Summarising the failures of Copernicanism. $cientism's very religious views.
Summarising the failures of Copernicanism. $cientism's very religious views.
Next article will deal with summarising the failures of the Big Bang. The blind acceptance of these theories impacts our world-views, deforms real science and degrades humanity.
Prologue
$cientism is a secular religion which subsumes ‘science’ across many domains, including but not limited to cosmology, physics, geology, medicine, climate, virology (an utter sham) and evolution (a complete disgrace), and other factotums of the modern secular-material world. These topics are discussed and explored on this substack.
This post focuses on Copernicanism and its issues and attempts to summarise dozens of pages on this substack on the problems with Copernican theory. The next post will summarise why the Big Bang is dead and the 3rd post will summarise the problems with the theories of Newton and Einstein.
Copernican Principle: In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle states that humans, on the Earth or in the Solar System, are not privileged observers of the universe, that observations from the Earth are representative of observations from the average position in the universe. Named for Copernican heliocentrism, it is a working assumption that arises from a modified cosmological extension of Copernicus' argument of a moving Earth.
This principle is about as misanthropic as it gets. The ‘Copernican principle’ is the underlying foundation of Newtonian physics, the Big Bang, and Einsteinian Relativity. All observations and data are refracted and interpreted through the Copernican philosophical-religious lens. However the proof to support this ‘principle’ is underwhelming. Questioning Copernicanism and the Big Bang does not mean that one believes in a Flat Earth. It is simply asking for mechanical, physical proof.
Copernicanism and Heliocentricity need mechanical proof
As surprising as this claim is, it is nevertheless quite true. Mechanical proofs cannot be offered to support heliocentricity. Heads explode! The 11 often cited claims which ‘prove heliocentricity’ are incorrect and summarised below and linked to posts with more information. Even if only a fraction of what is summarised here is right, it completely upends the modern worldview, the modern conceptions of ‘reality’ and modern theories around cosmological ‘science’. Entire paradigms are destroyed.
The evidence is pretty clear that heliocentricity remains mechanically unproven and the Copernican ‘principle’ that the Earth is of no importance within the universe, is simply a dogma refuted by Scientism’s own observational data (reasons given below). The idea that the Earth orbits the Sun might well be right, but the provisioning of proof must be given and is absent.
Few know for example, that Copernicus’ original theory provided no proof of heliocentricity and was more complex than Ptolemy’s. It was also wrong - the Copernican planetary orbits were circular instead of elliptical and the distances between planets were no more accurate than that of Ptolemy’s. The copy sitting in my library in latin, is full of tables, maths and calculations which do not prove his theory. They are filler inserted to impress, divert and obfuscate. This is why Copernican theory was initially rejected. He offered no proofs. Neither did Galileo.
Issues for Copernicans
The Galileo Myth and its importance (link)
As many historians now recognise, the better evidence in this ‘affair’ lay with the Church and its complex of astronomers, sites, observations, and advanced telescopic instrumentation. The Church invested more money into astronomy, than any other single institution in history until ‘modern’ times. Judiciously the Church and its astronomical academy was cautious in replying to Galileo’s ambitious aim to rewrite the rules of science.
The Church needed mechanical proofs which Galileo did not provide. Orbiting moons around Jupiter or phases of Venus do not prove heliocentricity, since they can be easily explained by non-Copernican models. It would take 300 years before incorrectly, the stellar parallax and light aberration provided some support for heliocentricity (those ‘proofs’ are disproven in links below). These are not mechanical but observational, and can be explained by other theories. Galileo may even have retracted his Copernican belief before he died (the post in the link above contains a letter which might be his recantation).
The Galileo affair is thus pure myth, erected by ‘The Science’ to make the unfounded and ridiculous claim that religion and ‘science’ are at odds. Considering that modern ‘science’ was created by Christianity, this claim is as absurd and it is counter-factual. Considering that modern science is more religious than scientific, the claim is hypocritical.
Quantum Mechanics disproves Copernicanism (link)
("Debunking the Copernican Principle: A Quantum Perspective")
The micro-and quantum universe disproves both Einstein’s Relativity and Copernican mechanics. Neither can explain the micro-universe of particles. Quantum Mechanics supports the unique position of the Earth and its life forms disproving the anti-humanist Copernican ‘principle’ (video above is a short summary why).
Heliocentricity and Newtonian gravitation
There is a misplaced conviction that Newtonian ‘laws’ have proven heliocentricity, especially the canard that smaller bodies within a single system, must orbit a larger. Newton’s own observations, calculations and conclusions do not confirm that the Earth must orbit the Sun. Nowhere does Newton consider Kepler’s maths which predate his own work, nor the implied Machian principles of universal mass and attraction. The effect on gravity of all bodies within a system, by universal mass and attraction was a fact that even Einstein admitted to, yet it is missing within Newtonian theory.
Heliocentricity and Universal forces
Based on the above, our solar system’s planetary movements cannot be as simple as ‘gravity and attraction’ between the planets. Universal mass and forces are missing from Newton and Einstein’s theorems (Special Theory of Relativity ignores gravity). Newtonian physics cannot answer an obvious problem: ‘given Newton’s own equations, why doesn’t the Earth fall into the Sun?’. The reason is clear. There are other universal forces related to mass and gravity at work, other than the simple Earth-Sun relationship.
Coriolis and other universal forces which are real and proven, lie outside of Newtonian theory. Einstein included these forces in his General Theory of Relativity equating them with the effects of gravitational attraction. However, plasma and electro-magnetism which is far more powerful force than gravity, is not found in either Newton or Einstein’s theories and would obviously impact planetary movements along with universal matter.
Far more than ‘gravity’ is at work when we view planetary orbits and behaviours.
19 the century experiments which found no movement of the Earth or its rotation
This link has a list of experiments from the 19th century which disproved that the Earth is zooming through space at 108.000 km per hour. Literally thousands of experiments show that: 1) The Earth is moving in the ether at ~5 km / second or slower, not 30 km / sec; or, 2) The Earth is immobile, and the universe’s ether is acting on the Earth with a centrifugal force of ~5 km / second; or, 3) The Earth is immobile, and its diurnal (daily) rotation is ~5 km / second (unlikely). Michelson Morley’s interferometer experiment in 1887 is an example covered in this post where no Earth movement was detected. Not a single experiment imitating Michelson-Morley’s efforts has refuted their data.
To compensate for experimental failures to find the Earth’s movement, Einstein invented the maths for the second postulate of Special Relativity where the velocity of light is constant to all observers regardless of motion. This seemingly explained the motionless Earth result of the Michelson-Morley experiment (and thousands of others). In other words, if 2 objects are moving relative to each other, there is no point of reference and if we are on one object our own movement will not be measured. Many scientists bought into Relativity because it seemed to explain the negative Michelson-Morley result.
Far from proving heliocentricity, these many thousands of experiments do the opposite. Surely with all the satellites and probes in space we should have more convincing evidence of a 108.000 km per hour canter through space. This is a significant speed and easily detectable. The visual and mechanical proof should be overwhelming but is missing.
Diurnal rotational proofs are also problematic as outlined in the above link and other posts. NASA and EPIC publish animations purportedly showing movement but any of us working in IT can construct the same rotating image in a few hours. These are not proofs but CGI. A 1600 km per hour rotation is a significant velocity, it is not immaterial or ‘hard to discern’ pace existing disclaimers on the lack of visual evidence.
Thousands of experiments after 1905 which showed no movement
Dozens of attempts in the 20th century tried to over-turn the 1887 Michelson-Morley results and failed. 2009 German replication of the M-M experiment generated the same results (Physics World, “Physicists in Germany have performed the most precise Michelson-Morley experiment to date, confirming that the speed of light is the same in all directions. The experiment, which involves rotating two optical cavities, is about 10 times more precise than previous experiments – and a hundred million times more precise than Michelson and Morley’s 1887 measurement.”)
DS Miller’s 300.000 experiments showing no movement
During 30 years from 1902-1933, using the most complex interferometer apparati in history, American physicist Miller proved that the Ether exists. He also found no discernible movement in the Earth, nor its rotation. Miller performed over 200.000 experiments. How many did Copernicus, Einstein or Newton perform?
Heliocentricity and Stellar parallax and light aberration
As with the stellar parallax, the aberration of light or solar aberration is not proof of anything. The simpler and more elegant explanation which supports the observed phenomena lies with the geo-helio-centric, neo-Tychonic model. In any case, using the science establishment’s own ‘laws’ and principles, the neo-Tychonic model explains just as well the apparent ‘proofs’ of stellar parallax and aberration. This post outlines why that is true.
Heliocentricity and the Foucault Pendulum
If we apply ‘modern’ science’s own principles and postulates, we can see that the 1851 Foucault experiment with a rotating pendulum proves nothing about the Earth’s mobility, nor heliocentricity. It was attempting to measure the Earth’s rotation, it had nothing to say about orbiting the Sun. The actual experiment is tautological, resting its conclusion on the unproven assumption that the Earth is moving, claiming that the pendulum’s motion is actually an illusion and that we should not believe our lying eyes that it is moving, since, using circular logic, the Earth is moving.
The ether proven real, acting on the Earth, would be responsible along with the Coriolis forces for the moving pendulum, not the Earth’s rotation. Mainstream physics including Mach’s principle, Einstein’s General Theory and geometrodynamic law, have long supported that mass in space determines inertia (movement) on Earth. Thus Foucault’s moving bob, pushed by human force to rotate, does not prove anything.
This was confirmed in 1904 by Föppl who, using the same technique, discovered to no one’s surprise, that there was relative motion between the Earth and the stars but this ‘relative motion’ was never ‘proven’ to be the Earth’s mobility. Föppl simply confirmed what Maxwell, Airy, Fizeau, Michelson, Miller and many others had already demonstrated that there is relative movement between the two systems (Earth and the Stars), but the Earth’s mobility was undetected.
Heliocentricity and the Earth's 'bulge', geosynchronous satellites, space probes, retograde motions.
The slight bulge at the equator, geosynchronous satellites, space probes, and planetary retrograde motions are not proofs of heliocentricity. The only one that makes a strong case is that of retrograde motions, found in the Ptolemaic and Tychonic models as well. But even here, the argument is neutral given that the Tychonic model (and indeed other models) can explain the same effect in a simple framework. Modern cosmology has more epicycles (retrograde motions) than the Tychonic.
It should also be said that the Earth’s oblation at the poles (slight flattening) is trivial - 0.3% deviation or so in comparison to a perfect sphere. It takes keen measurements and assumptions to calculate such an infinitesimally small variation. The Earth is a spheroid and the flattening exaggerated, proving nothing, which can be explained by Coriolis forces and Mach’s principle.
The bulge of the Earth is better explained by the Tychonic theory as are geosynchronous satellites. Space probes, photos and videos cannot prove the Earth’s rotation and do not show us a moving Earth through the ether. This must be a large problem for Copernicans, but as with all disproofs, it is repurposed to support their model!
Heliocentricity and Star-Streaming, The Doppler effect
Star-streaming has absolutely nothing to do with the Earth’s mobility around the Sun. The Doppler effect can be explained by other models including the Tychonic, and Redshifting. The ‘Doppler effect’, is in fact a major problem for the Big Bang as other posts have outlined. Redshifting (bright intense light) from galaxies and planets indicates a young life, not an ancient accelerating formation moving away from the Earth.
Gamma Ray Bursts disprove the Copernican Principle
The isotropic distribution of gamma-ray bursts, is another ‘anathema’, suggesting that Earth is at the centre of the forces we see in the universe. Cosmology cannot explain these patterns and they contradict the Copernican principle and Big Bang predictions.
Bottom Line
We have listed serious objections to the religio-philosophical framework of Copernicus. The data simply does not support the underlying foundational idea of the Copernican principle that this planet is of no importance; that the Earth moves, and has a diurnal rotation or orbits the Sun. The Earth’s movement and rotation might well be true but the mechanical proofs are missing and the list of objections remains unanswered by Scientism. This list gets much longer when we include the issues with the Big Bang theology. And no, no one believes the Earth is flat.
5-Experiments post 1905 which found no movement
6-DS Miller’s 30 years of experiments from 1902-1933 which found no movement
7-Stellar parallax and aberration (explained by other models)
8-Foucault’s tautological pendulum experiment
9-Earth’s bulge, satellites, probes, retrograde motions
11-Doppler effect (Redshifting)
Next post will summarise the issues with the Big Bang philosophy (which are already covered on this substack), and which are closely tied with Copernicanism and significantly exacerbate the problems with modern cosmological Scientism. All hail and believe.
i really enjoyed the copernicus and helio etc need mechanical prove section --------- it parralled in the video saying there needs to be IMPRAICAL observation from the observer ----- i completely agree with both the above -------- this type of observation is the bases of Carl Jungs wrttings on the observer observing the observer ------------ there is to much great stuff in your artical to mention ---------- but i must admitt i cannot what to read you thrashing apart the big bang maddess ---------- Terrance MC Kinney explains it as pure crazyness--- i just read the above about blind acceptance, deforms ,, degrades -------- i agree completely