Geocentric Universe?

[JimG]

This is not science. This is philosophy. But as I stated before, the lines are blurred.

A geocentric universe is a philosophical ideal, as is a heliocentric universe. The fact is that no one, except God himself, truly scientifically knows what the center of the universe truly is because we do not control it and we didn’t create it.

Our religious faith teaches that God considers each of us to equally be “centers” of the universe.

Current thinking in cosmology considers the universe to be a closed expanding spherical system, wherein the “surface” of the expanding sphere is ordinary 3D space. Such a universe has no ‘center’ in a geographic sense, any more than the surface of the earth can be said to have a center. The internal center of the expanding sphere represents that point some 18 billion years ago at which the universe began its expansion. There is a lot of scientific evidence for such a view, philosophy aside.

A ‘geocentric’ worldview might be conceivable for a much smaller universe in which stars were much smaller objects. But the universe is not small. The earth, rather, is small compared to stars and galaxies, and intergalactic distances.

 

[Luke65]

Does the Sungenis book cover the fact that parts of the earth move relative to other parts (place tectonics, earthquakes) and that hence all of the earth cannot be at rest relative to the rest of the universe?

If so, does he cover the scientific experiments have been performed to show that those moving parts of the earth are indeed moving? Science should be able to show different results from different parts of the earth’s surface - for example the east and west coasts of Iceland.

I do not want to purchase a book that does not answer this question.

rossum

Yes, there is a great deal in the book regarding movements on the earth and related issues. I would just make two general points. First, we’re talking about the center of the earth being the immovable center of mass of the universe. So movements within the earth, or on the surface are not essentially different from movements in space. Secondly, I’ve quoted some of the best scientists in the world, and I could quote dozens more who all say that a geocentric universe is a perfectly viable system. And they have spent thousands of hours crunching numbers, trying to think of every possible variable. Surely you don’t think that they have all overlooked this simple and obvious reality? I highly recommend this book for both you and Alec. There is a whole world of science in it that you probably haven’t heard much about. And, even though you may not be interested in Geocentrism, it could come in handy as the evidence mounts that the universe is rotating on an axis around a center. And besides, it’s only $12.50 for the e-book (link - Vol 1 has the science).

 

[Luke65]

Again, that’s an imperfect analogy. Let’s say the Earth has been at the center of the universe since the beginning of time. There would have to be so many dynamic forces at play. For example, let’s say I throw a ball in the air. The center of mass of the ball-Earth system changes- both objects are pulled towards the center of mass. If the Earth move even slightly, which it would, it is no longer dead center. Gravitational forces would have to compensate with perfect precision for everything- as i type, the center of mass of the “Earth-fingertip” system is in constant flux! I alone am exerting no less than 10 dynamic forces on the Earth, forcing it too move! I just lifted my feet up- more forces! The universe would have a hard enough time keeping the Earth due to my forces alone- and I represent under 10^-(obscenely large number goes here)% of the forces acting on Earth.

Dude, seriously, read the book! Wait a minute, I already answered this objection. Remember, Newton’s laws, in a closed universe, make the center of mass “immovable” - see post 181. This is because the gravitational forces all push down on the center of mass, while the centrifugal forces are all pushing away from the center. So those opposing forces, which are just a little more powerful than your finger! Squeeze the center and keep it from moving. And, as I said, the greatest scientists in the world, even though they’re not geocentrists, have no objections (left) against a geocentric universe - except a philosophical one…

“The fool on the hill sees the sun going down and the eyes in his head see the world spinning around.” ~ John Lennon and Paul McCartney

 

[Luke65]

While my knowledge of physics and cosmology leaves much to be desired, the idea of a geocentric universe seems inherently improbable.

Let me get my head around this. An inhabited planet which is the third planet out from its primary star, located in a spiral arm of one galaxy among trillions of galaxies, is the center of rotation of the entire universe, every object in which rotates around the earth in a fixed 24 hour period.

The universe has a diameter of about 156 billion light years. If the entire universe rotates around the earth, then those galaxies at the far edge of the universe must cover a distance of about 490 billion light years every 24 hours. That is quite a bit in excess of the speed of light. Improbable? I think so.

So let me get this straight: the universe is 13.7 billion years old, but it’s 156 billion light years in diameter?! So you’re telling me that the expansion of the universe greatly exceeded the speed of light? Of course you are, because that’s what you were taught growing up and most scientists agree on that, otherwise you might be skeptical! And yet, I’m getting quizzed on how the universe could rotate faster than the speed of light? How about this: inflation! Just kidding…

Strange to tell, the “unthinkable” geocentric universe finds rich support from the very theory designed to banish it once and for all, General Relativity. Consider, for example, one of the main objections raised by newcomers to geocentrism, that the Earth cannot rest immobile at the center of the universe since it would be impossible for the stars to revolve around the Earth at such tremendous speeds, speeds thousands of times faster than the speed of light. The common objection, which is based on Einstein’s postulate, is: “Nothing can go faster than the speed of light.” The answer to this objection often comes as a shock, but it is a fact nonetheless. First, according to Einstein’s very own Relativity theory, the objection would only apply to Special Relativity, in the absence of a gravitational field (even in that case, Einstein had to modify this tenet. See page 191). According to Einstein’s more advanced General Relativity theory, anything can go faster than the speed of light (a fact not often admitted by Relativists with a bias toward shutting out alternative models). Earlier we cited William G. V. Rosser addressing this concept, and it is worth repeating, since so many people are misinformed about what Relativity allows and disallows:
Relative to the stationary roundabout [the Earth], the distant stars would have a velocity rw [radius x angular velocity] and for sufficiently large values of r, the stars would be moving relative to O’ [the observer] with linear velocities exceeding 3 x 10^8 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction…that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u < c = 3 x 10^8 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General theory, it is possible to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c. However, this is not true when gravitational fields are present. In addition to the lengths of rods and the rates of clocks the velocity of light is affected by a gravitational field. If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 x 10^8 m/sec under these conditions.1099
Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right, Volume I, p.365

And a couple more points:

Walter van der Kamp: “Looking at the star Alpha Centauri from an Earth circling the sun, parallax measurements and trigonometry would assure us that the two are 1.3 parsecs, or more than 4.2 light years apart. But looking from an Earth circled by the sun, the distance turns out to be less than one twenty-fifth of that amount.” (p.343)

“Recently the research team of astronomer Roberto Ragazzoni of the Astrophysical Observatory in Arcetri, Italy studied two images from the Hubble space telescope: one of a galaxy calculated to be 5 billion light years from Earth and another of an exploding star 42 million light years away. Although similar pictures have been produced by the Hubble space telescope for quite a while, Ragazzoni is apparently the first one to notice that no matter how far away the objects are purported to be, the Hubble pictures are always crisp and clear, never out of focus. With regard to the Big Bang theory, this creates a problem. Ragazzoni explains: ‘You don’t see a universe that is blurred. If you take any Hubble Space Telescope Deep Field image you see sharp images, which is enough to tell us that the light has not been distorted or perturbed by fluctuations in space-time from the source to the observer.’” (p.342)

It also tells us that Hubble camera has an amazing focus range! Why it’s almost as if God created the heavens to declare His glory to us - in focus!

 

[pickguard1]

Walter van der Kamp: “Looking at the star Alpha Centauri from an Earth circling the sun, parallax measurements and trigonometry would assure us that the two are 1.3 parsecs, or more than 4.2 light years apart. But looking from an Earth circled by the sun, the distance turns out to be less than one twenty-fifth of that amount.” (p.343)

This has always been one area that I have yet to wrap my mind around - how in the world are these distances calculated? I don’t even understand how the speed of light can be calculated, so maybe that’s my first problem. But even if I DID understand where that number comes from, how do we know that a body is, say, 40 light years away versus 100 light years away? and how can that be calculated as being different if you view it as the earth being in motion vs. the earth being immobile?

 

[pickguard1]

Another thing,…if we assume that the (center of the ) earth is immobile and that all the stars are rotating around us at a speed much greater than light - don’t we also have to assume that the light those stars are emitting is also traveling to us at a speed much greater than light? Otherwise the stars could be anywhere in their orbit relative to where we see the pin point of light…I think…???

 

[mchale]

So let me get this straight: the universe is 13.7 billion years old, but it’s 156 billion light years in diameter?! So you’re telling me that the expansion of the universe greatly exceeded the speed of light? Of course you are, because that’s what you were taught growing up and most scientists agree on that, otherwise you might be skeptical! And yet, I’m getting quizzed on how the universe could rotate faster than the speed of light? How about this: inflation! Just kidding…

Ah, but see inflation is the expansion of space time itself, which is not subject to the laws of relativity in the same way that the movement of objects through space is. Also, the inflationary epic only occurred very early in the history of the Universe (it was essentially done in a second).

And a couple more points:

Walter van der Kamp: “Looking at the star Alpha Centauri from an Earth circling the sun, parallax measurements and trigonometry would assure us that the two are 1.3 parsecs, or more than 4.2 light years apart. But looking from an Earth circled by the sun, the distance turns out to be less than one twenty-fifth of that amount.” (p.343)

Excellent, a testable hypothesis.

So, if we assume that Alpha Centauri is actually 1/25 as far as it is, then instead of being 4.2 light years away, it is .168 light years away… or 0.168 light years away. That translates into being roughly 990 billion miles.

If that is indeed the case, there are some additional considerations we must look at.

1. There are a number of spacecraft that do not orbit the Earth, but rather orbit the Sun. At least some of these are actually designed for observing the stars. if Alpha Centuari is indeed much closer to us than we expect, then there should be a noticable difference in the position of the star in the sky when observed by something that is not in Earth orbit. I have yet to see
2. Alpha Centauri A and B must also be intrinsically much smaller and dimmer than we ever imagined – if A was the near Solar Twin that conventional Astronomy suggests that it is, it would have to be roughly 15000 times brighter than it appears in our sky. This of course leaves us with a bit of a problem. Using the heliocentric model of our solar system, we can treat stars as bodies much like our sun, with brightness and size all relatively easily explainable by nuclear physics. If on the other hand, we use the geocentric model of the Universe, then Alpha Centauri A must be only 1/15000 as bright (and much smaller than) as our Sun. So what mechanism explains something that still must be incredibly bright in own right, but which can’t be explained by the current stellar models?

3, Even at 990 billion miles, it is still too far away to avoid the issue of it rotating around the earth at many times the speed of light.

“Recently the research team of astronomer Roberto Ragazzoni of the Astrophysical Observatory in Arcetri, Italy studied two images from the Hubble space telescope: one of a galaxy calculated to be 5 billion light years from Earth and another of an exploding star 42 million light years away. Although similar pictures have been produced by the Hubble space telescope for quite a while, Ragazzoni is apparently the first one to notice that no matter how far away the objects are purported to be, the Hubble pictures are always crisp and clear, never out of focus. With regard to the Big Bang theory, this creates a problem. Ragazzoni explains: ‘You don’t see a universe that is blurred. If you take any Hubble Space Telescope Deep Field image you see sharp images, which is enough to tell us that the light has not been distorted or perturbed by fluctuations in space-time from the source to the observer.’” (p.342)

It also tells us that Hubble camera has an amazing focus range! Why it’s almost as if God created the heavens to declare His glory to us - in focus!

Well I think we need to keep in mind here that any optical device when pointed at objects far enough away will be able to bring them into a sharp focus. Any object I look at in my telescope that is a hundred miles away or more is essentially (in optical terms) at an infinite distance – this essentially means that I can use the same focus on any object at that distance or greater and expect to get a good result.

We have seen examples of gravitational lensing caused by galaxies and other very massive objects between us and another object. In general empty space though does appear to be pretty flat. I have never seen this before used as an objection to the current models of how the Universe began (i.e., inflationary theory).

–
Bill

 

[mchale]

This has always been one area that I have yet to wrap my mind around - how in the world are these distances calculated? I don’t even understand how the speed of light can be calculated, so maybe that’s my first problem. But even if I DID understand where that number comes from, how do we know that a body is, say, 40 light years away versus 100 light years away? and how can that be calculated as being different if you view it as the earth being in motion vs. the earth being immobile?

Actually the calculations are relatively straight forward geometry and trigonometry. Basically since we know how far the Sun is away from us (93 million miles give or take) if we assume the Sun is the center of the Solar System, then by measuring very small changes in the position of the nearer stars (such as alpha centauri) relative to the position of stars which appear to be much further away, you can calculate out the distance.

Think about it in these terms… lets say you were asked to calculate the height of an isoceles triangle with a base of 186 million miles across and legs whose angle relative to the base was some really small number (say 1/400th of a degree). It might bring back nightmares from Trig class, but I think you probably knew how to do it when you were in High School.

As for the difference the Earth being immobile makes? I am not sure, I think it probably depends on which geocentric model he is using (Do the stars orbit the Sun which then orbits the Earth? Or do the Stars orbit the Earth directly).

–
Bill

 

[mchale]

Another thing,…if we assume that the (center of the ) earth is immobile and that all the stars are rotating around us at a speed much greater than light - don’t we also have to assume that the light those stars are emitting is also traveling to us at a speed much greater than light? Otherwise the stars could be anywhere in their orbit relative to where we see the pin point of light…I think…???

Regardless of which model we choose to believe in, we need to accept the fact that when we see something, we are really seeing its position at some point in the past. By the time the light reaches us, the object might be very far away from where we are currently looking. The larger the scale of the Universe, the larger the potential displacement of the body from its observed position.

–
Bill

 

[Thing]

If the universe exists in its creator, [or in Nothing*], and its creator is eternal and infinite [or Nothingness is eternal and infinite], then the universe does not really have any center. Its center is wherever the observer is, in this case - Earth. As the center of infinity is where you are in infinity.

*Just to give the other view also.

 

[hecd2]

Too bad you can’t see that that statement is a ridiculous contradiction.

Too bad that you seem to have given up on Behe (my posts #176 et seq in this thread), but I can’t say that I blame you.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Luke65]

Ah, but see inflation is the expansion of space time itself, which is not subject to the laws of relativity in the same way that the movement of objects through space is. Also, the inflationary epic only occurred very early in the history of the Universe (it was essentially done in a second).

What is the expansion of space-time subject to? Is it expanding into nothingness so that there is nothing outside the universe to slow it down? If that’s the case, then there is nothing outside the universe to limit the speed at which the whole body of the universe rotates, right? It seems to me, then, that these are equally viable or not viable theories. Btw, mainstream science says that inflation occurred multiple times; and, if you read the article that Jim posted, you’ll see them say that we are now in an inflationary period, hence, the supposed acceleration of the expansion.

Excellent, a testable hypothesis.

So, if we assume that Alpha Centauri is actually 1/25 as far as it is, then instead of being 4.2 light years away, it is .168 light years away… or 0.168 light years away. That translates into being roughly 990 billion miles.

If that is indeed the case, there are some additional considerations we must look at.

1. There are a number of spacecraft that do not orbit the Earth, but rather orbit the Sun. At least some of these are actually designed for observing the stars. if Alpha Centuari is indeed much closer to us than we expect, then there should be a noticable difference in the position of the star in the sky when observed by something that is not in Earth orbit. I have yet to see

1. Alpha Centauri A and B must also be intrinsically much smaller and dimmer than we ever imagined – if A was the near Solar Twin that conventional Astronomy suggests that it is, it would have to be roughly 15000 times brighter than it appears in our sky. This of course leaves us with a bit of a problem. Using the heliocentric model of our solar system, we can treat stars as bodies much like our sun, with brightness and size all relatively easily explainable by nuclear physics. If on the other hand, we use the geocentric model of the Universe, then Alpha Centauri A must be only 1/15000 as bright (and much smaller than) as our Sun. So what mechanism explains something that still must be incredibly bright in own right, but which can’t be explained by the current stellar models?

3, Even at 990 billion miles, it is still too far away to avoid the issue of it rotating around the earth at many times the speed of light.

Well, I think most geocentrists believe that the universe is much smaller than mainstream science thinks it is - and they’re not the only scientists that think that. For example, Halton Arp, who has produced overwhelming observational evidence that the standard red-shift formula is wrong, said that he thinks we’re only actually seeing about 55 million light years away. I think he said that in the 90’s - After Hubble! Now we’re hearing 156 billion light years, but there are many scientists, including big bangers, who reject that (see Universe). Anyhow, yes, a smaller scale would mean smaller and closer stars. But whatever the case is, I don’t think the rotational velocity of the universe is an issue, because both geocentrist and non-geocentrist scientists say it’s not.

Well I think we need to keep in mind here that any optical device when pointed at objects far enough away will be able to bring them into a sharp focus. Any object I look at in my telescope that is a hundred miles away or more is essentially (in optical terms) at an infinite distance – this essentially means that I can use the same focus on any object at that distance or greater and expect to get a good result.

We have seen examples of gravitational lensing caused by galaxies and other very massive objects between us and another object. In general empty space though does appear to be pretty flat. I have never seen this before used as an objection to the current models of how the Universe began (i.e., inflationary theory).

So you’re saying the astronomer, Ragazzoni, doesn’t know how cameras work? Rossum, Alec, any comments?

 

[Luke65]

Another thing,…if we assume that the (center of the ) earth is immobile and that all the stars are rotating around us at a speed much greater than light - don’t we also have to assume that the light those stars are emitting is also traveling to us at a speed much greater than light? Otherwise the stars could be anywhere in their orbit relative to where we see the pin point of light…I think…???

I think McHale answered most of your questions, but no, we’re not saying that light is moving towards us faster than the speed of light - unless by expansion.

“I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens” (Isaiah 44:24)

St. Augustine: “But someone may ask: “Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out heaven like a skin [Psalm 104:2]?” Let it be opposed if their statement is false. The truth is rather in what God reveals than in what groping men surmise. But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions. If it were, it would be opposed also to Sacred Scripture itself in another passage where it says that heaven is suspended like a vault [Isaiah 40:22 LXX]. For what can be so different and contradictory as a skin stretched out flat and the curved shape of a vault? But if it is necessary, as it surely is, to interpret these two passages so that they are shown not to be contradictory but to be reconcilable, it is also necessary that both of these passages should not contradict the theories that may be supported by true evidence, by which heaven is said to be curved on all sides in the shape of a sphere, provided only that this is proved.

"Our picture of heaven as a vault, even when taken in a literal sense, does not contradict the theory that heaven is a sphere. We may well believe that in speaking of the shape of heaven Scripture wished to describe that part which is over our heads. If, therefore, it is not a sphere, it is a vault on that side on which it covers the earth; but if it is a sphere, it is a vault all around. But the image of the skin presents a more serious difficulty: we must show that it is reconcilable not with the sphere (for that may be only a man-made theory) but with the vault of Holy Scripture… Both the skin and the vault can be taken as figurative expressions; but how they are to be understood in a literal sense must be explained. If a vault can be not only curved but also flat, a skin surely can be stretched out not only on a flat plane but also in a spherical shape. Thus, for instance, a leather bottle and an inflated ball are both made of skin.” (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 2, 9)

Amazing!

 

[tjm190]

As I said earlier, for the Earth to remain stationary all the forces on the Earth would have to cancel out perfectly- and all of those forces are very dynamic.

 

[mchale]

What is the expansion of space-time subject to? Is it expanding into nothingness so that there is nothing outside the universe to slow it down? If that’s the case, then there is nothing outside the universe to limit the speed at which the whole body of the universe rotates, right? It seems to me, then, that these are equally viable or not viable theories. Btw, mainstream science says that inflation occurred multiple times; and, if you read the article that Jim posted, you’ll see them say that we are now in an inflationary period, hence, the supposed acceleration of the expansion.

The subject of space time expansion is not, as far as we can tell, subject to any particular limitations. It is literally the creation of new space. The question of what is outside the Universe is, as far as physics is concerned, a non question. Its like asking what was above of yesterday.

We might or might not be in an inflationary epoch, but we are not experiencing the sort of inflation that we experienced in the very first second of the Universe.

Well, I think most geocentrists believe that the universe is much smaller than mainstream science thinks it is - and they’re not the only scientists that think that. For example, Halton Arp, who has produced overwhelming observational evidence that the standard red-shift formula is wrong, said that he thinks we’re only actually seeing about 55 million light years away. I think he said that in the 90’s - After Hubble! Now we’re hearing 156 billion light years, but there are many scientists, including big bangers, who reject that (see Universe). Anyhow, yes, a smaller scale would mean smaller and closer stars. But whatever the case is, I don’t think the rotational velocity of the universe is an issue, because both geocentrist and non-geocentrist scientists say it’s not.

If you read carefully, non geocentric physicists agree that that you can treat the Universe as rotating around the Earth, but only under some very definite limitations.

In any case I would argue, that Dr. Arp did not provide overwhelming evidence that the Hubble Constant is wrong (The redshift formula you referenced above); if he had, we wouldn’t still be using it. Even if he did, his results are for extra-galactic objects only. They don’t apply to objects like stars.

I don’t particularly agree with the 156 billion light year size myself, though it is certainly possible. Ultimately that is one of the questions that is yet to be answered. Even if the Universe is that large, most of it is forever outside our ability to reach unless FTL travel of some sort was developed.

So you’re saying the astronomer, Ragazzoni, doesn’t know how cameras work? Rossum, Alec, any comments?

Actually I believe the original poster made the comment about the cameras, not Ragazzoni. I am sure Ragazzoni understands the limits of telescopes quite well, specifically that the limitations of how sharply an image can be resolved is based on a well known relationship between the object’s apparent angular size on Earth and on the size of the Objective.

Also, as I did a bit more research, I found an article discussing the very results that Ragazzoni reported. His results are not about the Big Bang, at least not directly – rather they are attempts to find signs of quantum gravity. The Big Bang Theory was developed by a Belgian Priest from the General Theory of Relativity which is a classical theory not a quantum theory. As a result, these results don’t invalidate the Big Bang.

In other words, he was saying, if a certain type of quantum gravity existed, we would expect objects a certain distance away to be blurred more than we would expect based on the apparent angular size of the object alone.

–
Bill

 

[hecd2]

Since Luke65 has referred directly to me a number of times down this thread I will reply, although I am reluctant to waste my time this way. Discussion with geocentrists like Luke, Sungenis et al is usually pointless, because their knowledge of the science is woefully inadequate to have any sort of sensible discussion. For example, Luke recently initiated but then abandoned claims about the alignment of the multipoles of the CMBA when it became apparent that he did not really have any idea about the difference between galactic and celestial co-ordinates, what the CMBA is, what the significance of the various modes of the anisotropy denote, what the CMBA dipole is, and how to explain the anisotropy such as the first peak at l=220. This degree of ignorance means that they are writing only for lay people - they have no credibility at all where it matters in the science community, because physicists see that they make basic errors almost every time they open their mouths.

Read the book!

I have the read the book, and it (I am referring to book 1 here) is unmitigated junk, riddled from start to finish with basic scientific errors. We’ll see some of them in my replies here and below.

Or simply go back to the gyroscope analogy.

So here is the first one. Sungenis (and Luke in following him) claims that the universe rotates around the earth like a gyroscope, “stabilising the earth at the centre”. This is a hopelessly wrong analogy because a gyroscope rotor is a single rigidly connected body, whereas the universe consists of a large number of independent masses, each of which would move according to the same laws of motion that we see in planetary and galactic rotation - ie they would orbit according to the rotation curves derived from Newtonian mechanics. The consequence of this would be rotational periods which varied depending on the distance of the object from the earth. But the diurnal apparent rotation of the stars and galaxies in the sky is not a function of distance, indicating that it is not they that are rotating (at least not according to Newton’s laws of motion), but the earth with respect to the metric.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Yes, there is a great deal in the book regarding movements on the earth and related issues. I would just make two general points. First, we’re talking about the center of the earth being the immovable center of mass of the universe.

So what happens when a large meteorite hits the earth? Does that not alter its centre of mass and its velocity relative to other celestial bodies?

What forces make the centre of the earth “immovable” with respect to the rest of the universe?

I highly recommend this book for both you and Alec.

I have had the book for some time, and it’s pure junk. There is an elementary error on nearly every page.

There is a whole world of science in it that you probably haven’t heard much about.

It’s certainly packed with pseudo-science and misrepresentation of real science.

And, even though you may not be interested in Geocentrism, it could come in handy as the evidence mounts that the universe is rotating on an axis around a center.

There is no such evidence - as we have seen on previous threads, what you claim to be evidence is based on ignorance and misunderstanding.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

 

[buffalo]

So let me get this straight: the universe is 13.7 billion years old, but it’s 156 billion light years in diameter?! So you’re telling me that the expansion of the universe greatly exceeded the speed of light? Of course you are, because that’s what you were taught growing up and most scientists agree on that, otherwise you might be skeptical! And yet, I’m getting quizzed on how the universe could rotate faster than the speed of light? How about this: inflation! Just kidding…

And a couple more points:

Walter van der Kamp: “Looking at the star Alpha Centauri from an Earth circling the sun, parallax measurements and trigonometry would assure us that the two are 1.3 parsecs, or more than 4.2 light years apart. But looking from an Earth circled by the sun, the distance turns out to be less than one twenty-fifth of that amount.” (p.343)

“Recently the research team of astronomer Roberto Ragazzoni of the Astrophysical Observatory in Arcetri, Italy studied two images from the Hubble space telescope: one of a galaxy calculated to be 5 billion light years from Earth and another of an exploding star 42 million light years away. Although similar pictures have been produced by the Hubble space telescope for quite a while, Ragazzoni is apparently the first one to notice that no matter how far away the objects are purported to be, the Hubble pictures are always crisp and clear, never out of focus. With regard to the Big Bang theory, this creates a problem. Ragazzoni explains: ‘You don’t see a universe that is blurred. If you take any Hubble Space Telescope Deep Field image you see sharp images, which is enough to tell us that the light has not been distorted or perturbed by fluctuations in space-time from the source to the observer.’” (p.342)

It also tells us that Hubble camera has an amazing focus range! Why it’s almost as if God created the heavens to declare His glory to us - in focus!

They are not photos, they are images.

 

[hecd2]

Walter van der Kamp: “Looking at the star Alpha Centauri from an Earth circling the sun, parallax measurements and trigonometry would assure us that the two are 1.3 parsecs, or more than 4.2 light years apart. But looking from an Earth circled by the sun, the distance turns out to be less than one twenty-fifth of that amount.” (p.343)

So let’s look at another example of Sungenis’s appalling scholarship. He quotes Walter van der Kamp here, as though Walt is some sort of scientific authority. But Walt is just as unqualified and just as much of a crank as Sungenis is (even ignoring his execrable style of English) - the blind leading the blind.

But it’s worse because this quote from Walt is quoted by Sungenis in support of Sungenis’s promotion of a smaller universe (Bill’s comments about this with regard to the impossibility of stars having the combination of surface temperature and luminosity that we see in the Alpha Centauri stars if they are 25 times closer than 4.2 light years is correct and apposite), whereas Walt is making it to illustrate his (erroneous) claims against GR (the quote continues: “Now these values cannot both be true, and the theory’s [GR’s] assertion that the second view is as good as the first, but not better, is consequently wrong”). In other words Sungenis is misusing the quote.

But it’s even worse, because the quote comes from Walt’s book called De Labore Solis, p144. This is the *only *time Walt mentions Alpha Centauri in the entire book, and he gives no indication as to why he says what he says. Why, in heaven’s name is the parallax distance to Alpha Centauri 1/25th or thereabouts of the commonly accepted 4.3 light years if the sun is orbiting the earth? Either the parallax base-line would be the same compared to the earth orbiting the sun annually if Alpha Centauri’s motion is centred on the sun (in the Tychonic system), or there would be no parallax if Alpha Centauri is centred on the earth. This 1/25th claim is nonsense, and Sungenis repeats it, garbage as it is, unthinkingly and uncritically because he believes it supports his contention that the stars could be closer than we think and because he is unable or unwilling to think about Walt is saying. (I have a suspicion that Walt has confused stellar aberration and stellar parallax, because the magnitude of the major axis of stellar aberration for any star is about 26 times more than stellar parallax for Alpha Centauri, but how he, or anyone, can get from that error to the nonsensical claim above is hard to credit - even of Walt)

“Recently the research team of astronomer Roberto Ragazzoni of the Astrophysical Observatory in Arcetri, Italy studied two images from the Hubble space telescope: one of a galaxy calculated to be 5 billion light years from Earth and another of an exploding star 42 million light years away. Although similar pictures have been produced by the Hubble space telescope for quite a while, Ragazzoni is apparently the first one to notice that no matter how far away the objects are purported to be, the Hubble pictures are always crisp and clear, never out of focus. With regard to the Big Bang theory, this creates a problem. Ragazzoni explains: ‘You don’t see a universe that is blurred. If you take any Hubble Space Telescope Deep Field image you see sharp images, which is enough to tell us that the light has not been distorted or perturbed by fluctuations in space-time from the source to the observer.’” (p.342)

It also tells us that Hubble camera has an amazing focus range!

Actually, what it tells us is that you and Sungenis have an amazing ignorance of optics - a telesope that showed a visible focal difference between an object 42 million light years away and 5 billion light years away would have to have an aperture more than a million light years in diameter or about 10^22 bigger than the actual aperture of Hubble - how can you and Sungenis make an error of a factor of thousands of billions of billions and then claim that you know what you are talking about? As Bill has pointed out, the Ragazzoni quote is about potential effects of quantum gravity, not about focal effects or gravitational lensing or the Big Bang, and the idea that Raggazoni is the first to “notice” that the Hubble pictures are focused independent of distance is laughable. Sungenis has no idea what he is talking about.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

 

[hecd2]

So you’re saying the astronomer, Ragazzoni, doesn’t know how cameras work? Rossum, Alec, any comments?

Sure I have a comment which I made above. No-one is saying that Ragazzoni doesn’t understand how cameras work. I think the point is that you (and Sungenis) don’t - by a factor of a thousand billion billion.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm