Let's crush this garbage of a theory once and for good!!!
These are the pillars of the Heliocentric Theory:
1. Gravitation
2. Revolution of the Earth around the Sun
3. Rotation of the Earth on it's axis
4. Earth's tilt
5. Fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis
6. All celestial objects are solid material bodies
7. The Earth is insignificant planet within the immense Universe (copernican principle)
8. There is an evolution of the Universe and of the life on the planet Earth
9. The main consequence and the main philosophical Cause of this garbage of a theory is philosophically utterly wrong and logically utterly unsustainable, idiotic assumption: There is no God, there are no objective moral values, the human life is of no greater value than the life of a pig, the morality is the justice of those who are stronger, a democracy is a hoax and that is how it is supposed to be, on the Earth currently live too much "superfluous eaters" and the great number of them has to be annihilated one way or another...
If we shatter any of these pillars, the whole building of this garbage of a theory falls to pieces, just like WTC towers!
1. Gravitation:In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th, 1692, Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance — 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 .” Yet many have fallen into this “great absurdity.” Such men therefore—according to Newton — have not "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.
Sir Robert Ball says: — “The law of gravitation ... underlies the whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”
The idea of Earth’s rotation was not being accepted by most thinkers (in all times) because of one logical reason; objects on a rotating Earth should be repelled off the surface. Unconsciously, the Newtonian fellows sacrificed their precious gravity in order to enforce the idea of Earth’s rotation: objects on a rotating Earth are subject to gravity which holds them down. They had believed that the sacrifice is a matter of 0.35% of the total gravity. That is, the gravitational constant looses as maximum as 0.35% at the Equator where the rigid Earth experiences the highest rotational speed (1670 km/hr). And at the poles, the gravitational constant retains its maximum value where the rotational speed is zero. In their sacrifice, the difference between the maximum gravitational constant g0 and the altered gravitational constant g due to Earth’s rotation, g0 - g is given by:
Here, R is the radius of the latitudinal circle which varies from the maximal value at the equator 6378 km to zero at the poles, and T is the period of rotation equals to 24 hours. At the Equator, g0 - g is equal to 0.034 m/s^2. The maximum loss of the gravitational constant is 0.35 % (0.034/9.
, at the equator. We shall not recall the objection of the good fellows, because we have a modern one. That is, objects on a rotating Earth should not fly off. Here is the precious sacrifice: if the Earth were experiencing a rotation, then the concept of gravity is useless to hold objects down. The greatest task of holding objects down on a rotating Earth (rigid and air) would
become for the real-change of air pressure in the atmosphere. The gravity would become a redundant force and should leave the Earth. The Newtonian fellows accept that, the air atmosphere undergoes a rotation with the rigid Earth. Otherwise, if the Earth rotates without the air atmosphere, it will leave the air behind; it will generate a huge dynamic pressure.
In a real atmosphere, the measured air-pressure at the surface of the rigid Earth is 1013.25 mbar (1 atm), at standard condition of temperature. It is the highest pressure value measured in the altitude height for standard conditions. The pressure pattern of air atmosphere reveals that, the pressure drops from 1 atm to lower values as we ascend to higher altitudes, reaching zero at the interface with space. In addition, the abundant of hydrogen is higher at the outer layer than at the surface of the Earth. Moreover, the concentration of oxygen is higher at the seal level than at the outer layers. These conclude that, the Earth had never rotated since the first day of life.
The choice of Earth’s rotation (the cause of pression), should repel the gravity from Earth. Consequently, the heliocentric model looses the most precious element. The choice of gravity should remove the concept of Earth’s rotation from the cosmos motion, consequently; the journey of the Earth around the sun becomes useless since half of the Earth should be always in darkness and the second half should be always in lightness.
READ MORE : http://www.energeticforum.com/256388-post62.html2. Revolution of The Earth around the Sun:No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth. Yet they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the Earth of exactly ZERO mph.
The toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre's induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jaseja's lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley interferometry, Lord Rayleigh's polarimetry, Troughton-Noble torque, and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever."
The most-well known of these is the Michelson-Morley experiment which attempted to measure the change in speed of light due to the assumed motion of Earth through space. They measured in every different direction in various places on the Earth's surface and failed to detect any significant change whatsoever. The Michelson-Gale experiment also failed to prove heliocentricity but was able to measure the movement of the aether/firmament around the Earth accurate to within 2%. An experiment known as "Airey's Failure" involves filling a telescope with water to slow down the speed of light inside. Usually telescopes must be slightly tilted to get the starlight down the axis of the tube supposedly due to "Earth's speed around the sun." Airey discovered that actually the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so no change was necessary. This demonstrated that the stars move relative to a stationary Earth and not the other way around; if it was the telescope moving he would have to change the angle.
In the " History of the Conflict between Religion and Science," by Dr. Draper, pages 175 and 176, the matter is referred to the following words :
" Among the arguments brought forward against the Copernican system at the time of its promulgation, was one by the great Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, originally urged by Aristarchus against the Pythagorean system, to the effect that if, as was alleged, the earth moves round the sun, there ought to he a change in the relative position of the stars ; they should seem to separate as we approach them, or to close together as we recede from them... At that time the sun's distance was greatly under-estimated. Had it been known, as it is now, that the distance exceeds 90 million miles, or that the diameter of the orbit is more than 180 million, that argument would doubtless have had very great weight. In reply to Tycho, it was said that, since the parallax of a body diminishes as its distance increases, a star may be so far off that its parallax may be imperceptible. THIS ANSWER PROVED TO BE CORRECT."
To the uninitiated, the words " this answer proved to be correct," might seem to settle the matter, and while it must be admitted that parallax is diminished or increased according as the star is distant or near, parallax and direction are very different terms and convey quite different meanings. Tycho stated that the direction of the stars would be altered ; his critics replied that the distance gave no sensible difference of parallax. This maybe set down as ingenious, but it is no answer to the proposition, which has remained unanswered to this hour, and is unanswerable.
CONCLUSIVE INFERENCE ABOUT THE EQUATION OF TIME ISSUE:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637435#msg1637435Long exposure photos of the stars :
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1641992#msg16419923. Rotation of the Earth on it's axis:A) If the Earth was rotating about its axis, someone in Quito, Ecuador would be traveling twice as fast from west to east as someone in Oslo, Norway – at any moment, and at every moment. Meanwhile, someone looking at the proverbial North Pole, would hardly be moving at all! But is that reality?
Of course it is not reality, but this supposed fact of Earth's rotation now becomes deadliest error of all, concerning supposed differences of Earth rotational speeds at different latitudes.
If these differences were really the true fact then the speed of apparent motion of all celestial bodies would be twice greater for any observer on the equator than it would be for any observer on the latitude of Oslo.
How hard would be to make an experiment (measurement) of such kind???
B) If the atmosphere were independent (non rotating but static) from Earth's daily rotation then we would have on the surface of the Earth permanent winds that blow 600 to 1600 km/h. Do you notice permanent winds which blow at such a speed?
C) If the atmosphere were rotating along with the Earth the air flow at the surface of the Earth would have variable velocity (not the thermal), variable pressure (not the static), and variable density (not the normal). Such air flow and such air pressure regimes do not exist:
http://www.energeticforum.com/256388-post62.htmlD) Observing the sun directly from the north pole the apparent motion of the sun would be straight line for days, and a camera should have to be slightly adjusted every few hours to cancel out scarcelly perceptible effect due to Earth's alleged rotation which speed is practically zero at North Pole.
E) "RET - ZIGZAG - ARCTIC SCENARIO", IS A HYPOTHETIC PHENOMENA WHICH NOBODY EVER HAS SEEN, AND PRESENTS AN IMPOSSIBILITY ABOVE THE FLAT EARTH, BUT IT WOULD BE A NECESSITY IF THE EARTH WERE ROUND! If the Sun were at rest and much closer (to us) (than mainstream science claims to be the case), then we would be able to see zigging and zagging (left to right & right to left) of the Sun during one single Polar Day, and during every single Polar Day. If we could see motion of the Sun (due to alleged tilt) in "up & down" manner, we should be able to see zigging and zagging (lef to right & right to left), also!!! And vice versa : if we were unable to see zigging and zagging under above conditions we wouldn't be able to see "up & down" "apparent" motion of the Sun either. It must be able to see both phenomena or none!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643762#msg1643762F) If the HC theory were true, the sun should be generally always south for the observer at latitude 45 degree N (where i live). However, in the summer the sun rises NORTH-EAST, traverses the sky in southern arc, and at the end of the day the sun sets NORTH-WEST (although significantly less north in comparision with a sunrise)...The point of this argument is that the arc of the Sun (in the summer) should go in the direction SOUTH-NORTH-SOUTH, and from my own experience i can tell you with certainty that the Sun goes in a direction NORTH-SOUTH-NORTH... Totally opposite from what it should be if in the HC theory we could find a shred of truth !!!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1642036#msg1642036Download it
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> , turn repeat on, watch and think...
You flunked out of basic training, maybe you want try to pass this one:
FLAT EARTH COMPASS CONFUSION :
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">4. Earth's tilt issue:If the sun were that big and at that distance there would be no change of seasons because the sun’s rays would reach both hemispheres with equal volume regardless of its position north or south in relation to the equator.
1. In January (southern summer) the Earth is allegedly :
A) closer to the Sun 5 000 000 km than in June
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun
2. In June (southern winter) the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun 5 000 000 than in January
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun
Get it?
If you still don't get it, try to compare above "deadly synergy" theoretical (since it doesn't exist in reality) case with another theoretical case which concerns northern "hemisphere". Let's call it "moderate situation" case...
1. In January the Earth is allegedly:
A) closer to the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun
So B ("tilted away") cancels out A (closer to the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy
2. In June the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun
So B ("tilted towards") cancels out A (farther away from the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy AGAIN!!!
HOWEVER, IN REALITY THERE IS NO SUCH DISCREPANCY (WHATSOEVER), BETWEEN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN SEASONS!!!
No one can refute this striking argument against HC and RET!!!
According to RET Southern Hemisphere should be completely uninhabitable!!!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.0#.VIctKPJW_1t5. Fixed spatial orientation of the Earth's axis:If one takes a small tube and points it at Polaris in the northern hemisphere, fixing it to that point, the star remains visible throughout the entire year. This visibility within a small CPVC tube shows that the earth does not travel in a wide circuit around the sun. If this was the case, the star would not always be visible to the naked eye through the tube. If all those stars in time lapse video change position with the supposed rotation of earth, then there should be an even larger deviation in position over the course of one solar orbit. This fact; however, never receives recognition.
Do not say that the polestar stands in a far away position which is why one can see it always. Even though the stars stand all far away, the supposed rotation of the earth still creates moving stars in the sky. If one should see all the stars move during 24 hours, the entire year with a larger orbital circle should do the same thing with the polestar. It does not occur, so the earth possesses geocentricity and planar characteristics...
The Polaris star is always stationary. The only way a point can remain stationary, is when both the observer and the point are stationary, or both move in unison. Since the other stars move in unison relative to the Earth, then both Polaris and Earth must be motionless!
Had there been any way to prove that the Earth is submitted to any kind of motion, scientists would have supplied us with these proofs up until now, and by doing this they would have provided immortal fame for themselves.
6. Geocentricity without FET:If the Earth is at rest then the first consequence of that fact is this: There isn't a tilt of the Earth!
Now, the question:
If there isn't a tilt of the Earth and if we still stick with the idea that the Earth is round, how in the world we could get 16,5 hours of daylight at latitude 51 degree North (London)?
A reminder:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528CONCLUSION:
IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, THEN SHE HAS TO BE FLAT, ALSO!
1. If there is no rotation of the Earth, then there isn't revolution of the Earth around the Sun, also.
2. If there is no revolution of the Earth around the Sun, then there is no rotation of the Earth, also.
3. Noone EVER has proved that there is either rotation or revolution of the Earth!
4. Every failure of all attempts to prove that there is either rotation or revolution of the Earth presents proof to the contrary!
5. There was many such attempts in last 130 years, and these attempts were very serious scientific experiments!
6. If there is no rotation or/and revolution of the Earth, then there is no tilt of the Earth!
7. If the Earth is not tilted, then the general surface of the Earth must be flat, because on a different latitudes we have different lengths of daylight.
8. So, if the Earth is immovable, then she must be flat, also!
9. We have just proven not just that heliocentrism is a false hypothesis, but since the HC is a hoax, then the RET is a hoax, also!
It is scientific fact that when a solid body is rotated all parts tend to fly away from the centre, therefore, since the hardest steel will not stand a strain of more than 125 tons to the square inch, the Earth would have been rent to smithereens were it a fact that it rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, and fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second, and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
7. Experiments and examples : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636045#msg1636045So, what could be a possible solution here? I propose this: The Sun regulates intensity of sunlight which emanates in different directions :
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62246.msg1637548#msg1637548"Why do we think the Sun and the other celestial 'objects' move when they can be simply projected from somewhere else on the celestial screen/dome while the source remains stationary/fixed. That is why the Sun doesn't get smaller when it sets and so on...
I can't tell you how far, how big and what exactly the Sun is, but I can tell you that it is not necessary for it to travel around the circle at all.
It might turn around and shine in different directions causing the seeming motion which we observe. Its light is reflected on the celestial dome, but it is not really coming from there. Basically the light in the sky is a projection. That is why it can set and rise. Its size remains relatively the same for the same reason. The sun we see is a projection, its source doesn't move just scatters light in different directions following a complex pattern."
I must confess that this way of thinking on this subject is very similar to my own reasoning about the heavenly lights...