can geocentric mean rotating earth moving world deception!!

8/3/2019 Can Geocentric Mean Rotating Earth Moving World DECEPTION!!

1/7

can-geocentric-mean-rotating-earth - Moving-World DECEPTION!!Search thissite

can-geocentric-mean-rotating-earth

Moving-Earth DECEPTION!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can Geocentrism Include A Rotatingbut Non-orbiting Earth Model?

----------

1. "You say that all experiments 'failed to show that the Earthspins,' but that is not strictly true. They failed to demonstratethat the World hurtles around the Sun, which is what they were

hoping (and expected) to find, but the diurnal spin is shown in manyof them. It has never been shown that it is the World turning or the

heavens turning, but it is assumed to be the World because that isa) more reasonable (true I suppose with a gigantic universe) and b)essential for their funding-attracting paradigm. And why does this,and only this, paradigm attract the funding? You know this as wellas we all do.

The retro-reflector is aninteresting area, because if it were possible to hit it with a laser

beam as the general public are led to believe, then it would tell us

which way the Moon was actually going!" Neville T. Jones, Phd----------

2. "There is no science/knowledge that shows a rotating Earth. Any

experiment conducted with the assumption ... that it is rotating can

add the other eight assumptions and present a visual, working,mathematical experimental model of a rotating Earth. Thisexperimental model, of course, immediately demands an orbiting,

tilted Earth with the Moon's direction reversed and assigned a newspeed, etc. That first assumption of a rotating Earth demands thatwe grant it 'science' status when, in plain fact, it is nothing more

than an illusion based upon an assumption which defies all truescience/knowledge. This true science/knowledge is unfailinglycertified by observation of the Sun, Moon, and Stars going clockwise

around the Earth every day...with no contra-scientific assumptionsrequired. 'Experiment' may not be the best word to use withoutproper modifiers. 'No truly scientific, assumption-free experimenthas shown that the Earth rotates' would be better because it isirrefutable."

Marshall Hall----------


2/7

3. "A rotating World does not necessitate a tilt of the World'saxis, nor does it necessitate a yearly motion of the World aroundthe Sun. The World can rotate and still be at the centre of theuniverse.I have been trying to impress this upon people for years now: thatthere are three models, not two. The confusion arises because theDevil has deliberately taken the word 'geocentric' and applied it to

the rotating World model, whereas you and others are taking'geocentric' in its more natural meaning as what I call'geostationary'.

The model you describe is the heliocentric one, as you know. Worldrotates anti-clockwise once per sidereal day and orbits the Sunanti-clockwise once per solar year ('anti-clockwise' when viewedfrom the North Celestial Pole).

The 'geocentric' (in the current scientific usage of the word) model

involves the World rotating anti-clockwise once in slightly lessthan a sidereal day, but not orbiting the Sun. Instead, the Sun anduniverse rotate anti-clockwise once per year (approx).

The 'geostationary' model is what we all profess. The World iscompletely motionless. The heavens go around the World in aclockwise direction once per sidereal day and the Sun and Moon inturn go around a path that is itself fixed in the firmament.

The Cassini family of major astronomers supported the middle option.

When scientists say that the heliocentric and geocentric models are'equivalent', they are referring to models 1 and 2. Model 3 is NOTequivalent, which is why I firmly believe that there must be a wayof proving reality.Experiments such as Michelson-Morley, 1887, do demonstrate asidereal rotation of either the World in one direction, or theheavens in the opposite direction. It is not possible to tell fromthe experiment which is true, but nevertheless the wording on hisweb page was slightly inaccurate and would just be seized upon by aphysicist reading his page. I therefore think that it should beslightly re-worded." Neville T. Jones, Phd

----------

4. "A rotating World does not necessitate a tilt of the World'saxis, nor does it necessitate a yearly motion of the World aroundthe Sun. The World can rotate and still be at the centre of theuniverse." This sounds ok but is blatantly false. Rotation is thefirst assumption of the heliocentricity model. It is "assumption",not science by definition. If we grant this illusion based on anassumption, we must then assume a stationary sun. One must move andone must be moved around, so heliocentricity must postulate/assume a

yearly motion of the Earth around the sun. That assumption must befollowed by Bessel's 186,000,000 mile diameter of the Earth Orbit.

Since the heliocentricity model must account for the hemisphericseasons, the simple geocentrism/Biblical spiral back and forth from23 1/2 degrees N & S latitudes must be abandoned. Then the humpback


3/7

earth model must be assumed so that when it is on opposite sides ofthe assumed 186,000,000 mile orbit, the tilt will mathematicallyaccommodate the seasonal problem.At this point the classic problem for heliocentricity--even whengranting all the assumptions--arises. Rotating the Earth andstopping the sun leaves the problem of the moon. Nothing (eclipses,

phases) would work if it is stopped, nor if it is allowed to go aswe see it go. Nor would it work if its same speed is maintained over

a now W to E rotating earth. The mathematical heliocentricity modelrequires that the moon's direction be reversed, and that its speedbe changed from c. 65,000 MPH to c. 2,200 MPH. So the assumptionthat the moon goes the opposite of the way we see it go must beaccepted.

Then, of course, like the sun, the motion of the STARS must bestopped and the assumption granted that they just appear to movebecause of the Earth's rotation. This assumption is one of the most

glaring clues as to the necessity of granting all these assumptionsbased on the original assumption of a rotating Earth. After all, we

have tens of thousands of star-trail photographs--along with visualobservations--that confirm geocentrism. These evidences force ahard look at the basic rotating Earth assumption in sharp denial ofall that is seen or known, i. e., sharp denial of observable,repeatable, true science. Heliocentricity with its Science-bashingand Bible-bashing assumptions--and all the tweakings of it--serveSatan's premier goal, namely, destruction of the credibility of theBible with Science Falsely So Called profane and vain babbling. Addto that a plethora of False Doctrines insinuated into the churchesand we have a snapshot of the confusion (Babylon) of the present

world. Marshall Hall----------

5. I'm not sold on the bulge and one would certainly have toquestion the accuracy of the measurements. No doubt since NASA isbehind the GPS system, then they can spill out whatever baloney they

want to the public. To me, the bulge is another tactic to uphold the

helio lie.Our Earth has a molten interior, it has tectonic plates on the thincrust that can move slowly, and so it is certainly not a solidball. Two myths here; the molten interior is assumed. There ismolten material no doubt at various depths, but actual deep drilling

and seismic studies have revealed more water. God began with water(Genesis 1). The molten idea supports the BB paradigm. Of coursethe Plate Tectonic paradigm is used to support an old Earth viacreeping plates, but Plate Tectonics is 100% false the crust ofthe Earth was destroyed/deformed. Continental Drift is a scientificmyth used for evolution of the Earth, but its nothing but junk.Mark Masters----------

6. Your defense, where you abruptly ended it, saying: "I stop at

this point because your assumptions as to the sun having to be still

are invalid".


4/7

This is not MY assumption (that the sun must stand still in theheliocentricity model). That is the SECOND necessary assumption inthe construction of the Copernican/Heliocentricity model...as therest of my comments after you stopped explain, and as otherphysicists agree. (Even Einstein was very plain on the subject asthis quote given in the "Jerusalem Post Magazine" in 1938 confirms:

"The struggle (so violent in the early days of science) between theviews of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless.Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The

two sentences:

the sun is at rest and the Earth moves

or

the sunmoves and the Earth is at rest

would simply mean two differentconventions concerning two different coordinate systems."Ignoring his saying that either system "could be used with equaljustification" (they can

t), notice that there are two systems, notthree: In one (the Biblical one) the sun must be at rest. In theother (the Copernican) THE SUN MUST BE AT REST (i.e., stationary).Those two realities cannot be escaped. The

Copernican/Heliocentricity Model BEGINS with the rotating EarthASSUMPTION and demands the ASSUMPTION of a stationary Sun."Assumption" means "to take for granted without proof". It is not"science" which means "to know" and "a body of FACTS". True Science

will not grant any of us either the rotating Earth assumption, butif false science insists upon the first assumption (rotating Earth)it must insist upon the second assumption (a stationary sun). It is

upon these two basic assumptions (neither of which is "science")that the others (Earth orbit, Earth tilt, reverse Moon direction,etc.) are required to construct this Bible-killing, Christ-killingKabbalist Big Bang Evolutionary Universe.

As I explain in certain essays, the Machian Model is another "3rdway" which is Scripturally (as well as scientifically) impossible,though its adherents think it is Scriptural because it sort ofchallenges the Copernican Model. Marshall Hall

----------7. Im not sold on the bulge and one would certainly have toquestion the accuracy of the measurements. No doubt since NASA isbehind the GPS system, then they can spill out whatever baloney they

want to the public. To me, the bulge is another tactic to uphold the

helio lie. Exactly. It

s a combination of the rotating earthassumption and the Evolutionary 4 1/2 billion year Earth ageslinging the earth mass toward its equatorial extreme. You canactually blow up a perfect earth picture to 8 or 12 feet (I forget)and the scale would cause the "theorized" oblation of some 60 milesto be a measureable 3/8 of an inch.That, I think, could be done, and

at least disprove the theory if not the rotation (and evolutionages) theories. Marshall Hall----------8. Yes of course the Sun stands still in the heliocentric model ofthe Solar System, but not in the geocentric model of the universewhich has a rotating World at the centre. When Einstein made his

quote about the Earth being "at rest," he either did not mean thatthe World was not rotating or, more likely in my estimation of himnow, he did not know the difference. Einstein would never even have


5/7

considered that the heavens are revolving around the World. Thestars were "fixed" for him, so naturally the World would have to berotating as far as he was concerned.There are only two systems if you allow for dynamical equivalence,but dynamical equivalence is an invention of secular science. Inthese two systems, the World spins (and in the same sense). That iswhy they are dynamically equivalent. This is the subtle point that

NASA misses altogether when it admits that it works trajectories out

from a geostationary model and fires its rockets to match theacentric (heliocentric/geocentric) model. I repeat, there are threemodels, not two.

Science does not mean "to know." Science is a methodology.Michelson and Morley were looking to measure the speed of the Worldaround its alleged and assumed orbit of the Sun. They found nothing.

Null. Caput. But their results do demonstrate diurnal rotation andthis rotation is EITHER of the universe (as we know), or of the

World (as they know). Neville T. Jones, Phd-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. I don

t really care in this instance what the dictionariesdefine

science

to be. Having spent most of my life in and aroundscience and scientific establishments, I know what it is.If science is

to know

, then why do theories change? If science is

to know

, then why do experiments need to be redone? Why are someexperiments inconclusive? Why are even some

laws

rewritten,amended, or discarded altogether?

If you stop and think about your position for a moment, you will see

that you yourself deny that science is

to know

. You have spentyears telling people that science does not know much, if anything!Science is actually to do with trying to find out, which is whyexperiments can be cited as supporting the idea that the Worldrotates. I think that you are confusing the issue by dealing withparadigms. I would agree that a paradigm is all about telling people

that something is

known

or

proven

, but this is not true science.Experimental and theoretical science are both branches of the samenatural philosophy.The Copernican model has a rotating World.Ptolemy

s model did not have a rotating World. I don

t think thatEinstein cared much whether it had knobs and bells on it, because,as far as he was concerned, it was done away with hundreds of yearsbefore dear Albert was a twinkle in his father

s eye.Albert was also not around to see any of NASA

s fairy tales, soapart from his brief correspondence with Ernst Mach about theequivalence of reference frames, he just merrily accepted theCopernican model and that was that.A cosmological model with a rotating World at the centre of theuniverse is scientifically valid and MUST have a moving Sun in order

to explain what is clearly observed from day to day. If you wantsupport for this statement, then I cite Cassini who, unlike

Einstein, was(/were) living in an age when this whole topic washeavily investigated and considered. Neville T. Jones, PhD----------


6/7

10. The Sun goes around its orbit, in the (

geocentric

) modelunder consideration, W-E, in about twelve months. The Sun alsorotates about an axis. This orbit is very simple, because it is thepath of the orbit which is fixed in the heavens. The path lies inthe plane of the ecliptic and the plane of the ecliptic is inclinedat 23.44 degrees to the plane of the celestial equator. The ecliptic

plane and the equatorial plane intersect at the vernal equinox andthe autumnal equinox.As for seeing the same side of the Sun, let

s not get into that,because this model is not the one that we are proclaiming anyway. It

is the one that NASA says it uses for its calculations and,mathematically, it is equivalent to the heliocentric model of theso-called

solar system

.The geostationary model is the one that we are proclaiming. In thegeostationary model, NASA

s claims are impossible.Hence, if NASA are correct, then we are wrong. If we are correct,then NASA are a bunch of liars with an ulterior motive. Neville T.

Jones, PhD----------11. I don

t really care in this instance what the dictionariesdefine

science

to be. That is clear. And it is equally clear thatyou really don

t care what the Bible defines as "false science" is:"the profane and vain babblings of science falsely so called whichcause many to err. "Having spent most of my life in and aroundscience and scientific establishments, I know what it is. And youknow it can replace unvarying observation with theories, andcontrary definitions with your own. Interesting.If science is

to know

, then why do theories change? If science is

to know

, then why do experiments need to be redone? Why are someexperiments inconclusive? Why are even some

laws

rewritten,

amended, or discarded altogether?If you stop and think about your position for a moment, you will see

that you yourself deny that science is

to know

. You have spentyears telling people that science does not know much, if anything!False science doesn

t know anything! It is pure deception from theauthor of deception, and I think there is a Dictionary definition on

that word too. "Theoretical Science" is an oxymoron. "Theoretical"is: "existing only in theory; hypothetical... speculative...."(Darned Dictionary again!) Einstein didn

t like Dictionarieseither...with his own definition of "simultanieity", etc.Science is actually to do with trying to find out, which is whyexperiments can be cited as supporting the idea that the Worldrotates. I think that you are confusing the issue by dealing withparadigms. I would agree that a paradigm is all about telling people

that something is

known

or

proven

, hence, the modern"science"-controlling "Big Bang Paradigm" but this is not truescience. Right.Experimental and theoretical science and "Physics"!! are all bothbranches of the same natural philosophy.The Copernican model has a rotating World. ...and a stationary Sunaround which the Earth orbits annually. (The Geocentrismmodel--i.e., the Biblical Model--has an inert, immovable, stationary

Earth, no rotation, no orbit, as you know. No one has ever observed


7/7

anything contrary to that in the real world, nor has any factualscience ever disproved it. Thus, all variations are speculativetheories seeking to dethrone observed truth while claiming to bereaching for a "different" and "higher" truth through "NaturalPhilosophy Physics" and other theories. I mean this in no unkindway, because we

ve all been fooled by false science, but it is nowknown that "Physics" is an admitted tool in the Bible-destroying,

Christ-destroying, Satan-worshipping Mystic Pharisaic Kabbalist tool

box which has given the world the false science Big BangEvolutionary Paradigm.Ptolemy

s model did not have a rotating World. I don

t think thatEinstein cared much whether it had knobs and bells on it, because,as far as he was concerned, it was done away with hundreds of yearsbefore dear Albert was a twinkle in his father

s eye. ...and besides

that, he was major Zionist (was offered Israel

s first Presidency in

48), and a Kabbalist-friendly tool of the Pharisees who dutifully

brought in the elastic "relativity" component of the Big BangParadigm Model.Albert was also not around to see any of NASA

s fairy tales, soapart from his brief correspondence with Ernst Mach about theequivalence of reference frames, he just merrily accepted theCopernican model and that was that. right...just a willing tool...A cosmological model with a rotating World at the centre of theuniverse is scientifically valid and MUST have a moving Sun in order

to explain what is clearly observed from day to day. If you wantsupport for this statement, then I cite Cassini who, unlikeEinstein, was(/were) living in an age when this whole topic washeavily investigated and considered. ...being a contemporary doesn

t

seem like sufficient evidence for following such a bold digressionfrom all that is Observed (and dictionary definitions as well). I am

sure there is a long list of other contemporaries who rejectCassini. Why not follow them? Marshall Hall

----------12. In the geocentric model where the World rotates, the Sun DOESappear to orbit the World, as the heavens do, every day, but the Sun

is going around a path. The path is fixed in the heavens.The inclination of the Sun

s orbital path to the plane of thecelestial equator, explains why the Sun would appear to describe ahelix over the course of 12 months, and the fact that the Sun goesaround its orbit in the same sense as the World spins (in thismodel) explains why a mean solar day is ~ 4 minutes longer than asidereal day. Neville T. Jones, PhD ----------HOME

Comments _displayNameOrEmail_ - _time_ - Remove_text_Acceder Condiciones Informar de abusos Imprimir pgina Tecnologa de Google Sites Original Text:Mostrar traducciones alternativas

can geocentric mean rotating earth moving world deception!!

Documents