. For this phenomenon, there are good and sufficient reasons to be found in physiology which finds for each species its range of tolerance in respect to factors of climate [photoperiodism factor], but their combination and rhythmic patterns.”

Specifically, one of the plants that does not and cannot grow far north of the Arctic
Circle because it produces flowers that give rise to berries from spring to summer and because it needs specific photoperiodic amounts of light at these times is the black crowberry bush or Empetrum nigrum. J. V. Bell and J. H. Tallis’ paper, “Biological Flora of the British Isles,” Journal of Ecology, Vol. 61, no. 1 (1973), page 291, have presented the range and distribution of this flowering plant. All are south of the Arctic Circle except at a tiny point above it in Scandinavia. For this bush to grow about 1,000 miles north of the Arctic Circle, even during hypsithermal when it was much warmer – requires a pole shift.

Nevertheless, this was just what was found by J. B. Charlesworth’s The Quaternary Era, vol. II (London 1957), pages 1484-1485, as I pointed out:

“Presented evidence that a bush, the Black Crowberry, Empetrum nigrum, was found in situ on one of the Spitsbergen islands located about 1,000 miles north of the Arctic Circle. The plant had ripe berries and Charlesworth admitted that these plants ‘no longer ripen in these northern lands.’ This plant was about 15° north of the Arctic Circle and had gone through the process of sexual reproduction to generate flowers in spring, then fruit with seeds during the summer months, which would later fall to the Earth to germinate and reproduce a new plant. But above the Arctic Circle these plants today reproduce by asexual means. Yet Charlesworth claimed that the Black Crowberry found in situ had fruit and seed or ‘ripe fruit stones,’ this plant had to live in an environment/biome with temperate zone seasons of different lengths of daylight and night. Significantly, Charlesworth was talking about the Hypsithermal period the time claimed that the poles were more perpendicular before a pole shift occurred.”

The indisputable scientific, botanical fact, as opposed to the celestial mechanical
equations that have been presented as unmovable evidence for the stability of the pole is quite clear. This plant could not have grown on Spitsbergen and have flowers, fruits and ripe seeds unless, and only unless, there was a major pole shift or plate tectonic movement or both to allow this. What proponents of the stable pole concept cannot do is make this interdisciplinary scientific, botanical evidence fit their paradigm. However, it correlates, corroborates and is congruent with the pole shift hypothesis.

Nevertheless, this is not the only interdisciplinary scientific, botanical fact that contradicts the axial stability equations; large trees have also been found in situ with their roots in the ground well north of the Arctic Circle, and this, like the Black Crowberry, is a botanical impossibility with the present orientation of the poles. On this point, Edith Taylor, paleobotanist at Ohio State University, specifically states:

“The first thing we paleobotanists do is look for something in the modern records and there are no forests growing at that [polar] latitude today. We can go to the tropics and find trees growing in a warm environment, but we can’t find trees growing in a warm environment with a light regime these trees had: 24 hours of light in summer and 24 hours of dark in winter.”

Savelli V. Tomirdiaro states that trees also grew on the islands of the Arctic Ocean several hundred miles north of the Arctic Circle: “Thus, the forest growth of the Hypsithermal spread not only across the plains of Yakutia, but as far north as the northernmost islands [in the Arctic Ocean] of Novosibirsk [New Siberian Island]
Archipelago . . .”

G. H. Denton’s The Last Ice Sheet (NY 1981), cited by D. S. Allen and J. B. Delair tells us that some 200 miles north of the Arctic Circle “near Disko Bay . . . last century an ancient tree with a trunk ‘thicker’ than a man’s body, was found still standing erect on a hill at an elevation of 1,080 feet (332m) by Capt. Inglefield.”

Some may say 200 miles isn’t significant, but for this tree to grow there, it still had to live in a regime of 24 hours of daylight and 24 hours of night, where such trees could never grow.

Astronomers must somehow explain how they grew there with the present tilt of the Earth. However, this is not the only such finding. We also have evidence of a tree rooted in the soil some 630 miles north of the Arctic Circle reported in 1857:

“Capt. Sir Edward Belcher, who in lat[itude] 75° 30’ longitude 92° 30’ observed on the east side of Wellington Channel the trunk of a fir tree standing vertically and which being cleared of surrounding Earth [etc.] . . . was found to extend its roots into what we supposed to be was soil. [Since this finding is impossible given the stability of the polar axis]. If from the observation we should be led to imagine that all the innumerable fragments of timber found in these polar latitudes belonged to trees that grew upon the spot and on the ground over which they are now distributed, we should be driven to adopt the anomalous hypothesis that, notwithstanding physical relations of land and water similar to those which now prevail . . . trees of such size grew on such terra firma within a few degrees of the North Pole! – a supposition I consider to be wholly incompatible with the [gravitational stable axis] data in our possession, and at variance with the isothermal lines [temperature regime of 50° F annual average necessary for large trees to live].”

That tree was growing during the Hypsithermal some 630 miles above the Arctic
Circle, again something scientifically, botanically impossible with the present position of the polar axis. Again, this is a “scientific fact,” again not just words alone. This is a mere drop in the ocean of evidence about trees growing in the Arctic region."

(C. Ginenthal: Newton, Einstein, Velikovsky)

FLAT EARTH GEOCENTRISM: THE ULTIMATE PROOF III

(continued from part II)

"Furthermore, if the pole was far less tilted, the temperate zone would have also moved
south of its present position by about 1,000 miles.

Allessandra Nibbi pointed to the Professor P. Quezel in:

“His study of core samples from a limited area confirmed what many scientists have been saying for some time. At the [Hypsithermal] time of this highest precipitation, the Mediterranean climate moved southward into North Africa for approximately 1250 miles [2000 kilometers] thus bringing the Mediterranean vegetation in the Sahara as far south as Hoggar and Tibesti.”

She further claims the botanical evidence for this climate condition is dated well after the Sahara dried up supposedly. In addition, a giant olive tree is still living in the south central Sahara dated to between three to four thousand years ago as pointed out by Robert Silverberg’s The Challenge of Climate (NY 1969), pp. 156-157. Of significance is the fact presently that Egypt’s climate is not suitable . . . for the development of olive [trees], and thus [to have them grow there] it was necessary to acclimatize the crop [that grows there].”

This means that for olive trees to have migrated down into the south central Sahara, the climate had to be identical to that in the Mediterranean region so olive trees would not have to be acclimated to live there If any living trees grow well outside oases, they would also have to date to around that period (hypsithermal) to receive the photoperiodic signals and water necessary to live. If the Sahara dried up before that period, as textbooks and authorities claim, then the desert would have been too dry for seeds to germinate. Nevertheless, there was found a grove of living cypress trees in the Sahara far from any source of water for seeds to germinate. According to naturalist, David Attenborough: “Judging from the number of rings in their trunks, they are between 2000 and 3000 years old."

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1640735#msg1640735 (dating methods of the past: isotopes vs. comets)

"That is, the vegetation in the Arctic moved about 1,000 miles above the Arctic Circle,
while in the Mediterranean region, it moved about 1,000 miles south during the very same period, the Hypsithermal. This is thoroughly in agreement the pole shift theory.

That being the case, in between these two regions, I was able to show that the trees growing below the Arctic Circle and across and above the desert belts of the northern hemisphere, which today are generally treeless with only very sparce vegetation, were lush with trees, grass, etc. In the treeless tundra of Canada, Pielou tells us, during this period “much of what is now tundra was forested . . . true forest of spruce, not merely scattered trees.”

P. Borisov states: “Forest extended right up to the Berents Coast and [temperate trees] such as oak, linden and filbert reached the shores of the White Sea. The information available warrants the assumption that on the European continent, the tundra and [stunted tree] forests – tundra zones disappeared completely [replaced by temperate forests].”

Chester Chard, speaking of Siberia, shows that around 2,500 B.C. “the climate was warmer than today, and the vegetative zones spread north of their present limit. On the lower Lena [River near the Arctic Ocean], for instance, spruce and pine pollen several hundred kilometers north of its present range and trunks of birch trees of normal size, have been found in peat deposits.”

Therefore, with the present orientation of the polar axis, the entire ring of lands surrounding the Arctic Circle was far colder than at present, and these forests could not have existed there, with the mammoth, etc. Yet, in the permafrost throughout this region, mammoths are found with the shattered remains of trees. If the mammoth died off before these forests grew, it would have been impossible to place all this timber in the permafrost without melting it and destroying all the fossil remains of the Pleistocene animals. In order for the forests to grow, the ground had to be warm enough for roots to penetrate into the soil. That is just what was seen and reported for the tree still standing on an island on the east side of Wellington Channel described above. But mammoths are generally found in the top layers of the permafrost of that region, as is well-known. Their carcasses and bones are found just at or below the surface. So if the forest grew after these Pleistocene animals became extinct and thereafter buried near the surface, the mammoth tissues would have been destroyed by bacteria and none of them would still be preserved. On the other hand, for the forests to grow and then work their way down into the permafrost with these animals, the permafrost must again melt to permit this, and again, mammoth tissues would not survive. That requires that the forest grew when these Pleistocene forms were alive and both were buried at the same time. That is, these Pleistocene fauna lived in these Arctic regions when it was warm enough for them, and photoperiodic periods allowed these trees to grow, and this again is in line with and corroborates with the pole shift scenario.

What of the other non-polar desert regions than the Sahara? These are presently deserts or sparsely covered by trees. For example, in the Tarim Basin of Chinese Turkestan, William Ryan and Walter Pitman show that Sven Anders Hedin says:

“stumbled upon ‘a dead forest of sun-bleached, wind-scoured tree stumps protruding through the sand.’ At the edge of the forest were structures crafted not of stone or mud-brick, but of hand-hewn [wooden] posts and walls of reeds . . . The pictures [there] included nautical scenes of boats sailing on a vast inland lake. Further digging revealed docks for the boats and wood for their keels.

Hedin wrote that this lost world “‘. . . was one of the most unexpected discoveries that I have made throughout the whole of my travels in Asia . . . who would have imagined that in the interior of the dreaded Desert of Gobi, and precisely in that part of it which in dreariness and desolation exceeds all other deserts on the face of the Earth, actual cities
slumbered under the sand . . .’”

What, then, of the desert of Eastern India, present-day Pakistan? Nigel Calder shows:

“Discoveries of fossil pollen that an area in north-west India at the edge of the Harappan region, which is arid, was formerly a land of rich vegetation.

“An expert in fossil pollen, Gundip Singh, from the Institute of Paleobotany in Lucknow, investigated salt lakes in north-west India and found that they were formerly fresh-water lakes [as that in the Gobi Desert], in the midst of richly vegetated land. The most interesting of the lakes in Lunkaransar near Bikaner is keep in the Great Sand of Rajasthan. Here, today, the hot, moist wind of summer monsoon delivers scarcely any rain; instead it piles up drifts of sand dunes . . . The vegetation is sparse. But dig just a few feet through the salt of Lunkaransar and you come to neat layers of mud, laid down when the lake carried fresh water four thousand years ago. And in the layers, Singh found pollen of bulrushes and sedges.

The lake collected from the surrounding land pollen of grass, jamun trees, mimosa and many other species. Jamun trees need at least 20 inches of rainfall a year.”

What then of the Mediterranean region, especially the areas that are extremely arid today and have very few trees growing there, let alone forests. For example, Crete is a very barren island and researchers have strongly denied the possibility of forests growing there. A. T. Grove and Oliver Rackham explain this with which I strongly agree:
“A sure route to pseudo-history lies in ignoring the [ecological] behavior of plants and animals. Historians gather ancient allusions to people cutting down trees, and assume these add up to a record of deforestation, as if depleting a forest by cutting down trees were the same as destroying it.”

They go on to show:

“There are two prehistoric pollen profiles in Crete, Agia Galini – a hot, dry area near the south coast – had deciduous oak, hazel, alder, elm and lime. [The other site] Tersana on the NW coast, also now a dry site, had oaks, lime, hazel and Ostyra Hazel, alder and lime are now extinct in Crete and rare in most of Greece [to the north]. The southern limits of vegetation in effect moved at least 500 km [310 miles or 4.5 degrees] northward since the early Holocene.”

If, indeed, as the establishment scientists insist, the Ice Age ended and both the northern regions of America and Europe warmed when the ice sheet disappeared, animals that lived below the limits of the ice sheet would ecologically move northward into the new, warmer regions of these continents, especially warmth-loving species. As the vast ice sheet melted, they would all, as naturally expected, migrate northward into the vast regions of North America once frozen, where they would find the same, warmer habitat that suited their ecological needs and nature before the ice disappeared. In no case should warmth-loving animals move southward if the pole remained in the same position. However, in North America, instead of migrating north into the warming areas of the continent which were heating up, the animals, in complete contradiction to their zoological and ecological nature and requirements, migrated southward! Tim Flannery specifically informs us that in the Americas:

“Species as diverse as armadillos, tapirs, jaguars, speckled bears, llamas, ocellated turkeys and peccaries, all moved southward. This is quite a surprising pattern, for all these warmth-loving species were withdrawing from the north of the continent just as it was heating up. Just why they survived in South and Central America, while becoming extinct in the northern margins of their range is an intriguing question.”

This is not so much an “intriguing question” as a scientific, biological, zoological
contradiction to the stable pole hypothesis. The only reason for warmth-loving species to migrate south is that the climate did just the opposite of what proponents of a stable pole require to explain, support and corroborate, that mathematical, astronomical paradigm that North America warmed instead, it had to get cooler when the Ice Age ended. Ice sheets do not melt away where the climate becomes cooler. If there was a stable pole, at the end of the Ice Age, all the warmth-loving animals would migrate north. The established stable pole theory cannot be upheld unless one is prepared to throw both the sciences of botany and zoology out the window. If this theory was right, then we would have armadillos tapirs, jaguars, speckled bears, llamas, oscillated turkeys and peccaries living in Mexico and well into the United States.

FLAT EARTH GEOCENTRISM: THE ULTIMATE PROOF IV

There is also scientific, zoological evidence that certain temperate zone species that
inhabited Alaska and Canada during the Ice Age also went extinct there, but migrated and/or survived much farther to the south This is particularly relevant to the black-footed ferret and the badger. According to R. Dale Guthrie, “Both badgers and ferrets lived in Alaska and the Yukon Territory during the Pleistocene.” R. Dale Guthrie, Frozen Fauna of the Mammoth Steppe: The Story of Blue Babe (Chicago 1990), p. 249. In his book, he presents a map of North America that shows this distribution during the Pleistocene. But today, these species thrive far to the south from the north central United States down to Mexico. Since they lived in Alaska and the Yukon during the Ice Age, and with the end of the Ice Age the land there warmed up, they should have survived there or migrated farther north to the tundra regions along the Arctic Ocean. Instead of migrating or surviving in the north, they survived or moved 1,000 to 2,000 miles south, like the armadillos, tapirs, jaguars, etc.

The identical condition pertains to the horse and bison. They also lived in Alaska with
the mammoth during the Ice Age apparently in great herds. Guthrie speaks of “thousands of fossils collected from Alaskan Pleistocene deposits . . . [and] found more than 95 percent were from bison, horse and mammoth.”

While the horse became extinct in America, the bison survived and, like the black-footed ferret, the badger, and armadillo, tapirs, jaguars, etc., bison thrive well to the south
of the tundra regions of the Arctic. If, as assumed, the pole did not change its position and the land only warmed as the ice sheet receded, bison should still be living around the edge of the Arctic Ocean. Since they could live in these regions during the Ice Age, and it is warmer now, then surely vast herds should be living in these regions. The zoological and ecological facts are unequivocal.

In essence, the various Pleistocene species that survived the Ice Age in America did
not migrate north as the land warmed up with its end. They moved or survived thousands of miles farther to the south, in many cases, the exact opposite of what zoological ecology demands and thus denies that the pole was stable.

In Europe and Siberia, we encounter the opposite situation, this time with the coldloving
reindeer. In Europe, the reindeer lived as far south as the Pyrenees Mountains. As Bjorn
Kurter explains: “The fact remains, nevertheless, that reindeer migrated in winter as far south as the Pyrenees at the height of the last glaciation, so that conditions can hardly have been so very different on the whole from those of Lapland in summer today.”

Along these same lines is the otter, wolverine and lynxes that also lived further south
in Europe and Siberia prior to the end of the Ice Age. They lived in refuges far south of their present day habitats which are far to the north. Thus, we are told, that presently:
“Otters, wolverines and lynxes [live] in northern Europe, most likely as a result of an
expansion out of one southern refuge at the end of the last glacial maximum.”

But when the Ice Age ended, they moved about 1,500 miles north to the edge of the Arctic Ocean. This would only make sense if instead of Europe and Siberia warming after the Ice Age, they cooled so these coldloving animals moved north to inhabit the same climatological environment they had in central western Europe and southern Siberia Thus, Siberia became more Arctic – that is, colder. Therefore, reindeer, otters, wolverines and lynxes, being cold-loving animals, would migrate ever farther north after the Ice Age ended via a pole shift. In the Americas, the warm-loving species, armadillos, tapirs, jaguars, speckled bears, llamas, ocellated turkeys, peccaries badgers ferrets, etc., moved south, not because the climate warmed, but because it cooled, because of a pole shift. In Europe and Siberia, the cold-loving animals – reindeer, otters, wolverines, lynxes – moved north not because the climate cooled as in the America, but because it warmed. In Europe and Siberia, just the opposite happened, it became far cooler. The reindeer and other cold-loving animals would therefore move as far north as possible to inhabit the biomes suited to them. That is, they not only live in Siberia, but over 1,000 miles north of the Arctic Circle on the New Siberian Islands and even further north: “Even today, reindeer reach these islands across the ice from the main body of the New Siberian Islands farther south.”

That is, today cold-loving reindeer live over 3,000 miles farther north than their
European ancestors. They moved as far north as possible to inhabit the biome suitable for them.

In the Americas, warmth-loving species moved south not because the hemisphere warmed, but because it cooled. In Siberia, cold-loving reindeer moved as far north as possible not because the hemisphere cooled, but because it warmed.

This is indisputable evidence that there was a pole shift and is evidenced by both plant biogeography and animal biogeography. Botany and zoology prove there was a pole shift contrary to the equations of astronomy and/or physics!"

The science of botany and zoology, as these apply to ecology, contradict the stable pole
concept based on mathematics, and fully correlate, corroborate and are congruent with
Velikovsky’s pole shift. No amount of math can change these scientific facts. If the stable mathematical pole theory is correct, as the land warmed after the Ice Age, then all the warmth-loving species should have moved north everywhere. That we have a whole suite of warmth-loving and temperate-loving species moving south in the Americas is massive scientific evidence against the stable pole theory. Scientific facts are facts; astronomy cannot change them, nor have astronomers the right to claim their science is superior to botany or zoology.

If the Earth’s axis had not moved, then with the end of the Ice Age, when these regions in North America warmed, the flora and fauna should have migrated north. There would still be badgers and ferrets in Alaska and the Yukon living even farther north.

(C. Ginenthal: Newton, Einstein, Velikovsky)

VENUS’ ARGON-36 AND ARGON-40 AGE

In the new radical chronology of history, Venus was a former satellite of Jupiter, and is only some hundreds of years old. Its size is much smaller than that assumed by current astronomical calculations: it has a diameter of some 25-30 meters, see:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1786946#msg1786946

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1787025#msg1787025

"The Argon-36 age of Venus’ atmosphere indicates that it was produced very recently, no more than in the last few thousand years.

On the other hand argon-40 is also an indication that Venus’ atmosphere is young. Argon-40 is a decay product of radioactive potassium-40. Therefore, over time argon-40 should increase in amount to levels comparable to the argon-40 levels found on the Earth if Venus is as old as the Earth. But, interestingly this is not the case. Billy P. Glass in Introduction to Planetary Geology, (NY 1982), p. 314 informs us that,

“the ratio of the mass of radiogenic 40 Ar [Argon-40] to the mass of Venus is smaller by amount, a factor of 15 than the value for the Earth. Since 40 Ar within a planet increases with time due to radioactive decay of 40 K [potassium-40] the amount of 40 Ar should be higher if the primary degassing took place late in the planet’s history.”

That Venus has both too much argon-36 and too little argon-40 are clear indications pointing to an extraordinarily young age for Venus. If Venus were as old as the Earth, its argon-36 would have decayed to only a tiny fraction of its present amount. If Venus were an old planet, its argon-40 would have increased in amount to that contained in the Earth.

The problem with Venus’ atmosphere is argon-36. Argon-36 is a primordial product from ancient times. “The atmosphere of Venus contains as much argon-36 as you would expect to find in the planet’s original atmosphere” (according to M. McElroy, Pioneer experimenter in the Washington Post, Dec. 11, 1979, p. A6). If Venus were 4.6 billion years old, its Argon-36 would have decayed to a level comparable to that found on the Earth. Venus has hundreds of times as much Argon-36 as the Earth. In fact, it has what appears to be exactly the amount of Argon-36 that Venus would have if it were born in the last few thousand years.


If the scientists’ theory that Venus is as old as the Earth and Mars, it should have comparable amounts of argon-36.

According to Pete Gwynne writing in New Scientist:

“So surprisingly large are the amounts of this gas in the atmosphere of Venus by comparison with the Earth’s, that planetologists are NASA Ames Research Center were trying to puzzle out how both planets could have formed at the same time – the current scientific theory. ‘This finding will force us to rethink the whole process of planet formation,’ said Thomas Donahue of the University of Michigan.

“The Argon detection, . . . overseen by John Hoffman of the University of Texas at Dallas, indicated that the Venusian atmosphere contains more than 100,000 parts per trillion of Argon-36. Earth’s atmosphere, by contrast, contains about 35 parts per trillion of the isotope and Mars’ about two hundred times less than that.”"

Jupiter also has a great abundance of argon-36 and that is just the case.

"In “Atmospheric Abundance for Jupiter,” “Argon-36” is at a ratio with that of the sun that “2.5 ± 0.5.”

Erik Gregerser, The Outer Solar System: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and the Dwarf Planets (NY 2010), p. 96

As reported in the The Washington Post, McElroy, a Pioneer Venus experimenter, gives us this stunning fact: THE ATMOSPHERE OF VENUS CONTAINS AS MUCH ARGON-36 AS YOU WOULD EXPECT TO FIND IN THE PLANET’S ORIGINAL ATMOSPHERE.”

The second form of argon found in Venus’ atmosphere is argon-40. This gas is created
when potassium-40 breaks down over time. Again, because the scientists maintain Venus is an ancient planet, it was a very reasonable and scientific idea that, whatever potassium it originally had would, over time, be outgassed into Venus’ atmosphere and would be found in amounts comparable to that of the Earth. However, if Venus is a newborn planet, its potassium-40 would not have had sufficient time to produce argon-40 gas in amounts comparable to the Earth. Again, contrary to what the scientists expected, large amounts of argon-40 in Venus’ atmosphere has an extraordinarily tiny amount off this gas compared to Earth. Glass informs us that: “The ratio of the mass of radiogenic Ar40 to the mass of Venus is smaller by a factor of 15 to the value for the Earth.”

This simply means that Venus has over a trillion times less argon-40 than the Earth. This, of course, makes no scientific sense, as Eric Burgess tells us: "... an initial shortage of potassium cannot be the reason for less {Venusian] argon-40 today.”

The planetologists are caught in a double bind because of these two forms of argon gas
in Venus’ atmosphere. If, for some unknown reason, Venus outgassed much less argon-40, it barely might explain the trillion times shortage of it in the atmosphere. However, if we stop argon- 40 from escaping to the surface to explain its low fraction, we also have to stop argon-36 from escaping. But, as we know, there is 100,000 parts per trillion on Venus’ atmosphere, whereas there are only about 35 parts per trillion in the Earth’s atmosphere. No matter what one does to speed up or slow down the gas emissions from Venus, this problem cannot be resolved. As a matter of fact, there are approximately equal amounts of argon-36 and argon-40 in Venus’ atmosphere.

Since, according to McElroy above, Venus contains as much argon-36 as you would expect to find in the planet’s original atmosphere,” the amount of argon-40 is also the amount you would expect to find in Venus’ original atmosphere! The possibility, or rather, impossibility, that argon-36 would equal potassium-40’s breakdown product, argon-40 is too impossible a coincidence, unless, and only unless Venus is a newborn planet endowed with these gases in their original, primordial amounts.

As Zdenek Kopal explains, "36Ar comes mainly from the deep interior of a planet."

Zdenek Kopal, Realm of the Terrestrial Planet, (New York, 1979), pg. 41

So Venus' argon–36 would have to have been derived from its interior by volcanism.

"None of the theories [of the origin and evolution of Venus' atmosphere] discussed above is free of serious deficiencies in explaining the origin of Venus' atmosphere, particularly when called upon to account for the volatiles on Earth and Mars, models in which the planets grew in a gas–rich environment naturally account for the gradient in . . . Ar abundance with distance from the sun, although this is not clearly the case for gaseous protoplanets. . . . [T]hey have a fundamental problem in explaining the overall depletion of noble gases relative to other volatiles and the departure of the abundance ratios of the noble gases, and, in some cases, of isotopic ratios from the solar pattern on all planets. . . . It also has a problem in explaining how argon can be more efficiently lost than carbon and nitrogen, or why the argon to krypton and argon to xenon ratios become more nearly solar the closer the planet is to the sun."

T. M. Donahue, J. B. Pollack, "Origin and Evolution of the Atmosphere of Venus." Venus, ed. D. Hunten, et al., (Tucson, 1983), p. 1013

(C. Ginenthal: Newton, Einstein, Velikovsky)

VENUS’ CARBON DIOXIDE AGE

Carbon dioxide is not stable in the presence of ultraviolet radiation from the Sun. Ultraviolet rays break carbon dioxide down into carbon monoxide, CO and oxygen molecules, O2. Once these molecules of carbon monoxide and O2 form, they do not combine again easily. Therefore, one would expect to find a great deal of carbon monoxide in the upper and middle layers of Venus’ atmosphere if Venus is billions of years old. U. von Zahn et. al., in a paper titled “The Composition of Venus’ Atmosphere” in the book Venus, published by the University of Arizona, deals with this problem. They write:

“Photochemistry of CO2. The central problem of the photochemistry of Venus’ middle atmosphere is to account for the exceedingly low abun­dance of CO [carbon monoxide] and O2 [molecular oxygen] observed at the bottom of the middle atmosphere. In fact, O2 has not been detected even at 1 ppm [part per million] level. Due to low abundances of O2 and O3 [ozone, which absorbs ultraviolet radiation]…solar ultraviolet of suffi­cient energy to photolyse [breakdown by light action] CO2…penetrates down to 65 km [or 39 miles above the surface of Venus]…

“The 3-body [3 elements or compounds] recombination reaction with a rate constant kb [based on temperature] is, however, spin forbidden. Consequently at typical temperatures of the Venus middle atmosphere (200k) this [recombination] reaction has a very small rate … [But at this temperature] … oxygen is converted to molecular oxygen…with a rate constant kc which is 5 orders of magnitude higher than kb.

Neglecting for a moment the effect of trace gases in Venus’ atmosphere, CO2, CO, and O2 are nonreactive with each other and we therefore expect a fairly rapid transition (on geologic time scales) of the CO2 atmosphere to one dominated by CO and O2. CO2 would disappear from the upper atmosphere within a few weeks, and from the entire middle atmosphere in a few thousand years. [emphasis added]

“Indeed, these arguments describe the situation correctly for the upper atmosphere of Venus, provided we take into account also the various dynamic processes exchanging gas between the upper and middle atmosphere. The above arguments, however, fall short in explaining the observed composition of the middle atmosphere which at least close to its lower boundary is characterized by an extreme dearth of CO2 photolysis [break down], that is CO and O2.”

There is at present no observed and delineated process to save the situation. For the abundance of carbon dioxide to persist in the middle atmosphere of Venus, the planet must be only a “few thousand years” old.


Carbon dioxide, which is 96.5 percent of Venus’ atmosphere, is not stable in the presence of solar ultraviolet radiation. Ultraviolet rays photodisassociate (breakdown) carbon dioxide into the products of carbon monoxide CO, and oxygen O2. Once molecules of carbon monoxide and oxygen form, they do not readily recombine to reform as carbon dioxide. This action would take place in the upper and middle atmosphere of Venus where ultraviolet radiation is most prevalent and thus would photodisassociate carbon dioxide there most rapidly. Therefore, if, as the scientific establishment’s paradigm that Venus is an ancient planet, the carbon dioxide there would be completely photodisassociated and the upper and middle Venusian atmosphere would long ago have been converted to carbon monoxide and oxygen.

Eric Burgess asks: “The big question is why the carbon dioxide atmosphere of Venus
should be so stable. It was expected that ultraviolet radiation from the Sun would convert carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide and oxygen. Once formed, carbon monoxide and oxygen should not combine again easily.”

John S. Lewis and Ronald G. Prinn point out that because of this process:
“We might expect a pure CO2 atmosphere to evolve slowly into a predominantly CO – O2 atmosphere. The time required is roughly given by dividing the total amount of CO2 on Venus. . . by the CO2 column photodissociation rate . . . and is about 5 x 10^6 years [50 million years] . . . This striking problem has long been known.”

That is, the middle atmosphere of Venus should have lost all its carbon dioxide in a
few thousand years. But it has not! Furthermore, the entire atmosphere of Venus should have been changed from one dominated by carbon dioxide to one dominated by carbon monoxide and oxygen in 50 million years! That is, if Venus is billions of years old, its atmosphere would be primarily composed of carbon monoxide and oxygen. But the evidence clearly indicates its atmosphere is only as U. Von Zahn, et al. tells, only a “few thousand years” old.

(C. Ginenthal: Newton, Einstein, Velikovsky)

VENUS’ NEON KRYPTON AGE

If Venus was formed at the same time as the Earth, it would have experienced a fairly
similar development. It would have inherited certain primordial gases, especially neon and krypton – noble gases – that do not interact with other gases. They are stable, in that respect, and remain inert throughout the history of the planet. These are light gases and can be easily removed from a hot atmosphere by the solar wind. The closer a planet is to the sun, the stronger the solar wind becomes. This is especially important in the early period of the Sun’s evolution when it goes through a hot T Tauri stage and blows away light gases from a planet’s atmosphere. Therefore, Venus, if it was born at the same time as the Earth, would have much smaller amounts of neon and krypton than the Earth, but just the opposite situation exists; Venus has more of these primordial gases than the Earth, something that is impossible to explain if Venus was the same age as Earth.

John and Walter Gould specifically state:

“Pioneer Venus showed that the atmosphere as a whole consists of about 98% carbon dioxide, 1-3% nitrogen with a few parts per million . . . of helium, neon, krypton and argon. Although the amounts of neon, krypton, and argon are small they indicate very much greater amounts of primordial neon, krypton, and argon than those found in the Earth’s atmosphere. This is currently raising problems concerning the established view of the origin of the solar system.”

Anthony Feldman further informs us in this general context:

“A recent discovery about the composition of the Venusian atmosphere has cast doubt on the popular theory accounting for the formation of the solar system. The theory suggests that the Sun and planets formed at the same time [4.6 billion years ago].

“The inner planets – Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars – are thought to be small because the Sun drew their lighter constituents away. If this idea is correct, the closer a planet is to the Sun, the less likely there is to be lighter gases in its atmosphere. But in the atmosphere of Venus, the opposite is true. In particular, there seems to be 500 times as much argon gas and 2,700 times as much neon as in the atmosphere of Earth.

“So far, scientists cannot explain why these gases were not drawn away from the planet during the birth of the solar system . . . Further discoveries about Venus may soon force a revision of the most basic ideas about how the Sun and planets formed.”

In terms of their noble gases – neon, krypton and argon, Venus is unique. While a
stable solar system, wherein if Venus was born in its present orbit, it should have less of these gases than the Earth. It has 2,700 times as much neon and krypton exhibits a similar tendency.293

There is no explanation in terms of a stable solar system that accounts for the ratios of these noble gases.


It should also be noted that, as with carbon dioxide, sulfuric acid is also broken down by ultraviolet rays. Therefore, in a rather short time, the Venusian atmosphere should be relatively free of this acid if the scientific establishment is correct.

Venus is a newborn planet, this acid will not have been removed and should still be found in the planet’s atmosphere.

Larry Esposito, et al., give the explanation for the evidence of sulfuric acid in Venus’ atmosphere with which most planetologists agree:

“The results of Hansen and Arking (1971) and Hansen and Hovenier (1974) show the cloud particles to be spherical with radius [of about] . . . µm [millionth of a meter] and narrowed the allowable range of real refractive index to . . . [about] 1.45. With these new constants, Sill (1972) and Young and Young (1973) independently proposed that the Venus clouds were composed of droplets of concentrated (. . . [about] 75% by weight) sulfuric acid).”

Although this does not explain the yellowish tint of the clouds, there is a broad
consensus within the scientific community that sulfuric acid is a major component of the Venusian clouds.

Nevertheless, Peter R. Ballinger, a researcher in organic chemistry, had this to say about the possibility of sulfuric acid surviving in Venus’ clouds from ancient geological periods, as was presented by Lewis M. Greenberg:

“It is likely that sulfuric acid would be gradually decomposed by solar radiation of ultraviolet and shorter wavelengths . . . to give [off] hydrogen and oxygen. This process would also be expected to result in the preferential retention of deuterium . . . Because of this and other chemical reactions, sulfuric acid might well have a relatively short lifetime consistent with a recent installation of the planet [Venus] in its present orbit.”

However, there is another problem for any other acids surviving for billions of years
in Venus’ atmosphere and interacting with the surface rock. Rock neutralizes acids. Let us recall that acids erode the surface and continually expose new rock that will act to neutralize any acids.

Acids in the lower atmosphere of Venus will come into contact with continually fresh strewn rocks and be neutralized by them. How long will those reactions take to remove the Venusian acids? Young and Young show “Such strong acids would not survive for long in the Earth’s atmosphere; they would react with rocks and other materials and soon be neutralized.”

Young and Young go on to say:

“Among the more exotic materials proposed for the clouds, only one has been detected spectroscopically. It is hydrogen chloride and it was found along with hydrogen fluoride by William S. Benedict of the University of Maryland in the spectra reported by the Connesses. Both gases are highly corrosive. When they are dissolved in water they yield hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acid. Their abundance is too low for them to be in the clouds, but that they should be present in the atmosphere at all is a surprise.

These acids would have been neutralized billions of years ago if Venus was an ancient
planet. Because these acids have not been neutralized, it indicates Venus is a newborn planet.


Also, the fact of the matter is that so little oxygen in Venus’ atmosphere means it is a
newborn planet. In fact, in 1940, when spectroscopic analysis of Venus’ cloud cover failed to reveal oxygen but instead had immense amounts of carbon dioxide, Sir Harold Spencer Jones was driven to admit this possibility: “Venus, then appears to be a world where life [dependent on oxygen] has not yet developed . . . It is a world where conditions are not greatly different from those on the [early] Earth many hundreds of millions of years ago.” At that time, it was thought the Earth was a billion years old.

(C. Ginenthal: Newton, Einstein, Velikovsky)

MARS’ NITROGEN-15 AGE

S. Yanagita and M. Imamura in Nature, Vol. 274, (1978), p. 234, show nitrogen-15 which is an unstable isotope and does not have a long lived radioactive parent is present in excess amounts in Mars’ atmosphere. It is produced by cosmic radiation interacting with oxygen-16. Therefore, the nitrogen-15 had to be produced quite recently. Cosmic rays do not penetrate a deep atmosphere such as that of the Earth. If Mars’ atmosphere was destroyed recently, cosmic rays could then interact with oxygen-16 to produce the abundant nitrogen-15 which has not decayed. The evidence of carbon monoxide, water vapor and nitrogen-15 all indicate Mars’ atmosphere experienced a very recent catastrophe.


The carbon dioxide problem is also applicable to the planet Mars. Over billions of years its very thin atmosphere of carbon dioxide should have been completely converted to carbon monoxide and oxygen by the Sun’s ultraviolet rays. But like Venus, it is still in the early process of this conversion.

Charles A. Barth in an article titled “The Atmosphere of Mars” in the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Vol. 2, (Palo Alto, CA 1974), edited by F.A. Donath, F.G. Stehli and G.W. Wetherill, p. 356 states:

“Photodissociation of carbon dioxide to produce carbon monoxide and atomic oxygen takes place from the top of the atmosphere all the way down to the surface. In the upper atmosphere the known recombination reactions are not rapid enough to balance the photoproduction of atomic oxygen to explain the low abundances” of carbon monoxide and oxygen. A kind of circulation called Eddy diffusion is invoked to transport oxygen to the lower atmosphere where oxygen would mix with other constituents and become reconverted to carbon dioxide. However, Mars’ atmosphere, even at the surface, is so thin that these recombination processes will occur slowly. Furthermore, ultraviolet radiation which reaches “all the way down to the surface” will photodissociate the carbon dioxide as it reforms and thus the problem remains.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1775118#msg1775118 (martian faint young sun paradox)

TECHNETIUM 99 IN THE SOLAR ATMOSPHERE

“A further problem with the fusion of elements at the cores of massive stars is that these elements are actually observed in their atmospheres. One of these elements, technetium 99, is radioactive, which has a half-life of 212,000 years and is produced as a fission product in nuclear reactors. But this is also true of other heavy atoms that are radioactive, as [L. H.] Aller explains:

“‘Furthermore, the technetium in the S stars appears to be about as abundant in these stars as the neighboring element . . . ruthenium and molybdenum. The implication is that all these [heavy] elements were built in the S stars and that these objects have life times of about 200,000 years. How the star gets the heavy element from the core to the surface without exploding provides an impressive challenge to theoreticians.’

“The existence of these materials in measurable amounts in the atmospheres of these stars, represents an ‘impressive challenge’ because, if as presented, technetium, ruthenium, and molybdenum are only produced in the star’s central core, they will, by radioactivity, decay, before they can reach the upper atmosphere of the star to be observed.

“It is calculated that a photon, moving at the speed of light, striking hydrogen and helium atoms in the Sun, being absorbed and reemitted, takes 30 million years to reach the Sun’s photosphere and fly off into space. These various radioactive elements could never make this trip under these conditions in a shorter time period and, thus, would have decayed to other elements. [Tim] Ferris, in dealing with this contradiction, states:

“Had the technetium atoms . . . originated billions of years ago in the Big Bang, they would have decayed and there would be too few of them left to show up today in S stars or anywhere else. Yet, there they were. Clearly, the stars knew how to build elements beyond iron, even if astrophysicists didn’t.”

“‘According to [I. S.] Shklovskii, ‘Only nuclear reactions in the surface layers of the stars can account for the presence of technetium . . . lines in S stella spectra.’ The problem is that the low temperatures in the stellar atmospheres are just too low and prevent the fusing of these massive elements. These stars also contain zirconium, lanthanum, yttrium, barium, scandium, and vanadium.

I. S. Shklovskii, Stars: Their Birth and Death, (San Francisco 1978), p. 144


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1827377#msg1827377 (carbon-nitrogen-oxygen cycle in the solar atmosphere defies the nuclear furnace hypothesis)


(C. Ginenthal: Newton, Einstein, Velikovsky)

VENUS AND EARTH SPIN-ORBIT RESONANCE

P. Goldreich, CalTech

S.J. Peale, UCSB

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232751781_Resonant_Rotation_for_Venus

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1970AJ.....75..273G

Is there evidence, not probability mathematics but actual evidence that argues that Venus must have had a near collision with the Earth? Gravitational theory holds that when celestial bodies come close and interact, then there should remain some lingering remnant in some part of the orbital pattern of both bodies.

“…a discovery was announced by P. Goldreich of CalTech and S.J. Peale of the University of California, and reported at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union on April 23, 1966. The surprising discovery dealt with the axial rotation of Venus, already known to be slow and retrograde. Every time Venus passes between the sun and the Earth, it turns the same face to the earth. Gravitationally, this phenomenon cannot be explained even if Venus were lopsided, as some science writers have offered as the explanation, it would have been locked with the very same face toward the sun, whose gravitational pull on Venus is so much stronger than that of the earth; this ‘resonance’ as the discoverers of the phenomenon termed it, if confirmed, is a sure piece of evidence of close contact in the past between Earth and Venus, evidence not erased by the passage of time, in this case time measured in a mere few thousand years.”

An article titled “Venus and Earth: Engaged or Divorced?” in Astronomy (Vol. 7 for Oct. 1979), p. 58, discussed I.I. Shapiro and his colleague’s analysis of the Venus-Earth resonance. They note radar observations gathered over a 14 year period of time has permitted them to nail down Venus’ rotation period with high precision.

“They find it to be 243.01 +- 0.03 days. The 3 1/2 hour difference between this value and the resonance period of exactly 243.16 days; while very small, is statistically significant. On the other hand, the researchers point out that the probability of Venus’ rotation period falling by chance alone within one-fifth of a day of a resonance period is under 1%. Therefore, they suggest that Venus could either now be evolving toward such a resonance, or was once in resonance in the recent past.”

William R. Corliss who reported this article in The Moon and the Planets, (1985), p. 304, adds this remark,

“The possibility of a recent or imminent resonance is redolent of a recent solar system instability. It would be interesting if ‘recent’ means ‘within the time of man’ to that there would after all be astronomical explanations of many legends of celestial turmoil.”

Zdenek Kopal in The Realm of the Terrestrial Planets, (NY 1979) p. 180 informs us that:

“The remarkable resonance…between the synodic orbit of Venus and its axial rotation with respect to the Earth is certainly not accidental. It strongly suggests the existence of tidal coupling [Kopal’s emphasis] between the two neighboring planets, but the specific mechanism which could lead to its establishment is largely obscure…a…coupling between Venus and the Earth—a body much less massive [than the Sun]—constitutes a real challenge to our understanding.”

James Oberg further explains how difficult it is for scientists to account for this phenomenon,

“The best explanation for this close resonance (and for the fact that the Venusian year is within a few hours of being exactly 8/13 of Earth’s year), to appeal to coincidence—an unsatisfactory solution at best. Nagging doubts insist that something vital is missing from the logic involved. The best current theory [for Venus’ retrograde rotation] calls for a large off-centered asteroid impact late in Venus’ formation phase. This presents difficulties. Such an accident could reverse the spin but could not account for the spin axis being at near right angles to the plane of the orbit (an extremely unlikely result in a freak collision). If the spin reversing collision could set up nearly any new axis, but this axis would eventually wander back to its old position because of the planet’s oblateness. Such oblateness could have disappeared over millions of years that passed while the new slow rotation rate no longer provided sufficient centrifugal force. If this explanation sounds like magic its the best there is. Astronomers remain completely baffled.” [Oberg, “Venus” Astronomy (August 1976), p. 16].

Zdenek Kopal, above page 191, puts the problem this way,

“The first problem concerns the rotation of the planets. What made Venus rotate so slowly, and what tilted its axis of rotation almost upside down to give rise to its retrograde rotation. The only probable mechanism would be a very close encounter with another celestial body whose gravitational attraction played havoc with Venus and altered some of its kinematics [motions] and at the same time cause it to lock onto the Earth gravitationally?”

The answer is an interaction with the Earth. Here is what appears to be clear evidence based not on the probability theory, but on gravitational theory.

It indicates that Venus’ axial rotation is locked onto the Earth and not onto the Sun. Hoimar Von Ditfurth in Children of the Universe, (NY 1976), p. 115 remarks that, “the Earth must once have exerted a braking or decelerating effect on Venus until the two planets mutual gravitational attraction brought about the ‘coupling’ we observe today.” To do so, the Earth and Venus had to be quite close to each other for their gravitational fields to be effective in creating this couple effect. If the Earth and Venus never had a near encounter then any gravitational anomaly on Venus would cause it to lock onto the Sun. The Earth’s gravitational field is far too small compared with that of the Sun to nudge Venus into such a resonance.

(C. Ginenthal: Newton, Einstein, Velikovsky)


How could Venus, a former satellite of Jupiter, measuring some 25-30 meters in diameter, cause worldwide destruction on an unimaginable scale? Both Jupiter and Venus can emit bosons, and thus greatly increase the vibration of the subquark strings which make up the ether field above the surface of the Earth, should this emission be allowed to pass through the first dome directly.

A subquark is made up of strings of bosons, through which pass thermal energy, terrestrial gravity, electricity.

Venus, in the legends which can be found around the world, can start worldwide fires, cause huge hurricanes (1,000 km/hr), and level a small mountain with thunderbolts.


And the Evening Star and the Morning Star are two DIFFERENT planets (Typhon and Venus):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722427#msg1722427 (the extended Schroetter effect)

THE SIRIUS MERIDIAN TRANSIT PERIODS DATA: INEXISTENCE OF EARTH’S AXIAL PRECESSION II

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1718735#msg1718735 (part I)

The most precise proof that Sirius has NOT undergone precessional motion from 1988 to 2007:

Extended sidereal time-measurements from 6 April 1994 to 6 April 1996 revealed a total negative time deviation of 1.6 seconds from tropical-sidereal time. According to 'precession' this difference should be about 3.34 seconds per year. Hence a total negative deviation of about 6.68 seconds was to be expected, but did not occur in reality.

The continuous measurement of 6 April 1994 to 5 April 2000 confirmed this fact conclusively. In that period the total negative deviation of 'Sirius time' from the total mean sidereal time accumulated to 4.1 seconds. This means about negative 0.68 s per year (!). Again, according to 'precession' a negative time difference of 6 × 3.34 s or about 20 seconds should have occurred, but did NOT occur with respect to Sirius!













(Each of the 8 graphs can be clicked, using the webpage to bring up the pdf data file with the readings that it represents: see http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/SiriusResearch.shtml )

Between 1972 and 2016 only 27 leap seconds have been added at a rate of 0.64 seconds per year: the huge discrepancy between the precession rate of 3.34 s and the data gathered is most obvious, leap seconds do not make any difference at all, as they have to be added one second per year. Even if we reduce the treshold from 3.34 s to 2.6 s, it won't make a difference: there will still be a discrepancy between the data gathered in this extraordinary experiment and the theoretical values.

In fact, let's add the yearly values for the data of the experiment and compare them with the 52 seconds theoretical value (2.6 s x 20 years).

Total = 20.2 seconds

A discrepancy/difference of 31.8 seconds.


For the period 1999-2004 (no leap seconds), the data never exceeded 0.5 seconds.

That is, if we compare the theoretical value (2.6 x 6 = 15.6 seconds) with what actually recorded in real time (3.5 seconds) we can see that there is difference of 12.1 seconds, totally unaccounted for.


https://web.archive.org/web/20100305042618/http://www.siriusresearchgroup.com/diagrams/SiriusTransitObservations.shtml

http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/SiriusResearch.shtml


These findings are in total agreement with the following facts: the Allais effect (as it applies to precessional motion) shows that the orbit of the pendulum defies Newtonian mechanics; the Sagnac effect proves that the Earth does not orbit the Sun, and thus is not undergoing any kind of an axial precessional movement.

The Allais Effect VI (axial precession is not related to Newtonian mechanics)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1642033#msg1642033

http://www.allais.info/docs/pugarticle.pdf

The detailed behavior of both pendulums over the eclipse period shown in Fig. 8 was remarkable. During the period before the eclipse no particular disturbance was detected, and the 10-minute precession amounts of both pendulums generally exhibited the same behavior.After the local eclipse maximum the precession amount of the automatic pendulum started to increase steadily, while that of the manual pendulum started to decrease steadily. This trend continued unabated until about forty minutes after fourth contact, when the sense of change of the precession of the manual pendulum changed to be the same as that of the automatic pendulum.

After this both pendulum precession amounts marched together in almost perfect lockstep, decreasing until about 12:15, then executing an abrupt spike upwards and back downwards which ended at about 13:15, and then increasing until about 14:20, at which point the manual pendulum precession again reversed its trend. It is clear from the calmness of the environmental data that these phenomena were not linked to any variation of meteorological conditions.


Analysis. This long Foucault-type pendulum behaved in a very stable manner. However well after the end of the locally visible eclipse, at around 11:33 (to the recording resolution, i.e. between the readings at 11:29 and 11:36), some influence clearly acted for a short period to increase the precession rate. This influence was no longer apparent during the next inter-reading interval (from 11:36 to 11:43), and then reversed itself to some extent during the next interval (from 11:43 to 11:50).


The Allais Effect VII (stationary earth/Foucault's pendulum anomalies)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1642668#msg1642668

The physical reality is this. The Allais effect noticed can be due to either a momentary fluctuation in the earths rotation, or in the aethers rotation over that area of space where the alignment occurs.  The former for obvious reasons (the energy factor) is illogical.

"Nobel prize winner Maurice Allais had to go and throw another monkey wrench in the spokes of the heliocentric bicycle. Allais performed a marathon 30 day Foucault Pendulum experiment in 1954. During the experiment an eclipse occurred. Surprisingly, the pendulum changed angles by a significant 13.5 degrees! This suggests something in space was affecting the pendulum, not the motion of the earth."

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1917978#msg1917978 (missing orbital Sagnac effect)


Therefore, the entire concept of axial precession is wrong.

The acceleration of the rate of axial precession also cannot be explained by modern astronomy.


http://www.saturndaily.com/reports/Saturns_bulging_core_implies_moons_younger_than_thought_999.html

“The moons are migrating away much faster than expected.”

The team also found that Saturn moon Rhea is moving away 10 times faster than the other moons.

Not even Saturn can come to the rescue.


One cannot bring the influence of the planets into the acceleration of the rate of precession, since the distances have not changed, and the mass of Jupiter, as an example, has decreased (and not increased) over time.

http://www.sciencefocus.com/article/space/jupiter%E2%80%99s-gravity-pulls-so-much-matter-planet-growing

The mass of Jupiter is DECREASING.

Heliocentrists have to explain the acceleration of the rate of precession, and also have to account for these facts:

1. Solar mass is decreasing

2. Lunar distance from Earth is actually receding

3. Jupiter's mass is decreasing

4. Saturn's moons are receding at an increasing rate

Now, let us go back to the precise calculations.

Simon Newcomb included a “constant” in his precession formula to get it to match the increasing rate of precession that was observed leading up to his era.

The “constant” amount was .000222 arc seconds per year.

In 1900 the precession rate was 50.2564 (USNO).

In 2000 the precession rate was 50.290966 (AA).

This shows us the precession rate has increased over the past 100 years by .0346 for an average of .000346” per/year. Comparing this to Newcomb’s 0.000222” figure,  we can see the actual rate of change has not simply increased at a “constant” rate – it has increased at an “exponential” rate.


The mass of the Sun/Moon/planets has not increased (we all know that the mass of the Sun is actually constantly decreasing).

The orbital distances are the same (and the Moon is constantly receding from the Earth).

Precession has nothing to do with the law of attractive gravitation.


Now, not only do the RE have to offset these slight diminishments in gravitational forces, but also to come up with larger effects in the opposite direction.


The Earth is stationary and fixed. Therefore, the precession is caused by the motion of the geocentric solar system through space, above the first dome. Only a moving frame can make sense out of all the “precession” observables. 

"Yes, it is amazing that astronomers today still use a static solar system model to try and explain the apparent retrograde motion of the stars moving around the earth at about 30 degrees per 2000 years. The funny thing is NASA VLBI acknowledges that solar system motion must be in the “total measurable change in earth orientation to the fixed stars” and they call it “geometric effect”. But they do not bother to measure it because they believe it is too small to matter. So they hand the total number of 50.290966” p/y (AA 2000) over to the dynamists to model without telling them they should account for any solar system motion. Consequently the dynamists feel obliged to come up with local causes that could add up to this amount. But all their efforts have proved to be absolutely useless in predicting the changing rate of precession."


The Sirius-Sun binary system:

https://magneticnature.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/how-our-sun-orbits-sirius/

"The observable in terms of the fixed stars is exactly what we see now because the only thing we have done is replace an earth that wobbles 50” p/y with a solar system that curves through space 50” p/y. But it does require us to interpret things differently, and we would expect to find one star that moves with the sun in spite of precession – and if it is visible - this should be quite obvious throughout recorded history.

Sometime ago I received an email back from NASA VLBI (Very Long Baseline Interferometry) Group that confirmed the principle of “geometric” precession and confirmed the principle of “translation”, which is important because it describes how the motion of the solar system moving through space translates into a change in orientation as seen from earth, which lunisolar theory does not consider or acknowledge (in lunisolar theory there is no component for the moving frame of the solar system and all changes in earth orientation must be locally derive).

Of course I was not asking VLBI about the effect of the solar system curving around a nearby star (as I did not want to set off alarm that occurs when one mentions something against the mainstream) so I simply asked: “How do you account for the SS’s very slow motion around the galactic center in the precession observable?” After all, they acknowledge the SS moves around the galactic center and they measure to points outside the galaxy. In this galactic case the effect would obviously be very small (360 degrees / 240 million years = .005” p/y of observable) but I just wanted to see if they would acknowledge the “principle” of how solar system motion as a component within the precession observable. Here is the reply – then let’s analyze it."

“The answer to your question is that we do not account for the geometric effect of galactic rotation. It is a very small effect. A galactic rotation period of 240 million years -> a rotation rate of ~26 nrad/yr. If the radio sources we observed were at distances approximately equal to the distance to the galactic center (~3x10^4 light years), then this rotation rate would translate to an error of about 15-20 cm/yr in our estimates of intercontinental baselines. But the distances to the extragalactic radio sources are ~10^9 light years so the effect is much smaller ~ 0.01 mm/yr. Our current precision is at the 0.1-0.5 mm/yr level so we are not sensitive to this effect.”

"First, notice that he does not say there is no such effect. He confirms there is an effect but says that it is so small (based on the assumption the only motion of the solar system is around the galactic center) that they do not account for it.

Second, we have the “the geometric effect”. Understand that this effect produces an apparent change in orientation from our measuring platform (earth) that is completely independent of any lunisolar forces (whether or not they are real) and yet this effect is in the precession observable, but again on a galactic scale it is so small the experts feel no need to account for it.

Now replace the periodicity of the Solar System orbit around the galaxy (240 million years) with the periodicity in the binary model, 24,000 years. Coincidentally, the acknowledged galactic motion happens to be 10,000 times the average binary periodicity. This makes the calculation quite simple. All we have to do is multiply .005” (the product of 360 degrees divided by 240 million years, the apparent observable “geometric effect” [a.k.a. precession] of a rotating galaxy) by 10,000, the ratio of galactic to binary periodicity. This results in a “geometric effect” (precession) of 50 arc seconds per year (~ 10%), which is very close to the amount we observe.

Therefore, if the solar system is moving as we suspect, the geometric effect comprises most of the 50” p/y in observable, leaving very little to local effects (but still enough to translate). This is consistent with all our studies that show the earth does not wobble backwards along its orbit path around the sun as required by lunisolar theory."

"The extremely precise data, to the very second, gathered over a period six year, proves in a most effective manner that Sirius does not undergo any kind of a precessional motion for that period of time.

In that period the total negative deviation of 'Sirius time' from the total mean sidereal time accumulated to 4.1 seconds. This means about negative 0.68 s per year (!). Again, according to 'precession' a negative time difference of 6 × 3.34 s or about 20 seconds should have occurred, but did NOT occur with respect to Sirius!"

SOLAR DISK: THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF A SPHERICALLY SHAPED SUN

"The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun."



Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary)."


The Sun exhibits a variety of phenomena that defy contemporary theoretical understanding.

Eugene N. Parker


It is not coincidence that the photosphere has the appearance, the temperature and spectrum of an electric arc; it has arc characteristics because it an electric arc, or a large number of arcs in parallel.

British physicist C. E. R. Bruce


It is likely that the problem of the dynamics of the explosions affecting the prominences will only be solved when the electrical conditions obtaining in the chromosphere and inner corona are better understood.

Italian solar astronomer Giorgio Abetti


Observations give a wealth of detail about the photosphere, chromosphere and the corona. Yet we have difficulty in matching the observations with a theory.

Solar Interior & Atmosphere, J.-C. Pecker


The modern astrophysical concept that ascribes the sun’s energy to thermonuclear reactions deep in the solar interior is contradicted by nearly every observable aspect of the sun.

Ralph E. Juergens




PRESSURE: 10^-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR

The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.

Completely unexplained by modern science.

Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

NO further recourse can be made for gravity.

Gravity has already balanced out as much as was possible of the gaseous pressure, and still we are left with A VERY LOW PRESSURE.

Solar gravity has balanced out the thermal pressure.

At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.

That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.

As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.

The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.


"However, the gravity is opposed by the internal pressure of the stellar gas which normally results from heat produced by nuclear reactions. This balance between the forces of gravity and the pressure forces is called hydrostatic equilibrium, and the balance must be exact or the star will quickly respond by expanding or contracting in size. So powerful are the separate forces of gravity and pressure that should such an imbalance occur in the sun, it would be resolved within half an hour."


Then, the heliocentrists have to deal with the Nelson effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1645824#msg1645824 (the Nelson effect of all the other planets, pulling constantly on the sun's atmosphere, acting permanently, are added to the centrifugal force)

Recourse can be made to the Clayton model equation or even the Lane-Emden equation in order to show that the value for g (computed using the 10^-13 bar value in the chromosphere) is much smaller than the centrifugal acceleration.

The Clayton model provides us with the g value: g = 0,0000507 m/s^2 which is much lower than the centrifugal acceleration figure:

P(r) = 2πgr²a²ρ²_ce^-x2/3M

where a = (3^1/2M/2^1/24πρ_c)^1/3

a = 106,165,932.3

x = r/a

M = 1.989 x 10³⁰ kg
central density = 1.62 x 10⁵ kg/m³

G = gr²/m(r)

m(r) = M(r/R)³(4 - 3r/R); if r = R, then M = m(r)

Using P(700,000,000) = 1.0197 x 10^-9 kg/m² value, we get:


g = 0,0000507 m/s²


RATIO


a_c/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26


Accuracy of the Clayton model:

EARTH - SUN DISTANCE: 15-20 KILOMETERS

The Sun's diameter is some 600 meters:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1786946#msg1786946

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1787025#msg1787025

The Sun, Moon, Black Sun, Shadow Moon and Jupiter have the same diameter.

All planets/stars have the shape of a disk.

Venus and Typhon-Nibiru (Mercury) orbit the Sun: together they orbit above the flat surface of the Earth.


The distance from Earth to the Sun is some 15-20 km (this figure might be even lower).





Here is the global Piri Reis map with latitudes:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170313164108/http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/Graphics-Other/PSCI/pirireis2.gif



Rotate the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn by 23.5 degrees, and we get the upper and lower bounds for the orbit of the Sun on a flat earth.

It rises from beyond Japan and illuminates at least half of the entire surface (not a spotlight sun at all), and sets somewhere beyond Antarctica (just like in the Black Sun photographs taken by F. Bruenjes).

Then, it rises again to complete its orbit over the other half of the semicircle (approximately).

This is the correct description for the Sun's orbit on a Flat Earth, the one that should be included in the official FAQ.

The most important part of the Sun's orbit is its precession (the westward shift of 1.5 km/year).



Sunset in Japan:



Sunrise in California:





(Norway, even though the Sun sets in Antarctica, there is still plenty of light)

The depth to which the Sun reaches the towards the shores beyond Antarctica differs according to season, of course.

The Aurora Borealis and the Aurora Australis are caused by the orbiting AURORA moon/planet (one for each pole), documented in the various legends around the world. It only orbits inside this territory (perhaps with a diameter of some 1,000 km): it is the "inner sun" of the hollow earth theory believers.

It also provides light in the northern and southern pole regions during some periods of the year.

Aurora, sister of the Sun and of the Moon:

http://www.theoi.com/Titan/Eos.html

The Sun does rise and set:

https://web.archive.org/web/20171105010205/https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2013/02/iod-earth-112211-600x325.jpeg

https://web.archive.org/web/20171116223421/http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2013/02/JuneSolsticeSunset.jpeg

https://web.archive.org/web/20171116224700/http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2013/02/zinkova-590x393.jpg

Now, that setting sun will appear as a rising sun in Patagonia (as an example):



How is it possible?

Nikola Tesla explains:

Tesla had a bold fantasy whereby he would use the principle of rarefied gas luminescence to light up the sky at night. High frequency electric energy would be transmitted, perhaps by an ionizing beam of ultraviolet radiation, into the upper atmosphere, where gases are at relatively low pressure, so that this layer would behave like a luminous tube. Sky lighting, he said, would reduce the need for street lighting, and facilitate the movement of ocean going vessels.

Not only is the Sun setting, but its disk will slowly turn to face the other semicircle and light it up (as seen in Patagonia).

Rising sun in Argentina:





The setting sun becomes a rising sun in a matter of a fraction of a second.

Here is a sunrise seen from St. Helena island:





At the same time, the sunrise seen from Maine (Mt. Desert island):





Everest sunset:



Full moon from Everest:








With reference to the previous message, both the faint young sun paradox and the dissipation of matter from the comets' tails show that the age of the Sun is measured in some thousands of years: not nearly enough time to have the Sun attain a spherical shape anyway.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1640735#msg1640735

QUASARS REDSHIFT IX: GALAXY 3C343.1

Another example of a quasar which can be seen in front of a galaxy, having very different redshifts.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1937556#msg1937556 (quasar redshift: galaxy NGC7319)


https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0401007.pdf

The double radio source 3C343.1: A galaxy-QSO pair with very different redshifts

The z = 0 .344 galaxy is connected to the z = 0 .750 QSO by a radio bridge. The numerical relation between the two redshifts is that predicted from previous associations. This pair is an extreme example of many similar physical associations of QSOs and galaxies with very different redshifts.


“The significance of this discovery is huge. We have direct, irrefutable, empirical evidence that the Hubble law stands on feet of clay, that the observational justification of an expanding Universe is fatally flawed.”

Hilton Ratcliffe

QUASARS REDSHIFT X

Four more examples of galaxies and quasars with very different redshifts being physically associated together.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0206411.pdf

NGC 3628: Ejection Activity Associated with Quasars


http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/375411/pdf

QSOs ASSOCIATED WITH M82


https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0203466.pdf

Two emission line objects with z > 0.2 in the optical filament apparently connecting the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603 to its companion

We present new spectroscopic observations of an old case of anomalous redshift—NGC 7603 and its companion. The redshifts of the two galaxies which are apparently connected by a luminous filament are z = 0.029 and z = 0.057 respectively. We show that in the luminous filament there are two compact emission line objects with z = 0.243 and z = 0.391. They lie exactly on the line traced by the filament connecting the galaxies. As far as we are aware, this is the most impressive case of a system of anomalous redshifts discovered so far.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.1587.pdf

A Cluster of High Redshift Quasars with Apparent Diameter 2.3 Degrees


Dr. Halton Arp

Graduated from Harvard University
PhD, Caltech

"Halton C. Arp - professional astronomer who, earlier in his career, was Edwin Hubble's assistant.  He has earned the Helen B.Warner prize, the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award.  For years he worked at the Mt. Palomar and Mt. Wilson observatories.  While there, he developed his well known catalog of "Peculiar Galaxies" that are misshapen or irregular in appearance.

Known for his classic work in “Arp’s Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies”. When he began to announce findings nearly 30 years ago that contradicted orthodox cosmology he was refused telescope time and publication in the standard journals. Then, he published two books, the first in 1987 titled “Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies”, and more recently “Seeing Red”.

In 1983 he joined the staff of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Germany.

“Redshift” is the term used to describe the shift in frequency of spectral lines toward the red end of the spectrum. It’s known to occur when an object is speeding away from us. Edwin Hubble discovered that the luminosity of a galaxy is related to its redshift: the fainter the galaxy, the higher the redshift. He suggested one interpretation of this data is that the greater the redshift (and therefore, the velocity), the farther away the galaxy. Thus, the expanding universe was born. But he was careful not to assume that this was the only possible interpretation of the redshift data. Others since have thrown scientific caution to the winds and used Hubble’s hypothesis as a rubbery yardstick with which to measure the size and age of the universe. Arp avoided this unscientific approach and made discoveries that are unequalled in the history of astronomy.

Many peculiar galaxies turn out to be what are known as active galaxies. They are often seen to have thin jets of matter firing from their cores, and bridges of matter or radio lobes connecting them with nearby objects. Arp noticed that quasars are clustered in the sky with active galaxies far too often to be a coincidence. Quasars are faint starlike objects whose spectra are highly redshifted. The Big Bang view is that their redshifts are due to the expansion of the universe and the doppler effect as the quasars race away from us at a good fraction of light speed. A high redshift equates in that model to great distance so they should have no association with much closer galaxies. Yet Arp showed that some quasars are connected by bridges or jets of matter to active galaxies. Since the advent of orbiting x-ray telescopes these bridges are becoming abundantly clear.

But now we come to the results of Arp’s work that will shake the foundations of modern physics. He found that quasars lined up on either side of active galaxies as if they are spat out at regular intervals from the galactic cores, above and below the plane of the galaxy.

Even more shocking was Arp’s discovery that quasar redshifts are quantised!

Arp discovered, by taking photographs through the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars (quasi-stellar objects) which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically associated with galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by.   Arp has photographs of many pairs of high redshift quasars that are symmetrically located on either side of what he suggests are their parent, low redshift galaxies.  These pairings occur much more often than the probabilities of random placement would allow."

QUANTUM RIEMANN'S ZETA FUNCTION XIV

http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/zeta_tables/zeros1

     14.134725142
     21.022039639
     25.010857580
     30.424876126
     32.935061588
     37.586178159
     40.918719012
     43.327073281
     48.005150881
     49.773832478
     52.970321478
     56.446247697
     59.347044003
     60.831778525
     65.112544048
     67.079810529
     69.546401711
     72.067157674
     75.704690699
     77.144840069...


1.4134725 x 45 = 63.663 = 100sc

1sc = 0.63663 m

286.1 = 450sc

Total height of missing apex = 286.1si (sacred inches, 1si = 0.025424 m -- 1sc = 25si)

Total height of Gizeh pyramid (subterranean chamber to apex) = 286.1sc


1.4134725 = 100sc²/28.61 = 2.2222222sc

45 = 5x9 = 3x15

2.222222222 x 5 = 11.11111111111

11.1111111sc = 7.06666666666 = sc/(2 - 3sc)


14.134725 + 7.06666666 =  21.2014

21.2014 - 21.022 = 0.18

18sc = 4 x 2.861


286.1si =~ 7.2738

14.134725/7.2738 = 1.9432381 = 5.555555/2.861 = 1/(0.18 x 2.861) = 1/(0.18 x 4.5sc) = 1/0.81sc = 1.23456790.../sc


2.22222222 x 15 = 33.3333333

33.3333333 - 32.935 = 0.4

37.586 - 33.333333 = 3 x 1.4134725


141.34725 - 136.1 = 5.247 = 3.3333/sc = 4.5/(3 x 2.861)


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1857963#msg1857963

Applying the five elements proportions to the sacred cubit distance:

63.636363
16.1773
9.5445
6.36363
3.1815


21.022 - (14.134725 + 3.1815) = 3.703725

3.703725/1.4134725 = 10/6sc


14.134725 + 6.3636 = 20.4983

21.022 - 20.4983 = 0.5247 = 0.33333/sc


14.134725 + 9.5445 = 23.679225

25.0108 - 23.679225 = 1.333333

23.679225 - 21.022 = 2.5424 + 0.114444

0.11444 = 4 x 0.2861


100sc = 63.6636...

14.134725 + 63.6636 = 77.798325

77.798325 - 77.1448 = 1/(2.861 x 0.5344)


63.6636 x 1sc = 40.53054

40.9187 - 40.53054 = 1/10sc³

TRIAD CLAW HAND SIGN IN PAINTINGS OVER A PERIOD OF FOUR CENTURIES

Virtually all conspiracy websites have missed the most crucial aspect: all of these paintings were created in a very short interval of time, perhaps in less than a decade, much later in history, with the M sign having been incorporated within each and every hand gesture.

Only the new radical chronology of history can explain these facts: there is no way that people living centuries apart would make the very same hand sign (notwithstanding the fact that one would have to consciously force the fingers into that position, and keep them that way for any length of time required by the artist).

https://web.archive.org/web/20140419215337/http://www.pseudoreality.org/westside.html

QUASARS REDSHIFT XI: THE KARLSSON EFFECT III

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0803.2591.pdf

The 2dF Redshift Survey II: UGC 8584 - Redshift Periodicity and Rings


http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/134/pdf

THE 2dF REDSHIFT SURVEY. I. PHYSICAL ASSOCIATION AND PERIODICITY IN QUASAR FAMILIES


https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0501090.pdf

Periodicities of Quasar Redshifts in Large Area Surveys

We test the periodicity of quasar redshifts in the 2dF and SDSS surveys. In the overall surveys redshift peaks are already apparent in the brighter quasars. But by analyzing sample areas in detail it is shown that the redshifts fit very exactly the long standing Karlssson formula and confirm the existence of preferred values in the distribution of quasar redshifts.

We introduce a powerful new test for groups of quasars of differing redshifts which not only demonstrates the periodicity of the redshifts, but also their physical association with a parent galaxy.


Further evidence that the universe is not expanding at all, and that redshifts cannot be associated with estimating its age (they are not distance related).

Quasars redshifts have quantified values.

Their redshifts occur at preferred values.

Hubble's law is shown to be totally erroneous: there is no such thing as the big bang theory.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1937730#msg1937730 (part I)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1937747#msg1937747 (part II)


"If there is evidence that, in the observable physical universe, where bodies are moving with respect to one another through space, show light coming from these bodies that also exhibit clear quantum levels, then the basis upon which Bohr and the entire quantum establishment bases their case is false."

TROUTON-NOBLE EXPERIMENT

"The Trouton-Noble experiment is generally regarded as the electrostatic equivalent of the Michelson-Morley optical experiment: it looks for an effect predicted to be caused by the absolute motion of the Earth through the ether. If a parallel plate capacitor is suspended by means of a fine torsion fibber and charged, an electromagnetic torque is expected due to magnetic forces since the capacitor is moving through the ether."

Trouton and Noble obtained a null result: no motion relative to the ether could be detected.

This null result was repeated in experiments by Chase in 1927 and Hayden in 1994.

Then, of course, this null result was claimed to be consistent with STR.

However, the Trouton-Noble experiment previously failed because the voltages used also in all of the subsequent similar experiments were too small to show any stimulated rotation effects.

When the proper high voltage is used, the stimulated rotation of a parallel plate capacitor will be observed:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/troutnbl.htm

The successfull replication of the Trouton-Noble experiment conducted by Jean-Louis Naudin and Patrick Cornille has been presented during the "Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory - VI conference" at the Imperial college in London (UK) on September 12th, 1998.


The Trouton-Noble experiment is nothing less than an application of the  Biefeld-Brown effect.

For a high enough voltage, the rotation of the capacitor will take place, revealing not only the defiance of Newtonian mechanics, but also of the fact that the capacitor detects the ROTATION of the field of ether above the flat surface of the Earth.

What Dr. Paul Biefeld and T. Townsend Brown did is to achieve positive results for the Trouton-Noble experiment, however the connection between the two experiments was not established at that time.


BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852363#msg1852363


NIPHER EXPERIMENT:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852840#msg1852840


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1913909#msg1913909 (Biefeld-Brown effect, new video)


The fact that the Trouton-Noble effect can actually be detected successfully has huge implications in the speed of gravity debate.

Relativists make claim of the null result from the Trouton-Noble experiment to point out that relativistic forces (including both electromagnetism and gravity) involve velocity-dependent terms that almost exactly cancel the aberration effect arising from the finite speed of propagation (the absence of torque in such situations demonstrated by the null result from the Trouton-Noble experiment).


"For example, in reference to the Trouton-Noble experiment, which attempted to show
that electrically charged plates would assume a position of least resistance caused by the Earth’s movement, von Laue writes:

Thus it appeared reasonable that an electrically charged
condenser…would assume a particular orientation relative to
the velocity of the Earth, the one in which the angular
momentum vanishes. This conclusion is inescapable in
Newtonian mechanics. However, in 1903 Fr. T. Noble and H.
R. Trouton searched for this effect in vain, and even the more
accurate repetition of their experiment by R. Tomaschek (1925-
26) showed no trace of the effect. Their result is just as
convincing a proof of the principle of relativity as Michelson’s
interference experiment. Both of these experiments proved the
necessity for a new mechanics; Michelson’s experiment
because it showed the contraction of moving bodies in the
direction of motion, and the experiment of Trouton and Noble
because it showed that an angular momentum does not
necessarily lead to a rotation of the body involved….


One might think that if the plates showed “no trace of the effect” that a reasonable conclusion would be that there was no angular momentum from a moving Earth against which they had to orient themselves. But having accepted Copernicanism as gospel, von Laue is led to the incredible conclusion that “angular momentum does not necessarily lead to a rotation of the body involved.” Rather than question Copernicanism, von Laue would rather modify one of the most sacrosanct principles of physics, and one that had never heretofore been disproved by anyone – the law of angular momentum. That an intelligent man would not at least save himself and the science of physics a degree of self-respect by perhaps considering that a possible reason TroutonNoble’s results were negative was that the Earth was motionless, shows quite clearly how presuppositions hold ultimate sway over reasonable conclusions."

(from Galileo Was Wrong, vol. I)

FASTER THAN LIGHT SPEED OF GRAVITY

Einstein’s postulate that nothing can go faster than the speed of
light causes severe problems for current cosmology’s concept of gravity,
for gravity must then travel at the same speed, or a speed less than that of
light. But a gravitational force that is limited to the speed of light will
cause enormous problems for the vast distances it must travel in the
universe. For example, considering that the distance between the sun and
Earth is 143 million kilometers, light from the sun takes 8.5 minutes to
reach Earth. We on Earth don’t notice this travel time because light is
continually being discharged from the sun, but if the sun were to stop
shinning, we wouldn’t notice the absence of light until 8.5 minutes later
(at least according to presently accepted theory about light). Now,
imagine gravity working the same way. Since, as Newton’s laws require,
the sun, in the heliocentric model, is continually tugging at the Earth so
that the Earth does not go flying off into space, then the force of gravity
must be absolutely constant. Current science believes that the force of
gravity travels from the sun to the Earth in 8.5 minutes or more. But this
slow speed of gravity is not said to be a problem because, as is the case
for light from the sun, the gravity sent from the sun to the Earth has been
undisturbed for thousands of years. Its slow speed will not cause any
problems because it already has an established connection between the
sun and the Earth.

Although this may solve one problem, it creates another. By the
same theoretical principle, if the sun were suddenly to stop issuing the
force of gravity, the Earth would immediately depart from its orbit, the
same as when we cut the string from a ball being twirled around in a
circle. Once the string is cut, the ball will depart its orbit. Conversely,
light doesn’t need an anchor in order to propagate. But since gravity is a
radial force in Newtonian physics, it must operate under different laws.
If not, then Newton’s laws cannot be applied to the orbits of planets. The
question remaining is: what principle of physics would account for the
immediate reaction of the Earth if the gravitational “string” between
them were suddenly cut?

(from Galileo Was Wrong)


The effect of aberration on orbits is not seen

As viewed from the Earth’s frame, light from the Sun has aberration.  Light requires about 8.3 minutes to arrive from the Sun, during which time the Sun seems to move through an angle of 20 arc seconds.  The arriving sunlight shows us where the Sun was 8.3 minutes ago.  The true, instantaneous position of the Sun is about 20 arcs seconds east of its visible position, and we will see the Sun in its true present position about 8.3 minutes into the future.  In the same way, star positions are displaced from their average position by up to 20 arcs seconds, depending on the relative direction of the Earth’s motion around the Sun.  This well-known phenomenon is classical aberration, and was discovered by the astronomer Bradley in 1728.

Orbit computations must use true, instantaneous positions of all masses when computing accelerations due to gravity for the reason given by Eddington.  When orbits are complete, the visible position of any mass can be computed by allowing for the delay of light traveling from that mass to Earth.  This difference between true and apparent positions of bodies is not merely an optical illusion, but is a physical difference due to transit delay that can alter an observer’s momentum.  For example, small bodies such as dust particles in circular orbit around the Sun experience a mostly radial force due to the radiation pressure of sunlight.  But because of the finite speed of light, a portion of that radial force acts in a transverse direction, like a drag, slowing the orbital speed of the dust particles and causing them to eventually spiral into the Sun.  This phenomenon is known as the Poynting-Robertson effect.

If gravity were a simple force that propagated outward from the Sun at the speed of light, as radiation pressure does, its mostly radial effect would also have a small transverse component because of the motion of the target.  Analogous to the Poynting-Robertson effect, the magnitude of that tangential force acting on the Earth would be 0.0001 of the Sun’s radial force, which is the ratio of the Earth’s orbital speed (30 km/sec) to the speed of this hypothetical force of gravity moving at light-speed (300,000 km/sec).  It would act continuously, but would tend to speed the Earth up rather than slow it down because gravity is attractive and radiation pressure is repulsive.  Nonetheless, the net effect of such a force would be to double the Earth’s distance from the Sun in 1200 years.  There can be no doubt from astronomical observations that no such force is acting.  The computation using the instantaneous positions of Sun and Earth is the correct one.  The computation using retarded positions is in conflict with observations.  From the absence of such an effect, Laplace set a lower limit to the speed of propagation of classical gravity of about 10⁸c, where c is the speed of light.

Dr. Thomas van Flandern,  Physical Letters A 250, 1998, 1-11

B.S. Mathematics, Xavier University

Yale University, scholarship sponsored by the U.S. Naval Observatory (USNO)

PhD Astronomy, Yale University

Chief of the Research Branch, U.S. Naval Observatory

Chief of the Celestial Mechanics Branch of the Nautical Almanac Office


"In the geocentric model the ether moves against a fixed-Earth, and the aberration angle of the star is a consequence of the ether’s pressure on the travel of light, which is
opposed to Fresnel’s model that ascribed aberration to the relative motion of the star. "

Relativists cannot make use of Gravitoelectromagnetism Theory, since it is based on the MODIFIED Heaviside-Lorentz equations, and NOT on the original J.C. Maxwell set of equations.

http://sergf.ru/Heavisid.htm (Heaviside attempts to prove that the speed of gravity is the same as that of light, and amazingly presents to the reader the MODIFIED version of the Maxwell equations, and not the original equations which are invariant under Galilean transformations thus permitting faster than light signals to be propagated)


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1918701#msg1918701 (velocity vectors are additive, which means that the speed of light can be exceeded)


Nor can the failed Lorentz theory of gravitation based on the MODIFIED set of Maxwell equations be brought into play: the calculations attributed to Laplace stand correct.

Nor can the failed concept of Lorentz transformations be used as any kind of argument against Laplace's calculations:

The colossal mistakes committed by Lorentz and Einstein in deriving the Lorentz transformation/factor:

http://relativityunraveled.net/chapter-4-the-michelson-morley-experiment/

http://relativityunraveled.net/chapter-5-the-lorentz-transformation/

http://relativityunraveled.net/chapter-1-introduction/

Dr. Hans Zweig, Stanford University: http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/wiki/hans-j-zweig/

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/weuro/agathan5.pdf



The Kopeikin-Fomalont experiment has been shown to be very flawed by Stuart Samuel, a participating scientist with the Theory Group of Lawrence Berkeley Lab’s Physics Division, in a paper published in Physical Review Letters.

A sharp analysis of S. Carlip's attempt to prove that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light:

"Now let us look at Steve Carlip's paper. His second sentence is this:

The "speed of gravity" must be deduced from astronomical observations, and the answer depends on what model of gravity one uses to describe those observations.

This is an unpropitious start. Why? Because it tells us Carlip is misdirecting from the get-go. He is telling us that physicists should and do fit observations to models, rather than models to observations. They do, but they shouldn't. As Karl Popper showed us years ago, science consists of fitting models to observations, not the reverse. Yes, there is some amount of hermeneutics involved, by which previous models may suggest future research; but the current method of jamming all new data into old models by main force and computers is not scientific.

For a start, notice his use of the word “deduced.” That is not only sloppy but false. If your answer depends on your model, it is clear you are inducing your answer, not deducing it. Something that is deduced is a necessary outcome. It couldn't be otherwise because it is logically contained in the data. That is what deduced means. So if various models are giving us vastly different answers, only one can be deduced. The others are induced. More rigorously, they are all induced, but only one is correct.

Carlip's third paragraph starts with this:

In general relativity, on the other hand, gravity propagates at the speed of light.

He has just assumed what he is expected to prove here. That is called begging the question. This is typical of the standard model people, who tend to argue in very heavy-handed ways, using all the old tricks. They don't feel they have to convince you of anything, because you are supposed to already be bowing to them. They are certain you are so stupid they can lead with obvious fallacies and fool you anyway. They don't think you will know what begging the question is, or what a red herring is, or what a strawman is, or what a gambler's fallacy is. Most of all, they think you won't be able to spot misdirection, as they slide off the subject and begin discussing things they think you don't understand, like higher math or esoterica.

After that, Carlip begins, yes, misdirecting. Rather than address the question at hand, he tells his reader that the force in GR is not exactly central. What does that have to do with it? He talks about the propagation delay being cancelled, then diverts us into E/M by paragraph 4. But that isn't enough. He then diverts into the second and then the third derivative (of the mass quadrupole moment!), assuming that any mention of a third derivative will scare most readers into silence and acquiescence. Finally, in paragraph 8, he mentions some data, the decay of the orbits of the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16. But once again he just tells us that this is “attributed to the loss of energy due to escaping gravitational radiation.” Since he gives us no data to back that up, he is beggin the question again. We would need to detect escaping gravitational radiation to confirm that, and we haven't detected it. Instead, we have detected photonic and other E/M radiation, which should have decided the question. But Carlip continues to assume what he is expected to prove. He simply calls this decay of orbit a “gravitational damping,” and then says,

The rate of this damping can be computed, and one finds that it depends sensitively on the speed of gravity. The fact that gravitational damping is measured at all is a strong indication that the propagation speed of gravity is not infinite.

But wait, it hasn't been measured at all! It has been “computed.” A computation is not a measurement! Carlip isn't presenting an argument here, he is massaging your brain. He is just calling the real data “gravitational damping,” and then claiming that is proof of something. He might as well say, “The fact that we gave it a name proves it exists in the form we named it.”  he deflects us into a short assurance that the decay is due to gravitational damping. And why should we believe that? Because a computer model matched the amount seen to one set of equations in GR. It wasn't even predicted, as he almost admits. Notice his language: the rate can be computed. Yes, but anything can be computed. IF GR had predicted a rate of decay before it was measured, and IF the measurement were made without using the assumptions of GR, THEN he might have something. As it is, he has nothing."

FASTER THAN LIGHT SPEED OF GRAVITY II: U.S. NAVAL OBSERVATORY DATA

The most amazing thing I was taught as a graduate student of celestial mechanics at Yale in the 1960s was that all gravitational interactions between bodies in all dynamical systems had to be taken as instantaneous.  This seemed unacceptable on two counts.  In the first place, it seemed to be a form of “action at a distance.”  Perhaps no one has so elegantly expressed the objection to such a concept better than Sir Isaac Newton:  “That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to the other, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it”.  But mediation requires propagation, and finite bodies should be incapable of propagate at infinite speeds since that would require infinite energy.  So instantaneous gravity seemed to have an element of magic to it.

The second objection was that we had all been taught that Einstein’s Special Relativity (SR), an experimentally well established theory, proved that nothing could propagate in forward time at a speed greater than that of light in a vacuum.  Indeed, as astronomers we were taught to calculate orbits using instantaneous forces; then extract the position of some body along its orbit at a time of interest, and calculate where that position would appear as seen from Earth by allowing for the finite propagation speed of light from there to here.  It seemed incongruous to allow for the finite speed of light from the body to the Earth, but to take the effect of Earth’s gravity on that same body as propagating from here to there instantaneously.  Yet that was the required procedure to get the correct answers.

Even today in discussions of gravity in USENET newsgroups on the Internet, the most frequently asked question and debated topic is “What is the speed of gravity?”  It is only heard less often in the classroom because many teachers and most textbooks head off the question by hastily assuring students that gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light, leaving the firm impression, whether intended or not, that the question of gravity’s propagation speed has already been answered.

Yet, anyone with a computer and orbit computation or numerical integration software can verify the consequences of introducing a delay into gravitational interactions.  The effect on computed orbits is usually disastrous because conservation of angular momentum is destroyed.  Expressed less technically by Sir Arthur Eddington, this means: “If the Sun attracts Jupiter towards its present position S, and Jupiter attracts the Sun towards its present position J, the two forces are in the same line and balance.  But if the Sun attracts Jupiter toward its previous position S', and Jupiter attracts the Sun towards its previous position J', when the force of attraction started out to cross the gulf, then the two forces give a couple.  This couple will tend to increase the angular momentum of the system, and, acting cumulatively, will soon cause an appreciable change of period, disagreeing with observations if the speed is at all comparable with that of light” Eddington, 1920, p.94).  See Figure 1.



Indeed, it is widely accepted, even if less widely known, that the speed of gravity in Newton’s Universal Law is unconditionally infinite (e.g., Misner, C.W., K.S. Thorne & J.A. Wheeler, Gravitation, W.H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco, CA (1973), p.177).  This is usually not mentioned in proximity to the statement that GR reduces to Newtonian gravity in the low-velocity, weak-field limit because of the obvious question it begs about how that can be true if the propagation speed in one model is the speed of light, and in the other model it is infinite.

Gravity and light do not act in parallel directions

There is no cause to doubt that photons arriving now from the Sun left 8.3 minutes ago, and arrive at Earth from the direction against the sky that the Sun occupied that long ago.  But the analogous situation for gravity is less obvious, and we must always be careful not to mix in the consequences of light propagation delays.  Another way, besides aberration, to represent what gravity is doing is to measure the acceleration vector for the Earth’s motion, and ask if it is parallel to the direction of the arriving photons.  If it is, that would argue that gravity propagated to Earth with the same speed as light; and conversely.

Such measurements of Earth’s acceleration through space are now easy to make using precise timing data from stable pulsars in various directions on the sky.  Any movement of the Earth in any direction is immediately reflected in a decreased delay in the time of arrival of pulses toward that direction, and an increased delay toward the opposite direction.  In principle, Earth’s orbit could be determined from pulsar timings alone.  In practice, the orbit determined from planetary radar ranging data is checked with pulsar timing data and found consistent with it to very high precision.

How then does the direction of Earth’s acceleration compare with the direction of the visible Sun?  By direct calculation from geometric ephemerides fitted to such observations, such as those published by the U.S. Naval Observatory or the Development Ephemerides of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the Earth accelerates toward a point 20 arc seconds in front of the visible Sun, where the Sun will appear to be in 8.3 minutes.  In other words, the acceleration now is toward the true, instantaneous direction of the Sun now, and is not parallel to the direction of the arriving solar photons now.  This is additional evidence that forces from electromagnetic radiation pressure and from gravity do not have the same propagation speed.


The solar eclipse test

Yet another manifestation of the difference between the propagation speeds of gravity and light can be seen in the case of solar eclipses (Van Flandern, 1993, pp. 49-50).  The Moon, being relatively nearby and sharing the Earth’s 30 km/sec orbital motion around the Sun, has relatively little aberration (0.7 arc seconds, due to the Moon’s 1 km/sec orbital speed around Earth).  The Sun, as mentioned earlier, has an aberration of just over 20 arc seconds.  It takes the Moon about 38 seconds of time to move 20 arc seconds on the sky relative to the Sun.  Since the observed times of eclipses of the Sun by the Moon agree with predicted times to within a couple of seconds, we can use the orbits of the Sun and the Moon near times of maximum solar eclipse to compare the time of predicted gravitational maximum with the time of visible maximum eclipse.

In practice, the maximum gravitational perturbation by the Sun on the orbit of the Moon near eclipses may be taken as the time when the lunar and solar longitudes are equal.  Details of the procedure are provided in the reference cited.  We find that maximum eclipse occurs roughly 381.9 seconds of time, on average, before the time of gravity maximum.  If gravity is a propagating force, this 3-body (Sun-Moon-Earth) test implies that gravity propagates at least 20 times faster than light.


Does General Relativity really reduce to Newtonian gravity in low-velocity, weak-field limit?

As we have already noted, Newtonian gravity propagates with unconditionally infinite speed.  How, then, can GR reduce to Newtonian gravity in the weak-field, low-velocity limit?  The answer is that conservation of angular momentum is implicit in the assumptions on which GR rests.  However, as we have already seen, finite propagation speeds and conservation of angular momentum are incompatible.  Therefore, GR was forced to claim that gravity is not a force that propagates in any classical sense, and that aberration does not apply.

In practice, this suppression of aberration is done through so-called “retarded potentials.”  In electromagnetism, these are called “Lienard-Wiechert potentials.”  For examples of the use of retarded potentials, see Misner et al., 1973, p. 1080 or Feynman, 1963, p. 214.  Suppose we let φ(x-bar, t) be the gravitational potential at a field point “x-bar” and time t, G be the gravitational constant, dV be an element of volume in the source of the potential, x-bar = (X, Y, Z) be the coordinates of that volume element in the source, ρ(x-bar, T) be the matter density at point x-bar and time T, r-bar = x-bar - X-bar, r = |r-bar| be the distance from the source volume element at time T to the field point at time t, and v-bar be the relative velocity between the field point and the source.  Then two different forms of retarded potentials in common use for gravitation are these:



However, in neither form of retarded potential is any consideration given to the transverse motion between source and target during the light time; i.e., the aberration.  Ignoring aberration is logically equivalent to adopting an infinite propagation speed for gravitational force.  That point is glossed over by emphasizing that the density distribution or the mutual distance is being taken at its retarded position, as if a finite propagation speed for gravity were being adopted.  Nevertheless, the only practical consequence of a finite propagation speed that matters in most applications is missing from these potentials.  And that clever trick then allows a theory with “gravity propagating at the speed of light” to be equivalent to a theory with infinite propagation speed in the weak-field, low velocity limit.

In short, both GR and Newtonian gravity use infinite propagation speeds with aberration equal to zero.  In Newton’s laws, that fact is explicitly recognized even though aberration and delay terms do not appear because of an infinity in their denominator.  In GR, much effort has been expended in disguising the continued absence of the same delay terms by including retardation effects in ways that are presently unobservable and ignoring aberration.  Every physicist and physics student should be at least annoyed at having been tricked by this sleight of hand, and should demand that the neglect of aberration be clearly justified by those who propose to do so.

Conclusion: The speed of gravity is > 2x10¹⁰ c

We conclude that gravitational fields, even “static” ones, continually regenerate through entities that must propagate at some very high speed, v_f.  We call this the speed of gravity.  Equation 1 then tells us how orbits will expand in response to this large but finite propagation speed, since the field itself, and not merely changes in the field, will transfer momentum to orbiting target bodies.  Rewriting Equation 1 in a form suitable for comparisons with observations, we derive:





Dr. Tom van Flandern



There have been attempts to show that gravity does not attain superluminal speeds (most notably Ibison/Puthoff/Little); however, these papers make use either of the MODIFIED Maxwell equations, or rely upon GTR.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg769750#msg769750 (total demolition of STR/GTR)

FASTER THAN LIGHT SPEED OF GRAVITY III: THE WALKER-DUAL EXPERIMENT

A 1997 laboratory experiment by William D. Walker and J. Dual showed that gravitational signals propagated much faster than light signals.

http://cds.cern.ch/record/878414/files/0508166.pdf

Theoretical, Numerical, and Experimental Evidence of Superluminal Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields Generated in the Nearfield of Dipole Sources

Light from the sun is not observed to be collinear with the sun’s gravitational force. Astronomical studies indicate that the earth’s acceleration is towards the gravitational center of the sun even though it is moving around the sun, whereas light from the sun is observed to be aberrated. If the gravitational force between the sun and the earth were aberrated then gravitational forces tangential to the earth’s orbit would result, causing the earth to spiral away from the sun, due to conservation of angular momentum. Current astronomical observations estimate the phase speed of gravity to be greater than 2x10¹⁰c.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9706082.pdf

Propagation Speed of Longitudinally Oscillating Gravitational and Electrical Fields


https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0009/0009023.pdf (very well documented, it takes into consideration each and every possible criticism addressed by other physicists)

Experimental Evidence of Near-field Superluminally Propagating Electromagnetic Fields


Other authors have tried to use as arguments either the Heisenberg uncertainty principle applied to Fourier analysis or the Sommerfeld forerunner wave theory.

There is no such thing as the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: in ether quantum mechanics everything is very well defined and there is absolute certainty.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1401101#msg1401101

In the Sommerfeld-Brillouin theory, signal velocity does not exceed wavefront speed. However, this theory rests totally on the structure of the MODIFIED Maxwell equations which ensure that the electromagnetic field cannot advance at a speed exceeding the speed of light.

Using the original, full set of Maxwell equations, velocity vectors are additive, which means that the speed of light can be exceeded.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1918701#msg1918701