And that’s just Andromeda. Stars and galaxies located much greater distances away will be covering a lot more territory in a 24 hour period, exceeding lightspeed by even more ridiculously enormous factors.
‘Expain’, you must be joking, you wouldn’t get past the entrance exam to a grade school.
‘Something we know to be true.’
I’ll try to get to the rest of the post later since I’m at work and don’t have the time to really put into a long response but yes, of course things need to be explainable. If they’re not explainable then how am I supposed to form an opinion on anything about whether or not it makes sense?
I’d love to explain how wrong this is but like I said I don’t really have the time to put into it at work right now. Maybe someone else can field it.
Rather than get into the physics of it I’ll ask you to consider the fact that this fact would still not mess up the calculations if the departure point were some planetary body besides Earth.
The redshift interpretation embodied in Hubble’s law is:
P. A. M. Dirac has proposed that the physical ‘constants’ are not constant with time but may vary in a systematic manner. This proposal would account for an observed red shift without any actual physical recession.
In facts, yes; in interpretation, no. The demagogues built the Big Bang, not the backyard star gazers.
What annoys many is when scientists try to argue that their positions are scientifically viable without any significant evidence for their position based on the scientific method.
What experiments eliminate the possibility that the Earth is not moving?
We realize that MS physics claims the solar system moves toward Virgo; we also realize that the same observation can be interpretated as the microwave stream flowing from Virgo, toward the static Earth. The same line shift in the CMB would be present.
How are scientific matters cleanly and clearly separated from religious matters? Or science from theology?
Mercury and Venus and all the outer planets orbit the Sun;the Sun orbits the Earth… the neo-Tychonian model, consistent with Scripture.
The Galileo and Casini space probes that, respectively, went to Jupiter and Saturn use the Sun as a gravitational slingshot. Both probes arrived within one second of their planned arrival time which took many years. If Jupiter is Orbiting the Earth, it simply would not have been where the probes when they got there. Please explain how this is possible.Well, I didn’t mean to get under your skin, in fact I was trying to avoid saying anything that would raise your hackles. But since you, with your scientific authority, insist that there is “no evidence” for Geocentrism, and to try to answer the various questions and objections that people have, I’ve put together some highlights from Sungenis’ book, and elsewhere, to try to explain the theory and show the supporting evidence. Although, obviously, “evidence” is in the eye of the beholder, so everybody should pray to see with the eyes of faith.
I didn’t abandon it - are you kidding?! All these CMB axes “related to the direction of the Earth’s spin axis”, and you think a geocentrist is going to abandon that evidence?! Please!! But we’ll get to that later.
Anger management? Actually, yes, Van der Kamp was saying that if stellar parallax is actually stellar aberration then the distance would be 1/25th. I’m sorry I missed that point and caused confusion, but fortunately you guys were there to loudly point it out! But Sungenis did make that point (I thought you read the book?). And yes, he doesn’t think it’s correct (obviously - he prefers the neo-Tychonic model which has the parallax), he was just presenting some alternative views on the size of the universe, none of which is he wedded to, and all of this is clear in his book.
Wow, the thing that most interested me was that we can see everything, at once, “crisp and clear”, in all its glory. But oh boy, mention the Big Bang in conjunction with the word “problem” and you’ll set off another big bang! Easy guys, I didn’t mean to offend your bride! But sorry, it is a problem for the Big Bang - another ad hoc patch will have to be applied, with the hope it doesn’t tear:
Well, it certainly looks like Raggazoni’s team, along with Lieu’s team, were the first ones to “notice” the problem. And yes, Sungenis makes the points you guys made, only he didn’t leave out the most important part to science, which we have now seen in some detail. And btw, yes, I am ignorant of the optics involved, which is why I asked the question; but Sungenis didn’t say anything about the optics (I thought you read the book?), he just pointed out that it could simply be that that star is not actually 5 billion light years away, and there are plenty of scientists who agree.
It’s important to understand the facts, and the motivations that are the foundation of modern mainstream science, especially if you’re not ignorant of Scripture. But now let’s fast-forward to the current situation…
So, an expanding universe and relativistic physics - the escapes - led right back to the original conclusion: that we are at the center of the universe. Let’s see why…
“Inescapable”? Something is not registering. Oh well, mainstream science of course goes with one of those “extremely contrived and implausible” alternative explanations - or they just ignore this.
Apparently Dr. Varshni went with some ad hoc alternative explanation. But notice that these “concentric shells” - these periodicities are not just based on redshift, but also other measurements, those “standard candles”.
Apparently Dr. Tifft and the others went with an ad hoc alternative explanation. But two points here: First, these redshifts are not quantized to the Earth, but to the g-center (nucleus) of our Galaxy - the Milky Way. Second, Dr. Arp has thrown a monkey wrench in here regarding redshift, as we’ve already seen. But I’ll come back to both of these points later.
How many lines of evidence do we need? There are more. And we haven’t even gotten to the CMB yet! But let me interrupt, because we already saw that the “Earth is situated in a quasar-free hole”. And now we see that the Earth is at “the point of least concentration of matter”. Also, Sungenis mentions Stephen Hawking commenting on radio wave data saying: “This could mean that we are at the center of a great region in the universe in which the sources are fewer than elsewhere.” (p.66) (Don’t worry, he has an alternative explanation.) And now there’s a new theory: Is Earth at the heart of a giant cosmic void? - which does away with the need to invoke dark energy, and more…
Okay, back to the periodicities, because this next part I never heard of before, and it blew me away!St. Augustine: “These works are recorded to have been completed in six days (the same day being six times repeated), because six is a perfect number—not because God required a protracted time, as if He could not at once create all things, which then should mark the course of time by the movements proper to them, but because the perfection of the works was signified by the number six. For the number six is the first which is made up of its own parts, i.e., of its sixth, third, and half, which are respectively one, two, and three, and which make a total of six… So much I have thought fit to state for the sake of illustrating the perfection of the number six, which is, as I said, the first which is exactly made up of its own parts added together; and in this number of days God finished His work. And, therefore, we must not despise the science of numbers, which, in many passages of holy Scripture, is found to be of eminent service to the careful interpreter. Neither has it been without reason numbered among God’s praises, You have ordered all things in number [1], and measure [2], and weight [3].” [Wisdom 11:20] (City of God, XI, 30)
Glenn Starkman: “None of us believe that the universe knows about the solar system, or that the solar system knows about the universe.” (p.81)
But ironically enough, Tomozawa has the truth looking him in the face in his own Theorem: “there has to be a center for the expansion of the universe, since a cmb dipole has been observed for the solar system.”Big Bang “blown away”? You can’t kill the Big Bang! Do you know how many times the Big Bang has been blown away, only to come right back? They oughtta make a movie about it! Oh wait, I think they did…
As you know, we’re talking about a Planck particle medium of space (ether) - the “firmament”, as God told us - which is far more “rigid” than anything else in the universe. So the gyroscope analogy is an excellent one: not only does it spin on a point that doesn’t spin, but where it’s diameter is small it spins slow, and where the diameter is large it spins fast - because it spins as a whole body. In the same way, the sphere of the universe spins as a whole rigid body, carrying along all the bodies within it; so they will be in the same place every 24 hours regardless of how far they are from the center - how large the diameter of their orbit is - except for slight variations like the wobble (precession), and their movement in their own systems.
Notice the very unusual characteristics of a Planck particle field. It is the most rigid material in existence but at the same time it can be “frictionless”, but “allowing only wave motions and disallowing absolutely straight line motion”. And lo! Look at all the bodies in the ether of space: they don’t move in straight lines but in wave motions - clue!! Is there a mainstream scientist that can see? This also explains why electrons travel in wave motion, because the ether pervades all space, including inside the atom. And, as you will see, any physics that doesn’t start with Planck particles will never be able to explain atomic particles.
“By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” (Hebrews 11:3)
It doesn’t make sense to you? Join the club! But maybe I should have been more specific. It’s their theory on the cause of the redshifts that I’m skeptical about. But I’d like to hear the opinion of some friendly scientists like Gerardus Bouw, or especially the Catholic, Robert Bennett, since after all we’re talking about creatio ex nihilo here - I believe that is what we are witnessing, as it occurred on Day 4 on Earth. But of course I agree with Arp that a majority of redshift is related to the age of the object. How it’s related I’m not sure, but that’s no reason to deny what I see. I see high redshift quasars physically connected to low redshift galaxies; quasars in front of galaxies with much lower redshifts; quasars in pairs on either side of galaxies; more than two quasars around galaxies; other nebulae like BL Lac objects around galaxies; and of course galaxies around galaxies forming clusters, sometimes with discordant redshifts. Do you all see a pattern here?!
And that is also exactly as Arp predicts. Two quasars, which is common, with high redshifts right in front of the nucleus of an active galaxy, where they were recently ejected from.
Well, whatever you call them, the fact is matter and energy are coming out of them, so I’ll go with “white holes”.
You assume too much.
I will now harmonize all of the observational evidence that I know of - including the standard candles with Arp’s theory! I had this basic theory, which you are about to see, 3 years ago after studying various cosmologies; especially Russell Humphreys’ white hole cosmology, which harmonizes well with Arp’s observations, which harmonizes well with the Electric Universe theory. And later, thanks to Robert Sungenis, I joined this theory to Geocentrism, which is founded on Divine Revelation; and certain private revelations have also been helpful, as you’ll see…I skipped over the part about the BOOMERANG demolishing Big Bang predictions, but as you can see, our predictions glow!
Well first of all, the only thing I’m wedded to is an immobile Earth and a mobile sun - Geostatism - along with all other Catholic teachings, but that is by the power of divine grace. The rest of it is simply going where the evidence leads. And so it is not my concern if the Big Bang falls or the Steady State rises. The absurdity of this glorious and orderly universe making itself, and us, out of chaos is no better than the absurdity of an infinite universe - that also made itself, and us. I’m only interested in the truth, without compromise, and I will gladly take truth from both sides, or whoever else, and give it back to its rightful owner - the Catholic Church. And why do I usually reject the theories of mainstream science? “We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” The underlying motive of mainstream science is to remove the Creator from His Creation, so they will never come to a knowledge of the truth. And so if mainstream science says one thing… I bet opposite! It’s a winning strategy.
