Cosmological Evidence Shows Central and Non-Moving Earth

1. Cosmological Evidence Shows Central and Non-Moving Earth

2. What Edwin Hubble Saw

3. Hubble Then Concluded… “…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth… This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility… the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs... such a favored position is intolerable… Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position… must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.” The Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937

4. Stephen Hawking Agrees • “...all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe” • A Brief History of Time, p. 42

5. Einstein’s Curvature Equation Gμν = 8πTμν AKA: Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW)

6. The Modest Stephen Hawking • “…the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty.” • A Brief History of Time, p. 42

7. FLRW Non-Euclidean Universe on “Curve” or “Balloon”: Everyplace is the Center

8. Hubble: “…must be compensated by spatial curvature”Einstein’s Curvature Equation: Curvature = Energy-Momentum G = 8pT G = Gravity’s inward pull on space T = Stress tensor that causes gravity 8p = to Newton’s force laws

9. To Prevent the Universe from Collapsing, Einstein Added an Expansion Factor Curvature – Expansion = Energy-Momentum G – L = 8pT

10. After the Big Bang was Invented, Lambda Was Unnecessary Curvature – Big Bang Force = Energy-Momentum G – BB = 8pT (Einstein’s said Adding Lambda was his “Biggest Blunder,” once the Big Bang was hypothesized)

11. But the Big Bang has the Goldilocks Dilemma: The Porridge Must be Just Right • Too big of a Bang and the Universe Cannot form Matter • Too little of a Bang and the Matter Collapses in on itself.

12. General Relativity’s Equations Can be Tweaked to Give Three Possible Universes • Closed: expands, stops, collapses • Open: expands forever • Flat: expands, slows, doesn’t stop

13. They chose a Flat Non-Euclidean Universe…Why? Because a Flat universe is the only one that will even attempt to balance out the negative energy of gravity and the positive energy of matter

14. Why Do They Want Themto Balance? • Because only a universe with zero energy could come from “nothing.”

15. Dr. Lawrence Krauss • “The laws of physics allow the universe to begin from nothing. You don’t need a deity. You have nothing, zero total energy, and quantum fluctuations can produce a universe.” • Professor at Arizona State University

16. Problem? • A Flat Universe needs a lot of help. It has only: 4% of the matter it needs to function properly.

17. Possible Solution? Quantum Energy (aka: Vacuum Energy, Zero-Point Energy, etc.)

18. Problem? Quantum energy contains: 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.0 too much energy!

19. Solution? • You add the matter in by hand and give it a fancy name and promise the people that you will find it someday. • You call it: DARK MATTER

20. But Doesn’t Dark Matter Need Help, Too? • Yes, in order to do its job to expand the universe, Dark Matter needs Energy, to the tune of 70% of what is missing in the universe.

21. So they call it….. Dark Energy Sshh: (But they haven’t found any)

22. So where do we put the Dark Energy we haven’t found yet? We put is between our normal baryonic matter and the Dark Matter we haven’t found yet.

23. Result? A New Equation We go from this: G + L = 8pT G = 8pT + LCurvature = Normal Matter Dark Energy + Dark Matter

24. Is there a Better Solution? Yes, Geocentrism: Astrophysicist Timothy Clifton, Oxford • “An alternative to admitting the existence of dark energy is to review the postulates that necessitate its introduction. In particular, it has been proposed that observations could be accounted for without dark energy if our local environment were emptier than the surrounding Universe, i.e., if we were to live in a void. This explanation for the apparent acceleration does not invoke any exotic substances, extra dimensions, or modifications to gravity – but it does require a rejection of the Copernican Principle. We would be required to live near the center of a spherically symmetric under-density, on a scale of the same order of magnitude as the observable Universe. Such a situation would have profound consequences for the interpretation of all cosmological observations, and would ultimately mean that we could not infer the properties of the Universe at large from what we observe locally.”

25. Tomazawa: Univ. of Michigan: FLRW model no longer an option • “In the Friedman universe, one possible interpretation of the coordinates is that the whole space is on the surface of an expanding balloon and has no center… [But] in such a universe, there is no cosmic microwave background [CMB] dipole, even in the presence of a peculiar velocity. In other words, the observation of a CMB dipole excludes such an interpretation of the coordinates for the Friedman universe.”

26. Expanding Universe Concept

27. George F. R. Ellis Agrees • “Additionally, we must take seriously the idea that the acceleration apparently indicated by supernova data could be due to large scale inhomogeneity with no dark energy…. Precisely because of the foundational nature of the Copernican Principle for standard cosmology, we need to fully check this foundation. And one must emphasize here that standard CMB anisotropy studies do not prove the Copernican principle: they assume it at the start.”

28. Hubble’s Galactic Isotropy Problem Compounded by CMB Anisotropy Problem

29. CMB Dipole Intersected by Ecliptic Plane

30. Quad- & Octupole Intersected by Earth’s Equinox Plane

31. Lawrence Krauss’ Admission on the CMB’s Ecliptic Alignment • “But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe….The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect, or maybe it’s telling us there’s something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales.”

32. 2005 Sloan Digital Sky Survey

33. Periodic Distribution of Quasars

34. Y. P. Varshni on Quasar Distribution • “The Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes.”

35. Periodic Gamma Ray Bursts

36. Jonathan Katz on Gamma Rays • “The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center. But Copernicus taught us that we are not in a special preferred position in the universe; Earth is not at the center of the solar system, the Sun is not at the center of the galaxy, and so forth.”

37. Michelson-Morley Revisited: Einstein Admits STR Based on MMX • “I have come among men who for many years have been true comrades with me in my labors. You, my honored Dr. Michelson, began with this work when I was only a little youngster, hardly three feet high. It was you who led the physicists into new paths, and through your marvelous experimental work paved the way for the development of the Theory of Relativity. You uncovered an insidious defect in the ether theory of light, as it then existed, and stimulated the ideas of H. A. Lorentz and Fitzgerald, out of which the Special Theory of Relativity developed. Without your work this theory would today be scarcely more than an interesting speculation; it was your verifications which first set the theory on a real basis.”

38. Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity Based on False Assumption • Einstein claimed that MMX did not detect ether, so he made space a vacuum, dilated time and increased mass by the Lorentz factor of √1 – v²/c². • The fact is, MMX did measure an ether drift. It just didn’t measure a drift that would be expected if the Earth were moving around the sun at 30kms; rather, it measured a drift that was less than one-sixth of 30kms.

39. In fact, All the Experimenters Found Ether • Morley-Miller in 1903-1905 • Rayleigh, 1902 • D. B. Brace, 1904 • Trouton-Noble, 1903, • Georges Sagnac 1913, • Kennedy-Thorndike, 1927 • Michelson-Pease-Pearson, 1926-1929 • Michelson-Gale, 1925 • Dayton Miller, 1905 to 1925.

40. 1925 Michelson-Gale Most Significant • “The observed displacement of the fringes was found to be 0.230 ± .005, agreeing with the computed value 0.236 ± .002 within the limits of experimental error…. All we can deduce from this experiment is that the earth rotates on its axis.” • Fact: Michelson-Gale found a diurnal rotation within 98% of 24 hours.

41. Proper Conclusion Must Be… • Since Heliocentrism requires both the earth to revolve around the sun and rotate on an axis, but empirical evidence shows only a diurnal rotation, hence Heliocentrism is apparently falsified. • The better solution is: the ether rotates around a non-moving Earth. As the universe rotates around the Earth, it carries the ether with it.

42. Einstein’s GTR Agrees with Geocentrism • “Let K [the universe] be a Galilean-Newtonian coordinate system [a system of three dimensions extending to the edge of the universe], and let K [the Earth] be a coordinate system rotating uniformly relative to K [the universe]. Then centrifugal forces would be in effect for masses at rest in the K coordinate system [the Earth], while no such forces would be present for objects at rest in K [the universe]. Already Newton viewed this as proof that the rotation of K [the Earth] had to be considered as “absolute,” and that K [the Earth] could not then be treated as the “resting” frame of K [the universe]. Yet, as E. Mach has shown, this argument is not sound. One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K [the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K [the Earth], whereby K [the Earth] is treated as being at rest.”

43. Other Relativists Agree, and Must Agree • “Relative to the stationary roundabout [the Earth], the distant stars would have a velocity rω [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 × 108 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 × 108 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 × 108 m/sec under these conditions.” • W. G. V. Rosser, Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, p. 460.

44. A “Relative” Irony • Einstein invented Special Relativity to escape the evidence from Michelson-Morley that pointed to geocentrism, but then had to invent General Relativity due to the inadequacy of Special Relativity, but General Relativity verifies the viability of geocentrism better than any other scientific theory.

45. Thus Einstein Said… • “The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,” or “the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”

46. Conclusion • “It is both amusing and instructive to speculate on what might have happened if [the Michelson-Morley] experiment could have been performed in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries when men were debating the rival merits of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. The result would surely have been interpreted as conclusive evidence for the immobility of the Earth, and therefore as a triumphant vindication of the Ptolemaic system and irrefutable falsification of the Copernican hypothesis.” • G. J Whitrow, The Structure and Evolution of the Universe, 1954, p. 79