Geocentrism v Heliocentrism

User avatar
AbuKhuzaimahAnsari
Posts: 172
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 12:42 am

Geocentrism v Heliocentrism

Postby AbuKhuzaimahAnsari » Wed Jun 03, 2020 5:23 pm

Some Scientific Basis for the Geocentrism
[THREAD]

DIVINE TEXTS
Islamic Nusus evidence this theory from the Quran, that is the first point.

SCIENCE
Up until the 16th century Geocentrism was the adopted model. Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo then came up with findings showing the Heliocentric model, they went onto say the earth moves and has 9 motions. This theory was problematic - it was illogical. From that time, its been forced down on us with irregular evidences and basic models. There has always been an attempt to quash Geocentrism because it causes huge problems to Heliocentrism, so much so that no Geocentrism is questioned as if its so odd and strange. You need to remember, Heliocentrism is just an assumption. Despite Heliocentrism having a mathematical theory it has faced some several problems which has led to it proposing a “New Hypotheses”

Taking on Heliocentrism is synonymous with the Rawafidh attempting to hijack early Muslim History and narrative, presenting it as the norm, that the events leading up to Karbala are set, unchallenged, this is of course ridiculous.

Before we look at some evidences proving Geocentrism we will show the premise on which Heliocentrism is based on is also in actually challenged and debunked. That is, Newton’s theory of gravitation, which has been refuted. His theory evidenced and supported Keplers elliptical motion theory. Refer to the following 5 sources to see this theory debunked.

1 - Popper Karl Raimund (2002), The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Psychology Press, 513 page
2 - Duhem Pierre Maurice Marie (1962), The Aim and Structure of Physical. Theory Book published by Princeton University Press, 351pages.
3 - Davies (2003), The Newtonian Myth. Studies in History and Philosophy of Sciences, 34, 763–780
4 - Khiari (2011), Newton’s laws of motion revisited: some epistemological and didactic problems. Lat. Am. J. Phys. Educ., Vol.5, No. 1,
5 - Maxwell Nicholas (2014), Three Criticisms of Newton’s Inductive Argument in the Principia. Advances in Historical Studies. Vol.3 , No.1, 2-11.

Newton and Einstein ‘laws of Relativity’ have also bene proven to be fundamentally wrong and the following researchers have shown huge gaps and problems in their theorem.

1 - Escultura (2003), The flux theory of gravitation XVII. The new mathematics and physics. Applied Mathematics and Computation 138, - 127–149,
2 - Scharma (2006), Einstein derived Erest = Mrest cÇ from a NON-EXISTENT equation: A Discussion. The general Science Journal
3 - Afriat Alexender and Ermenegildo Caccese (2010), The relativity of inertia and reality of nothing. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 41, 9 –26,
4 - Kochetkov (2013), Confirmation of results of the experiments of Michelson without the postulate about the invariance of the speed of light. Millennium relativity, The general Science journal
5 - Mathis (2013), The greatest standing errors in physics and mathematics. Book (http://milesmathis.com/index.html).
6 - Chun-Xuan Jiang (2014), The discovery of primordial gravitational waves is 100% wrong. The general Science Journal
7 - Lehmkurl Dennis (2014), Why Einstein did not believe that general relativity geometrizes gravity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern physics, Vol 46, Part B, Pages 316–326, (2014).

Narlicar said if were to observe the moon for a few hours, it wont change its position in the sky. This is strange behavior, since here on Earth we are used to seeing the Moon move across the sky from east to west. (Jayant V. Narlicar (1999), Seven Wonders of the Cosmos. Cambridge University Press, 15)

The Heliocentric theory and all other related theories, that have only been based on theoretical proposals have never been argued by terrestrial observations of the sky or through satellite images of the Moon. What then follows is that Galileo, an arch proponent of Heliocentrism, during his telescopic observations noted other “very interesting” (emphasis and wording mine) observations that he FAILED TO PUBLISH, which would have debunked the Heliocentric model. Why did Galileo do this, quite simply because he was a Mulhid, perverse and arrogance of the existence of Allah, The Most High. This line of critique on the Mizdar ‘Moons’ can be saved for some other time. Through deception was the Heliocentric model pushed through the modern era.

Geocentrism
Experimental Data
1 - In 1887 Michelson-Morley provided physical date to support Geocentrism based on simple experiments showing the earth is stationary. They split a light ray into two perpendicular component paths, A and B, with both of them having equal length. Path A is in the direction of Earth’s motion while path B is at a right angle to A. One would assume due to Earths motion the time taken to travel path A would be less than the time taken in path B. However, this was not the case, both light beams arrived at the same time, proving the Earth is stationary (Michelson Albert and Edward Morley (1887), On the relative motion of the earth and the aluminiferous ether. American journal of science, Volume XXXIV, No 203 (1887)

2 – Nasa’s findings show the Sun has a revolution around the Lactic Way Galaxy with a solar apex. The Suns orbit around the Galaxy is around 220Km/s and therefore its orbit period is about 240 million years. The apex being an imaginary point in Hercules constellation, near the bright star Vega, where the speed of the Sun is 20km/s. This therefore refutes the Heliocentric model. (Paul R. Weissman (2007), Encyclopedia of the Solar System, Second Edition , Chapter 1 - The Solar System and Its Place in the Galaxy, 1-28)

3 - Experiments conducted by Nicholas Tesla and Lammertink Arend show particles exist which travel faster than the speed of light. Tesla during his system of wireless transmission of energy, transmitted longitudinal electric waves through the interior of the Earth, which propagate at a speed of 1.6 times the light speed. Based on satellite data from Pioneer 10 and 11 Arend shows the existence of an “anomalous” Doppler shift in the radio signals received from these satellites. The Iraqi nuclear physicist, Bahjat Muhyedeen demonstrated that energy isn’t related to the mass and he proposed a new mass-energy equivalence formula (E= m*b*c, where b is a new derived universal constant in term of speed units and equal 0.2014 of light speed). The works of [19-23] in the quantum cosmology show the existence of a faster than light speeds particle. Physicists at the CERN laboratory, prove the existence of superluminal particles called neutrinos travel faster than the light speed. The mass-energy equivalence formula (E=mcÇ) is defined when “c” is constant and it is the maximum speed of light. Furthermore, when “c” is a constant, energy must be proportional to the mass, but in the case of neutrinos, we are in the opposite condition. The neutrino mass equal 0.06 electron volts (eV), which is far less than a billionth of the mass of a proton (1.67262E-27 kg=
0,938273 GeV) = 1,06959E-37 kg and energy = 106 GeV). As shown above, “c” is variable, mass is not related to energy, this formula must be revised. Since the general relativity formula, physically unproven and incompatible with quantum mechanics, is false, there are not any justifications for the Earth spinning.

Tesla Nicolas (1905), Art of transmitting electrical energy through the natural medium. United States Patent Office, Serial No. 113,034,
Lammertink Arend (2013), Electrical Engineer disproves Einsteins Relativity Theory: The Ruins of 106 Years Relativity.
Bahjat R. J. Muhyedeen (2009), New Concept of Mass-Energy Equivalence. European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol.26No.2, pp.161-175,
Bahjat R. J. Muhyedeen (2013), Nuclear Magneton Theory of Mass Quantization "Unified Field Theory". European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 100, No 1, pp.66-140,
Carlip S (2000), Aberration and the speed of gravity. Physics Letters A, 267, 81–87,
Galperin (2008), Information transmittal and time uncertainty, measuring the speed of light and time of reflection, representations of Newton’s second law and related problems. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 56, 1271–1290,
Pedram and Jalalzadeh (2008), Quantum cosmology with varying speed of light: Canonical approach. Physics Letters B, 660, 1–6,
Brax (2012), Lorentz invariance violation in modified gravity. Physics Letters B, 712, 155–160,
Pfeifer and Wohlfarth (2012), Beyond the speed of light on Finsler spacetimes. Physics Letters B, 712, 284–288,
Bouchard (2012), Finite Theory of the Universe, Dark Matter Disproof and Faster-Than-Light Speed. Physics Procedia, 38, 222-241,
Katz U.F. and Spiering Ch. 704 (2012), High-energy neutrino astrophysics: Status and perspectives. Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 67, 651-,
Bertolucci Sergio (2013), Neutrino speed: a report on the speed measurements of the BOREXINO, ICARUS and LVD experiments with the CNGS beam. Nuclear Physics B (Proc. Suppl.), 235–236, 289–295,
Chun-Xuan Jiang (2014), An equation that changed the universe: F =- mcÇ/R. The general Science Journal,
Ishihara Aya (2013), Ultra-high energy neutrinos with IceCube. Nuclear Physics B (Proc. Suppl.), 235–236, 352–357,
Zhou Lingli and Bo-Qiang Ma (2013), Neutrino speed anomaly as signal of Lorentz violation. Astroparticle Physics, 44, 24–27,
Hernandez-Rey Juan José (2013), High energy neutrino telescopes in the Northern Hemisphere. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 725, 7 –12,
Zhehui Wang, Christopher L. Morris (2013), Tracking fast neutrons. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 726, 145 –15 4,
Abe et al (2014), Observation of Electron Neutrino Appearance in a Muon Neutrino Beam. Physical review letters, PRL 112, 061802,
Foley James A (2014), Mass of Neutrinos Accurately Calculated for First Time, Physicists Report. Nature World News. (available in http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/ 5968/ 20140210/mass-neutrinos-accurately-calculated-first-timephysicists-
report.htm)
Shigeru Yoshida (2014), Ultra-high-energy cosmic neutrinos: at 1015eV energies and above. Comptes Rendus Physique, Volume 15, Issue 4, Pages 309–317.

4 – All planets have retrograde motion. If the Sun has an attraction force (as proposed by Helio’s) on planets to make them spin, we never actually perceive this motion.

5 – Planetary Motions – Clockwise or Anticlockwise
According to the Heliocentric model, planets motion constantly in an anticlockwise direction (west to east) around the Sun, except Venus and Uranus which both rotate clockwise (east to west). Véronique Dehant, Tim Van Hoolst (2014), Encyclopedia of the Solar System, Third Edition, Chapter 8 - Rotation of Planets, Pages 159-184. The retrograde (meaning in the opposite way) rotation of these two planets is a huge problem for the Heliocentric model because this should not be happening due to gravitational forces. A huge contradiction. Venus is closer to the Sun and therefore the gravitational force is much stronger compared to Earth and Uranus! Scientists have to this day offered up a whole host of arguments but they are wild and desperate guesses.

6 – The Sun’s gravity
Mercury, the closest planet to the Sun is 58 millions km while Pluto, the furthest is 6000km. So, the Suns gravitational forces reach Pluto and keep it in orbit. However, due to the distance, the force of gravity on Pluto is immense in order its line of motion in orbit. The same force has to be applied to Mercury by default, which should make the Sun swallow up Mercury, but this does not happen. Another huge problem for the Heliocentric model.

Sun / Moon Observations
The Moon over a lunar month shows different rising positions, the crescents are explained by the Moons monthly revolution around Earth. This is problematic because we see the Moon during the night in the first half of the lunar month rising from its appearance point and continuing to revolve to the West until it disappears under the West Horizon. During the 14th Night the Moon goes across the sky from the extreme East to the extreme West. During the 1st and 2nd half of the lunar month the Moon rises from the West and East respectively, however its movement and direction is always from East to West. If the Moon followed Earths rotation from West to East, we wouldn’t observe these risings. Noting the positions of the Moon at Sunset in a lunar month gives us a movement showing the number 8, giving us Moon Kinematic. This also gives intertropical journey. So, if the Moon revolves around the Earth on a monthly basis due to the Heliocentric model, the shape should be elliptical and not the shape of the number 8, however this is not the case.

Angle Between Earth Sun and Moon
One is familiar with the movements of the Moon. We know the movement of these bodies is regular and uniform. In the Geocentric model we find the angle between Moon/Earth and Earth/Sun is a constant and regular of 11.9°, sky observations also confirm this. This is not the case in the Heliocentric Model. (see Diagram).

Time Change
Time on a meridian is the same. This poses a huge problem for the Heliocentrism model which argues the Earths orbit is titled at 23.5°. At equinox when the Sun is at the equator the time is even more identical. So, the Sun rises from the South to the North, it naturally means there should a difference in the Sunrise/ There is more to this approach but ive left it brief.

Shadow On Earth
In the Geocentric and Heliocentric model the shadow of objects are different. What we actually observe in the world is based on the Geocentrism. In Geocentrism, the shadow is based on the Solar rays. This is important because this occupies a central position in a Muslims ibadah due to the shadow of objects for prayer times. This is not the case with Heliocentrism. (see diagram)

The Position of the Earth in Relation to the Sun
Heliocentrism, based on Keplers model argued the orbit of planets was elliptical (i.e. different diamters). If this was the case it would mean the Earth orbits at two sides would be closer to the Sun and on the two perpendicular sides the Earth would be further away. We also know, even 1° change in the Earths temperature would either burn Earth or cause glaciation. Nothing like this happens. No doubt you get the desperate answers but the premise of 1° stands.

Earth has a volume, a weight and a revolution speeds (theoretical). In the motion dynamic, objects speeds are related to its weight. If the Earth has its different motions, the falling of the thousands of asteroids and meteors on the Earth every day must influence the motions velocities. These objects cause the decreasing of the speed and everything will be attached to the Earth surface, the duration of night/day will be longer. But nothing is observed and every day the numbers of meteors increase without any changes. In addition, in the heliocentric model, seasons result from 23.5 ° inclination of the Earth rotation axis to its elliptic orbit around the Sun. But, the defect of this model is the position of winter and summer in the orbit. Winter appears when Earth is in perihelion (closer position to the Sun); the temperature decrease is attributed to the Earth speed which become faster (34.145km/s) than the average speed (29.829km/s). Summer appear when Earth is in aphelion; the temperature increase is attributed to the Earth speed which is slower (28.851km/s) than the average speed. Theoretically, this supposes the presence of self-power for the Earth to enhance or reduce its velocity. This suggestion has no argument to admit. Then, this conflict allows the suspicion of the heliocentric model validity. Furthermore, if the earth revolves around the sun we must observe a clear parallax of the Sirius star, its size must be larger when the earth is closer. If we take the position of the earth in its orbit around the sun during the autumn equinox, after six months it will be in the opposite position (spring equinox) at a distance equal to 299 Million kilometers. Thus, an observer on Earth should observe places in the remote universe of 299 million km from its initial position. Subsequently, he must observe this star in larger dimensions and a different angle. Such situation never detected demonstrates the stability of the earth and refutes the heliocentrism theory. The calculation of gravitational force between Sun /Moon and Earth/Moon shows that this interaction is more important between Sun/Moon. Since, Sun/Moon attraction (4,38082E+20 N.m2 /kgÇ) is higher than Earth/Moon (1,98E+20 N.m2 /kg2 ), the Moon cannot spin around the earth and we never observe its evolution steps. This situation interferes with the observation.

Furthermore, the polar star is a stationary since it indicates the geographic north for peoples in Earth. The observations of sky at night in different times (for example, an hourly basis) show the same position of this star without any motion contrasting with the other stars. Such fact proves that Earth is steady. Also, if the Earth spins around the Sun in 365 days, its velocity must be 108.000 Km/h, this value is 84 higher than the atmospheric sonic speed (1200 Km/h). Taking into account the atmosphere characteristics, a direct consequence of this velocity is to perceive a huge sound (sonic boom) caused by this motion. But these sound never heard only if supersonic plane across the sky. This situation could be interpreted by assuming that the atmospheric layer acts as an insulating body. This hypothesis cannot be admitting since we listen to various types of sounds. As consequence, the inexistence of sonic boom testifies the stationarity of the earth.

Kinematic
First, if the Earth has an attraction force that is capable to hold and attach the atmosphere during its rotation around itself, the Sun and the other motions, we cannot detect the wind. Nevertheless, observations show the presence of various categories of wind from light air up to gale wind (the speed can overstep 50 knots). This fact confirms the absence of Earth attraction. Second, coastal dynamics researchers show that direction and wave height are closely attached to the wind. If the Earth spins around itself with a speed of 1670 km / h we must find a single direction of the wave propagation which will be necessarily East (dominates direction and speed). But oceanographers have shown different wave propagation directions. The presence of a numerous directions of wave’s propagation, when the Earth is rotating, assumes a higher carrying wind speed. This assumption is not convincing since extravagant wind speed of 1670km / h (910 mile/h) destroys any sort of life on Earth rapidly. Regarding the Beaufort scale, the impact of a wind speed exceeding 70 mile/h on sea/ continental state causes catastrophic damage in the infrastructure and trees. By comparison of speeds we cannot admit any motion for the earth. Third, the presence of balancing rocks and stacking stones in lakes and rivers in numerous countries for several times is a powerful tool to reveal the earth stationarity. If the Earth rotated around itself, the Sun, the galaxy, the apex and for the universe expansions, these rocks would move in any direction. But, the immovability of these rocks for a long time shows the validity of the geocentric theory. In the hydrology science, water is maintained stable in lakes / rivers if there are not any atmospheric perturbations. The observation of enormous water bodies stable conflict with the Earth motions. This reality reveals that Earth is steady. The kinematic of the space rockets collide with the earth supposed dynamic. If we assume that the Earth makes different motions at the same time, it means it must travel far from the point of the rocket launch. Then, when the mission is accomplished it cannot find the position of the Earth which would be further away. In addition, the maximum speed of a rocket is 28000 km / h but the Earth’s speeds are much more important (108000 km/h, 220km/s). Since the speeds of the Earth are greater than the rockets one, they can never return to Earth. But, observations show that the rockets return quickly and easily to the Earth. Moreover, the satellites are located at a fixed distance from the Earth, if they move a meter we cannot pick up any signal (for example: satellite dish are placed in a well determined direction, GPS). Then, the obtaining of these TV channels diversity and the positioning at any times interfere with the Earth dynamics (revolves around itself (1670km/h), around the Sun (108000km / h), around the galaxy (220km/s) and for the expansion of the universe). Assuming the earth motions, these satellites must change their velocity permanently, to conserve its positions to the Earth. But, satellites don’t have a self-power allowing them to enhance or reduce their speed. Such result, testifies the earth stability. Moreover, if the Earth has it different speeds motions, we cannot obtain a high detection pictures from geostationary satellites or from the Moon. In fact, at such high speeds, the taken pictures must be blurry. The observation of diver’s high detected earth images conflict with these motions. Finally, on any clear night, a shooting star can be seen in the sky about every ten minutes (for example the Perseids meteors observed between 11 August and 13 August 2014). It is commonly observed that many more meteors are seen in the early morning hours, between midnight and sunrise; then, they are seen in the evening between Sunset and midnight. If the Earth has different motions, we cannot observe these meteors and cosmic rays every day bombarding the Earth’s surface. This situation could be explained by the existence of the Earth in the same position in the cosmos.

based on the research of Touir J and Kharoubi A.

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests