The stars revolve 360° in 24 hours in an anti-clockwise fashion around the north polar star in the northern hemisphere, and clockwise around the southern star in the southern hemisphere.
Photographers take photos with very long shutter speeds to show this effect.
This, you may think, is a good case for a rotating Earth.
But on it’s own it is also a good case for a geocentric one, as it demonstrates that either the Earth is moving or the heavens.
However, after 6 months, those EXACT same stars are at the EXACT same location, as can be seen with the naked eye, at which they had been 6 months previously.
The annual change in the position of stars in the sky is called stellar parallax.
You can demonstrate this lack of parallax by following this experiment devised by Samuel Rowbotham of Zetetic Astronomy.
There are an estimated 100 to 200 billion galaxies in the universe (which is bunk, as there are no galaxies) each with up to 100 trillion stars!
So being able to detect movement in 1% of the stars of our own galaxy is a miniscule amount.
Even this 1% is unlikely to be true.
This is a big problem for heliocentric theory which states that every 24 hours the Earth rotates on its axis at 1675km/h, revolving around the Sun at 107,000km/h, which in turn moves around the center of the galaxy at 900,000km/h, which moves in the universe at 2,160,000km/h!
Apart from the atmosphere disappearing at these speeds, how is there no stellar parallax, especially considering that all the other stars and galaxies are revolving around each other and the Earth as well.
The sky must be a right mess! Each new day must bring a brand new unique constellation in the sky at night with some new stars getting nearer so they can be seen with the naked eye and some traveling further away and disappearing never to return for thousands or millions of years.
Before we move on, this lack of stellar parallax is the reason why advocates of heliocentric theory give the unbelievably enormous distances the heavenly bodies must be from Earth.
They can’t measure it! The stars must be thousands and millions of light years away (with the Milky Way 100,000 light years across, 1 light year being 9.46 trillion kilometers!) because there is no (or little) detectable stellar parallax; otherwise heliocentric theory would be definitely wrong.
Not only is there no evidence for such astronomical distances, but we have now proven that the stars are approximately 4000-5000 miles away!
Does making stuff up to support a theory lacking any observational or experimental evidence sound like science to you?
How do we know it is not the heavens or “space” which moves above us, instead of the Earth, which causes both the rotation of the stars and any of their hard-to-detect parallax.
We now know it is the former, thanks to an experiment in 1871 by Astronomer Royal, George Airy; which is this:
If stellar parallax is too small to see with the naked eye, then why not artificially increase it.
If the Earth rotates at the same speed constantly, then by slowing the light down (by filling the telescope with water), the angle of star movement would increase.
If stellar parallax increased then the telescope would have to be tilted more to see the same star and prove a rotating Earth once and for all.
And guess what? As confirmed by others, the most careful measurements gave the same angle for a telescope with water as for one filled with air.
This is called “Airy’s failure”. It proved the rotation of the heavens, not Earth, which moves stars.
The angle stayed the same, proving that the Earth does not rotate.
The heliocentric advocates were now desperate.
What was needed was another observable experiment to still offer the possibility of a rotating Earth. Enter Foucault’s pendulum in 1885.
This pendulum swings back and forth, each swing moving slightly to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern hemisphere until, at the poles, one full circle is achieved in 24 hours.
It doesn’t move left or right at all at the equator.
As you have noticed, this is the same phenomenon as the stars rotating every 24 hours around the polar star, which was proved not to be caused by a rotating Earth thanks to George Airy.
Unfortunately for the heliocentric supporters, Foucault’s pendulum also had a problem.
In 1954 and 1959, Maurice Allais noticed that during a solar eclipse, which lasted 2 and a half hours, the angle of the pendulum changed dramatically by 13.5°.
This has been repeatedly observed with positive results on most of the subsequent eclipses, which obviously means that the pendulum isn’t registering the Earth’s rotation, but the motion of something else instead.
With Airy’s failure proving that the Earth does not rotate, the heliocentric theorists needed to quickly show with no further doubt that the Earth rotated.
Enter two staunch supporters of heliocentricity, Albert Michelson and Edward Morley, who in 1887 set up a device which split up light: one beam in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, and one at right angles.
The two light beams then recombined and hit a photographic plate. The difference is speed of the two beams would create an interference pattern.
They expected to measure a speed of 30 km/s as that was the speed of the Earth’s supposed rotation, but instead registered a variable difference of between 1 and 10 km/s each time the experiment was repeated.
They called this a “null” result.
This proves that the Earth is not rotating and at the same time proved the existence of the ether.
The traveling light wasn’t rotating with the Earth.
It didn’t stop there, Georges Sagnac, and Henry Gale conducted similar experiments, but on a rotating platform, which again demonstrated the existence of the ether.
Already proved by default in 1871 and 1885 by combining the results from George Airy and Foucault’s pendulum, and also in 1887 by the Michelson-Morley experiment.
How do you think the advocates of heliocentric theory responded?
Why, they made something up of course! What else could they do but invent another wild theory to play down these experimental results and lead us further into the cesspit of fallacy.
Enter showbiz academic of the 20th century, Einstein and the special theory of relativity.
Special relativity was invented to make sure all these experiments still gave heliocentric theory a chance of being correct.
It needed objects to shrink to a specific size in direct proportion to its speed. These objects weren’t measured! The concept had never been observed at all.
It was metaphysical only. But it had to be correct, otherwise the unthinkable would be true.
The rescue operation was performed by means of a purely metaphysical concept lifted directly from Professors Fitzgerald and Lorentz, who had also been trying to explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and renamed by him the Special Theory of Relativity.
What was suggested was that if the dimensions of an object in motion were assumed to shrink exactly in proportion to the speed at which it was traveling by exactly the necessary amount, mathematical calculations could be made to show that the Earth was in motion after all.
No one has ever seen an object shrink as a result of being in motion, and indeed one of the world’s leading authorities on relativity, Dr. Herbert Dingle, was later to dismiss the theory of relativity as metaphysical nonsense with no basis on what could be observe.
Making up a new branch of mathematics to explain the results of experiments that disagrees with your worldview does not a proof make! As a J.J. Thomson once said:
We have Einstein’s space, de Sitter’s space, expanding universes, contracting universes, vibrating universes, mysterious universes.
In fact the pure mathematician may create universes just by writing down an equation, and indeed if he is an individualist he can have a universe of his own.
However, when you make stuff up not based on anything in the real world, it is bound to run into trouble.
Ironically, when Special Relativity failed due to its internal contradictions, Einstein had to invent General Relativity to shore up the façade, and in the process he had to take back the very two foundations he had discarded in Special Relativity, namely, (a) that nothing can exceed the speed of light and (b) the existence of ether.
In the end, Einstein’s theories were a mass of contradictions which are covered over by obtuse mathematical equations.
Despite this nonsense, the heliocentric “authorities” pushed it through with all their media power and academic might so that once this new mathematics was firmly established.
They had carte blanche to sneak in other bad “science” when experimental observations went against them, like black holes, dark matter, wormholes and other such unobservable and unverifiable nonsense.
The worst offence though was trying to tie in the Coriolis effect of a rotating Earth with observable atmospheric phenomena.
The Coriolis effect is an optical illusion whereby an object traveling in a straight line is seen to be moving in a curved one instead because the observer is on a rotating platform.
wikipedia_coriolis_effect
The Coriolis optical illusion. You are the red dot. Below is what you observe. Above is what actually happens.
This is the complete pattern and scale of ANY Coriolis effect on the Earth.
If something in the real world doesn’t match this, it can NOT be the Coriolis effect!
They say it is this effect which causes moving objects to be deflected in a clockwise direction in the northern hemisphere and anti-clockwise in the southern hemisphere; an example of which are large cyclones.
This is obviously false. The Coriolis effect is NOT a force, it is an optical illusion. It cannot cause objects to be deflected; their trajectories remain the same, which is straight.
Cyclones do not “travel in straight lines, but just appear to be curved because we are on the surface of a rotating sphere”. Their size ranges from under 222km to over 888km making their curves far too tight and localized.
Plus there are very high altitude images looking down on cyclones from above. Is the camera rotating with the Earth to get this curved perspective?
And what about smaller vortex phenomena like Tornadoes which average only 150m across. Where is the Coriolis effect now?
A 150m wide tornado is really a straight line!
If you wish to study further the fallacy of linking the Coriolis effect with atmospheric phenomena then Miles Mathis‘ work is a must.
Otherwise, those inclined to understand cyclones and tornadoes would do well to study the relationship between gravity and electromagnetism, and vortex dynamics instead, as even physicists admit that the Coriolis “effect” and electromagnetism is eerily similar.
