Taking Back Our Stolen History
Geocentric Theory
Geocentric Theory

Geocentric Theory

« Back to Glossary Index

Some creationists believe that the scientific assault on the Bible did not begin with biological evolution, but with the acceptance of the heliocentric (or more properly, geokinetic) theory centuries ago. Geocentrists believe that the Bible clearly states that the Earth does not move, and hence the only acceptable Biblical cosmology is a geocentric one. Modern geocentrists use both Biblical and scientific arguments for their case. Geocentricity is a conceptual model of the form of the universe which makes three basic assertions about the nature of the earth and its relationship to the rest of the universe. These are: (a) the earth is the center of the universe, (b) the earth is fixed (i.e., immobile) in space, and (c) the earth is unique and special compared to all other heavenly bodies.

Traditional thought is Geocentric Universe

A detailed Christian view of the universe, based on various Biblical texts and earlier theories by Theophilus of Antioch and Clement of Alexandria, was formulated by the 6th century Egyptian monk, Cosmas Indicopleustes. He described a flat rectangular world surrounded by four seas; at the far edges of the seas, four immense vertical walls supported a vaulted roof, the firmament, above which in a further vaulted space lived angels who moved the heavenly bodies and controlled rainfall from a vast cistern. Augustine wrote that too much learning had been expended on the nature of the firmament. “We may understand this name as given to indicate not it is motionless but that it is solid.” he wrote. Saint Basil argued for a fluid firmament. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, the firmament had a “solid nature” and stood above a “region of fire, wherein all vapor must be consumed.”

According to The Jewish Encyclopedia:

The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars.

The Copernican Revolution of the 16th century led to reconsideration of these matters. In 1554, John Calvin proposed that “firmament” be interpreted as clouds. “He who would learn astronomy and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere,” wrote Calvin. Genesis had to conform to popular prejudice regarding cosmology, or it would not have been accepted.

The Greeks and Stoics adopted a model of celestial spheres after the discovery of the spherical Earth in the 4th to 3rd centuries BCE. The Medieval Scholastics adopted a cosmology that fused the ideas of the Greek philosophers Aristotle and Ptolemy. This cosmology involved celestial orbs, nested concentrically inside one another, with the earth at the center. The outermost orb contained the stars and the term firmament was then transferred to this orb. There were seven inner orbs for the seven wanderers of the sky, and their ordering is preserved in the naming of the days of the week.

(from the Jewish Encyclopedia) Biblical Astronomy, in the broad sense, includes the views taken in the books of the Bible of the position of the earth in the universe, the designation of the stars, planets, fixed stars, and the views held regarding them. The sky, the abode of the stars, is described as a “raḳia'” (, a plate); that is, a rigid, broad, solid plate possessing a certain thickness. According to Gen. i. 6, this raḳia’ was set in the midst of the waters, and it divided the waters above from those beneath. God “made” it of matter already existing at the time of Creation; that is, He did not “create” it at that time. The raḳia’ representing the sky in Ezek. i. 22 resembled ice; therefore it is quite possible that the author of Genesis, like Ezekiel, regarded the sky as being composed of solidified water or ice. Such a sky, being transparent, would permit the stars, which are located above its vault, to be seen through it.

The heavenly bodies, according to Gen. 1:16, were also made (not created) from existing material, after light had come into existence. They were certainly made of the material of light, just as the vault of the sky was made out of water-material, and the human soul from air (Gen. ii. 7), and all things living upon earth from earth (Gen. i. 24). All these were made of the four elements, light (or fire), water, air, and earth; only those creatures which subsist in air and water—that is, in other elements than those of which they are composed—were created; while man, the image of God, although living on earth and being of the earth, was “created and made” (Gen. i. 26, 27; but see ii. 7).

The Talmud subscribes, as do all astronomers before the time of Copernicus, to the geocentric world conception, according to which the stars move about the earth. The conceptions of this motion were various. Aristotle believes that the stars have no motion of their own, being firmly attached to circles of rotation; and he further ascribes to every circle containing a star a sphere of motion whose center is the earth (Pauly-Wissowa, “Realencyklopädie der Classischen Alterthumswissenschaft,” 1841, ii.). Perhaps the wonderful Baraita PesaḦim 94b gives expression to this idea in the following: “The learned of Israel say, ‘The sphere stands firm, and the planets revolve’; the learned of the nations say, ‘The sphere moves, and the planets stand firm.’ The learned of Israel say, ‘The sun moves by day beneath the firmament, and by night above the firmament’; the learned of the nations say, ‘The sun moves by day beneath the firmament, and by night beneath the earth.'” The patriarch Judah I. (about 200) believed that in the first instance the Jewish, and in the second the non-Jewish, conception was correct. The sun travels in four directions. During Nisan, Iyyar, and Siwan (spring) it travels in the south, in order to melt the snow; during Tammuz, Ab, and Elul (summer), directly above the earth, in order to ripen the fruit; during Tishri, Ḥeshwan, and Kislew, above the sea, in order to absorb the waters; and in Ṭebet, Shebaṭ, and Adar, over the desert, in order that the grain may not dry up and wither (ib.).

The sun has 365 windows through which it emerges; 182 in the east, 182 in the west, and 1 in the middle, the place of its first entrance. The course described by it in a year is traversed by the moon in 30 days. The solar year is longer by 11 days than the lunar year (Yer. R. H. ii. 58a). The sun completes its course in 12 months; Jupiter, in 12 years; Saturn, in 30 years; Venus and Mars, in 480 years (Gen. R. x. 4); however, an objection is raised here (in a gloss) against the last-mentioned number. King Antoninus asked the patriarch why the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. At the time of the Deluge it traveled in the opposite direction (Sanh. 91b, 108b). Every 28 years it returns to its original point of departure, and on Tuesday evening of the spring solstice it is in opposition with Saturn, although Plato maintained that the sun and planets never return to the place whence they started. This is the cycle of 28 years (Ber. 59b); the moon-cycle of 19 years may have been meant in the Targ. Yer. Gen. i. 14.

From the names of the seven planets were derived the names of the days of the week; and each day was consecrated to the particular planet that ruled during the early hours of the morning. The Talmudists were familiar with the planets and their characteristics (see Astrology); but only the week-days were counted, while the Sabbath had a name of its own. The names of the seven planets are: (1) “Shabbetai,” Saturn; (2) “Ẓedeḳ,” Jupiter; (3) “Maadim,” Mars; (4) “Ḥammah,” the sun; (5) “Kokebet” or “Nogah,” “Kokab-Nogah,” Venus; (6) “Kokab,” Mercury; (7) “Lebanah,” the moon. According to the first letter of each of their names, they are called “SheẒaM ḤeNKaL” (Shab. 129b, 156a; Pesiḳ. R. xx.; Pirḳe R. El. vi.). The worship of Venus is mentioned (Pesiḳ. R. xxxi., ed. Friedmann, p. 143a), and warning is given not to confuse it with the dawn (; Yer. Ber. i. 2c).

The Milky Way is called “Fire-Stream,” a name borrowed from Daniel vii. 10 (“Nehar di-nur”), where it may possibly have had the same signification. The statement is also made that the sting of Scorpio may be seen lying in the Milky Way (Ḥag. 13b; Ex. R. xv. 6, ; Ber. 58b). Samuel said: “We have it as a tradition that no comet ever passed across the face of Orion [“Kesil”]; for if this should happen the earth would be destroyed.” When his hearers objected to this statement, saying, “Yet we see that this occurs,” Samuel replied: “It only appears so; for the comet passes either above or below the star. Possibly also its radiance passes, but not its body.” Again, Samuel says: “But for the warmth of Orion, the earth could not exist, because of the frigidity of Scorpio; furthermore, Orion lies near Taurus, with which the warm season begins (Yer. Ber. ix. 13c; Bab. Ber. 58b). The comet, because of its tail, is called “kokba de-shabbiṭ.” (rodstar). Joshua b. Hananiah, the famous teacher of the Law (about 100), declared that a star appears once every seventy years and leads mariners astray; hence they should at such time lay in a larger store of provisions (Hor. 10a). Rapoport endeavors to prove that the path of Halley’s comet had been computed by a wise rabbi (Epistle to Slonimski in “Toledot ha-Shamayim,” Warsaw, 1838). Samuel said: “I know all the paths of heaven, but nothing of the nature of the comet.”

Ptolemy modified through his observations


Around 550 BC, Pythagoras allegedly said the sun should be the center because it is the most magnificent of the gods. One of his pupils (in Mystery Schools) introduced a model of sun centered earth. The paradigm at this time and for centuries prior was that the earth was flat and stationary with a firmament above it, which was believed to be divinely revealed. Pythagoras, a disciple of Plato, who according to the Rosicrucian Society, was a member of their Mystery school.

Nicholas Copernicus said he could make this Heliocentric model work, but introduced his model in a book, but it was not accurate. Shortly before his death in 1543 and with some hesitation, Copernicus (1473–1543), the Polish mathematician and astronomer, published On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, in which he argued that the earth was not the center of the universe, as generally believed, but rotated on its axis and revolved with the other known planets around the stationary sun. Over the subsequent decades, opposition to his theory (as a description of physical reality, rather than merely as an alternative mathematical description) arose because it seemed contrary to common sense, was opposed to Aristotelian physics, lacked convincing astronomical evidence, and was contrary to a literal interpretation of various Scriptures. Approximately 150 years passed before his theory was generally accepted. But it was soon embraced by Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) and Galileo Galilei (1564–1642), though the latter was at first reluctant to publicize his views. (Source)

Even Copernicus’ heliocentric model included an outer sphere that held the stars (and by having the earth rotate daily on its axis it allowed the firmament to be completely stationary). Tycho Brahe‘s studies of the nova of 1572 and the Comet of 1577 were the first major challenges to the idea that orbs existed as solid, incorruptible, material objects. In 1584, Giordano Bruno (who disputed the divinity of Christ and many Christian teachings and was allegedly burned at the stake for his beliefs) proposed a cosmology without firmament: an infinite universe in which the stars are actually suns with their own planetary systems. After Galileo began using a telescope to examine the sky, it became harder to argue that the heavens were perfect, as Aristotelian philosophy required. By 1630, the concept of solid orbs was no longer dominant.1

The following are Copernicus’ words:

It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation… Neither let anyone, so far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind, lest, in case he should adopt for truth, things feigned for another purpose, he should leave this science more foolish than he came. … The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena, and not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood.

Anthony Lauterbach, who dined with the Luther’s (Martin Luther’s family), quotes the conversation pertaining to Copernicus as follows [l8]:

There was mention of a certain astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving.”  [Luther remarked] “So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth” [Jos. 10:12].”

Galileo Galilei was convinced that Aristotle’s physics were wrong, and began a campaign to  bring on Aristotle’s ideas of physics. Aristotle had a model of a geocentric model earth so naturally Galileo adopted the opposing Heliocentric model of Copernicus and supported it with all his might. The Catholic church (Pope Urban VIII) had commissioned him to write a scientific report, but he instead wrote a propagandist book that had a genius (himself) putting forth a sun-centered universe in a discussion with an idiot putting forward the earth centered universe. Realizing from the beginning that his sun-centered universe was against the teachings of the Bible, he wrote to one of his pupils, Dom Benedetto Castelli, “In questions concerning the natural sciences, Holy Writ must occupy the last place. Until this time, scriptures had occupied the first place, but now…no place at all.”

In 1613, Galileo came out in the open in his Letters on Sunspots. He argued that his observations of the heavens by means of the recently invented telescope were consistent with what Copernicus had proposed was the actual relationship and movement of the earth and heavenly bodies. Initially, the Roman Catholic authorities accepted Galileo’s assertions as compatible with the teachings of the Church. Eventually, however, Jesuit university professors (who were ultra-orthodox defenders of Catholic dogma and embraced the geocentric theory) were sufficiently provoked by Galileo’s further writings so that they pressured the pope in 1633 to force Galileo to recant the heliocentric theory on threat of excommunication. He did recant, but was still under house arrest for the remainder of his life. (Source)

Tycho Brahe, a Danish astronomer, took the most accurate measurements ever taken of the position of the sun, moon, stars, and planets. He said that:

  1. The earth is the center of the universe because (1) the Bible says so and (2) my observations agree with it.
  2. The moon and the sun go around the earth because  (1) the Bible says so and (2) my observations agree with it.
  3. My observation show that the stars go rotate around the sun

Greek astronomers and most of the people who listened to them believed, at the time, that celestial objects were perfect circles, moving in perfect circles without change for all time. This view fell apart thanks to the Danish astronomer. In November of 1572, he was walking home from his uncle’s chemistry laboratory and noticed a new star, shining brightly in the constellation Casseopeia.

Tycho, usually called by his first name, led an unusual life in many respects. He was born into the upper crust of Danish nobility. Attending a dance at a professor’s house at the University of Rostack, Germany, he fell into an argument with another aristocrat, Manderup Parsbjerg. They fought, and Tycho lost his nose. For the rest of his life, he wore a metal replacement, usually said to be made from silver. According to legend, he died when good manners forced him to remain at a banquet table, even though he desperately needed to urinate. After several hours of this torture, his bladder burst.

Investigations proved that it was indeed a pee related death, and not one of mercury poisoning, which was rumored to have been the case after mercury was claimed to have been found in the remains of Brahe when his grave was examined on the 300th anniversary of his death. New, more detailed analysis though shows that it was indeed a ruptured bladder that led to the demise of on of the greatest minds of the 16th century.

Keppler, Brahe’s assistant

Kepler was involved in occult science and astrology. He is quoted as saying:

‘The soul of the newly born baby is marked for life by the pattern of the STARS at the moment it comes into the world, unconsciously remembers it, and remains sensitive to the return of configurations of a similar kind.’

Much of Kepler’s enthusiasm for the Copernican (heliocentric) system stemmed from his theological convictions about the connection between the physical and the spiritual; the universe itself was an image of God, with the sun corresponding to the Father. All of this seems to link back to Constantine’s promoting of sun worship (Roman gods), which seeped its way into the Church through symbols and rituals. Perhaps his bias is what led him to fabricate data to fit the Copernican model and bolster acceptance by skeptics:

“The fabricated data appear in calculated positions for the planet Mars, which Kepler used as a case study for all planetary motion. Kepler claimed the calculations gave his elliptical theory an independent check. But in fact they did nothing of the kind”

”He fudged things,” Dr. Donahue said, adding that Kepler was never challenged by a contemporary.

(Source: New York Times)

Isaac Newton

Also noted in the article: “Isaac Newton (1642-1727), who formulated the law of gravitation, relied on unseemly mathematical sleight of hand in his magnum opus to make the predictive power of his work seem greater than it was.” The existing laws of density and buoyancy perfectly explained the physics of falling objects long before Newton bestowed his theory of “gravity” upon the world. It is a fact that objects placed in denser mediums rise up while objects placed in less dense mediums sink down. To fit with the heliocentric model which has no up or down, Newton instead claimed objects are magnetically attracted to large masses and fall towards the center. Not a single experiment in history, however, has shown an object massive enough to, by virtue of its mass alone, cause other smaller masses to be attracted to it as Newton claims “gravity” does with the Earth, Sun, Moon, Stars and Planets.

Newton’s gravity, however, would make a solar system imaginable. Both Copernicus himself, and even Newton, his great exponent, confessed that their system of a revolving earth was only a possibility, and could not be proven by facts. It is only their followers who have decorated it as an ‘exact science’ and law. Any law of science should be measurable and able to be duplicated or tested by the scientific method, such as density and buoyancy.

The magical theory of gravity allows for oceans, buildings and people to remain forever stuck to the underside of a spinning ball while simultaneously causing objects like the Moon (supposedly over 250,000 miles away) and satellites (100 to 25,000 miles away) to remain locked in perpetual circular orbits around the Earth while astronauts are able to experience weightlessnes, or zero gravity, just a couple of hundred miles from the earth’s surface.

Aberration of Light Theory

In 1728, British Astronomer James Bradley concluded, over the course of many surveys, that a slight annual movement observed in the stars, or aberration of light, must be caused by the orbit of the earth around the sun. This was a theory only, but was adopted as proof by many biased scientist. However, this explanation proved inaccurate once the wave nature of light was better understood, and correcting it became a major goal of the 19th century theories of luminiferous aether. Standard astronomical history still holds and teaches that it was James Bradley (1692-1762) who found “the first experimental proof that the earth has a yearly motion”.

In fact, Bradley’s ”aberration of star light” gave the first experimental disproof of the heliocentric hypothesis. To recall to mind the bare facts: in December 1725 James Bradley and Samuel Molyneux began a prolonged observation of the star Gamma Draconis, which passed almost vertically overhead at their location. For their observations they fixed a telescope to a chimney stack of the Molyneux house in the hope of detecting the eagerly sought-after parallax, thus proving at long last the Copernican theory. Simply stated, the matter is this: if indeed the earth moves in its orbit around the sun, then the place from which we observe the stars will be continually changing. Therefore, we shall see a nearby star as moving in a small circle against a background of more distant stars (see Figure 1). What is more: looking at such a nearby star A from point M in March, and point S in September, and knowing the distance SM to be about 3×108 km, we can by means of triangulation obtain the distance to A.

Now Bradley found that Gamma Draconis indeed does describe a small circle with a radius of 20.5 seconds of arc (20”.5). The problem facing him was how to explain this phenomenon. Did it indeed result from the earth’s revolution about the sun, and hence relative to the array of fixed stars? That is, did it show the parallax he had hoped to find or was the motion caused by the sun and stars circling with respect to an earth “at rest?” Bradley was forced to opt for the first alternative, but then had to reject it; for Gamma Draconis did not circle against the backdrop of stars, but all the stars joined in the motion which would imply that they were all at the same distance from earth. In other words, to accept the phenomenon as a parallax would mean re-introducing the discarded medieval concept of a Stellatum, a gigantic shell of stars centered on the sun which revolves about us. Since this was considered to be impossible, another interpretation of the observational facts had to be found. The circlets were decidedly not offering parallaxes, but what, then, did cause them?

After pondering the problem for a time, so the story goes, Bradley invented the interpretation in 1728 during a sailing trip on the Thames. In doing so, he thought he had solidly established the truth of the Copernican-Newtonian synthesis by means of what he called the ”aberration of starlight.”

Many scientists at this time, still familiar with Tycho Brahe‘s model, said that this could also easily be explained by the stars motion around the sun (excluding the earth) because they are actually moving, but the earth is not. As Ruggiero Guiseppe Boscovich (1711-1787) reasoned, Bradley’s 20”.5 angle of aberration depended on the ratio between the speed of light and the orbital velocity of the earth, and t latter we cannot change; but the former we are able to reduce by means of observing the stars through a telescope filled with water. This will slow down the light, and consequently increase the angle of aberration. A water-filled telescope will thus have to be tilted more than an air-filled one. The matter could have been settled by performing this test, but no one would bother to test the theory at this time.

In 1810, Francois Arago, a French scientist performed experiments discovering that when a glass plate placed beneath the telescope sights was moved, the image of the stars he was observing was dragged along with it. The same results were observed with tests of prisms. These results could all be explained with a stationary earth, but not with a moving earth.

Airy’s Failure

In 1871, the British astronomer George Airy finally decided to test the ellipse, a closed curve consisting of points whose distances from each of two fixed points (foci) all add up to the same value, by filling a telescope with water. If the earth was moving around the sun then the ellipse would be 1.5X bigger, thus proving the Copernican model. If it’s the same size then it means it is the stars that are doing the ellipse. The experiment resulted in the same size ellipse indicating that the stars were doing the ellipse and that the earth must be stationary.

Since the earth, as every right-thinking person was supposed to know, goes around the sun, it had to be possible somehow to explain away Airy’s failure and to affirm Bradley’s truth. Those who believed in a heliocentric model came up with an ad hoc hypothesis to explain it. They said that as the earth moves through the ether, or fabric of space, it drags the ether along with it partially, just enough to make the ellipse the same size! By means of Fresnel’s so-called ”dragging coefficient,” the appearances could be saved.

It goes without saying that neither one thing nor the other caused the astronomers, if even for a few moments, to consider a geocentric solution. The desperately stubborn search for the unfindable went on.

James Clark Maxwell, a Scottish scientist in the field of mathematical physics known for his classical theory of electromagnetic radiation, showed that light has electric and magnetic energy that swap from one to another and the rate at which it swaps is constant if the properties of space is constant. Thus, his discovery made it possible to measure how fast the earth is moving through space, as everyone had been led to believe in spite of the evidence to the contrary up to this point.

The Michelson-Morley Experiment

On November 14, 1887, Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley conducted an experiment, considered sciences most famous failure… even more so than “Airy’s failure” that is labeled as such. The Michelson-Morley experiment was an attempt to detect the velocity of the Earth with respect to the hypothetical luminiferous ether that was supposedly being dragged by the earth just enough to make the ellipse the same size. First performed in Germany in 1880–81 by the physicist A.A. Michelson, the test was later refined in 1887 by Michelson and Edward W. Morley in the United States.

Isaac Newton

The procedure depended on a Michelson interferometer, a sensitive optical device that compares the optical path lengths for light moving in two mutually perpendicular directions. It was reasoned that, if the speed of light were constant with respect to the proposed ether through which the Earth was moving, that motion could be detected by comparing the speed of light in the direction of the Earth’s motion and the speed of light at right angles to the Earth’s motion. No difference was found. This null result seriously discredited the ether theories. The experiment was repeated in several countries (both day and night, both high and low places, and at different times throughout the year) and all results showed that the ether was not being dragged along at this perfect speed to contradict Airy’s failed experiment.

Adolf Baker said of the experiment, “…thus, failure to observe different speeds of light at different times of  the year suggested that the earth must be at rest…It was therefore the ‘preferred’ frame for measuring absolute motion in space.

D.C. Giancoli:But this implies that the earth is somehow a preferred object; only with respect to the earth would the speed of light be c as predicted by Maxwell’s equations. This is tantamount to assuming that the earth is the central body of the Universe.

Bernard Jaffe said, “The data were almost unbelievable. There was only one other possible conclusion to draw, that the earth was at rest. This, of course, was preposterous.”

The Theory of Relativity

Thus, yet another ad hoc theory was proposed. An Irish physicist, Fitzgerald, suggested that as a body moves through the ether of space, that the pressure of the ether against it makes it shrink up, thus resulting in the negative results shown in the Michelson-Morley experiment.  In 1892, with the attempt to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment, Hendrik Lorentz proposed his Theory of Relativity that moving bodies contract in the direction of motion (see length contractionGeorge FitzGerald had already arrived at this conclusion in 1889). He noticed some objects seem to contract when traveling at high velocity in certain direction and that clocks seemed to slow down as they went faster. Using this theory of relativity he was able to account for all of the observations that showed that the earth stands still. Lorentz theory, however, was proven wrong by the Kennedy Thorndike Experiment, thus science was still pointing to a stationary earth.

Over 300 years since Copernicus proposed the Sun, not the Earth, was the center of the universe, it was up to Albert Einstein to change Lorentz’s theory so that it would explain the results of the Kennedy-Thorndike Experiment. Instead of having the bodies contracting as they press against the supposed ether, he had space getting shorter. Instead of the clocks slowing down because of the ether’s pressure, it was rather time was actually slowing down. C+V=C=C-V

Einstein presented this theory in 1905, along with three other ground-breaking essays, none of which had a single reference or even mentioned their predecessors who had first proposed each theory. That’s because the essay was plagiarized from Hendrik Lorentz, George FitzGerald, and the Frenchman Poincaré. Yet we have been led to believe that a man who had

  1. with poor grades in history, geography, and languages, he left school with no diploma” at the age of 15. (Encyclopedia Britannica)
  2. failed his simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich.
  3. was unable to get a job teaching after finally graduating from College
  4. been working full time as a third-rate patent clerk reviewing technical documents

had somehow found the time and sudden brainpower to solve the problems of the universe?

George Sagnac, a french scientist, tested Einstein’s theory in 1913 by building a turntable with light reflectors and light sources sending a beam clockwise and another beam counter-clockwise. When the turntable was spun, one light having to chase the mirrors (c+V) in the spinning direction and the other being met by the spin (C-V), according to Einstein’s theory, would result in equal fringe shift. However, Einstein was proven wrong in this theory as C+V was not equal to C or C-V.

In Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis by Roberto A. Monti, the author states in the abstract:

Einstein’s theory of relativity is shown to be a physical theory of limited experimental validity. Twelve different experiments seem to disprove its two postulates.

On the subject of the Sagnac Effect the author maintains:

The effect was tested in 1913 by Sagnac(46), and Sagnac’s experimental results disproved the second postulate of special relativity.

Most of these early physicists knew that Einstein was a fraud. It’s 1913, and according to proven and measurable science, the earth remains still.

Then came the supposed crowning scientific proof for special relativity with the eclipse of 1919. Arthur Eddington’s selective presentation of data from the 1919 Eclipse so that it supported “Einstein’s” general relativity theory is surely one of the biggest scientific hoaxes of the 20th century. His lavish support of Einstein corrupted the course of history. Eddington was less interested in testing a theory than he was in crowning Einstein the king of science.

The press promoted these falsified reports and told the general public that the geocentric theory had been overthrown and that Einstein was a great genius, who was at least the equal of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton. The press reported that Einstein’s unique insight was so sophisticated and enlightened that only twelve men in the world could understand it. The sensational reports created a mass hysteria for Einstein in America, one which culminated in Einstein’s visit to the United States in the spring of 1921. Einstein’s trip came shortly after Einstein had endured a series of public humiliations in the scientific community in Germany in 1920. He was hiding from the German scientists who had informed the public that he was a fraud.

Even Nikola Tesla would chime on on the absurdity of special relativity:

Einstein’s relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king… its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.”  – Nikola Tesla, New York Times (11 July 1935)

Michelson, before he died in 1931, conducted another experiment similar to the Sagnac experiment and his former experiment, on a much larger scale of about 1km in length. The idea was that the beam closest to the equator would travel along a different speed ether drift than the other, thus there should result no fringe shift if in fact there is an ether and if C+V=C=C-V. There was a fringe shift, thus Einstein wrong again, C+V not equal to C not equal to C-V.

In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that the fainter a galaxy appeared, which he assumed were further away, that the redshift appeared to be moving away from these presumably further away galaxies. Hence, he concluded that the universe is expanding and that the further away a galaxy the faster it was receding (Doppler shift or effect). This caused Einstein to recant his static universe theory and called it his biggest blunder. This also meant that, according the redshift, that the earth is in the center from which everything is expanding. Well, that couldn’t be, so they found a way to use Einstein’s funny mathematics to explain away the red shift, but without the earth as the center. But, in these experiments, observations were made of the density of matter in the universe, and it was found that the earth is in the densest part of the universe and as you get further from the earth there is less and less material. So, they decided to apply a dimming factor to make the results  appear more even so that the earth did not appear central to anything again.

Metawalls across the Cosmos were discovered in 1990: Science Frontiers editor wrote an editorial on these metawalls and said, “Wouldn’t it be hilarious if the earth were at the center of these concentric shells …Some measurements of the universe’s rotation also seem to imply geocentrism.” A research program was set up called the Sloan-Sky Survey. The results had the earth in the very center of these metawalls.

Quasars: All quasars lie on concentric shells centered around the earth. V.P. Varshni said that, “The cosmological interpretation of the red shift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result, namely that the earth is the center of the universe.” – Astrophysics & Space Science, 43

Dark Energy: On August 30th, 2009, Blake Temple & Joel Smaller said that, “The only way we can explain Dark Energy is for the earth to be the center of the universe.”

After little if any science to back a heliocentric universe, and scientific experiment after scientific experiment pointing to a geocentric universe (not to mention the Bible, that was believed to have backed the science), why does the scientific community never consider that the earth just might be motionless and central?

A.J. Burgess said,

The story of Christianity tells about a plan of salvation centered upon a particular people and a particular man. As long as someone is thinking in terms of a geocentric universe the story has a certain plausibility. As soon as astronomy changes theories, however, the whole Christian history loses the only setting within which it would make sense. With the solar system no longer the center of anything, imagining that what happens here forms the center of a universal drama becomes simply silly.

J.F. Henry pointed out that,

The possibility that we have a special place in the universe is depressing to the humanist and is to be absolutely avoided.

All of science has based their calculations and theories based on the earth rotating around the sun at 666,000 miles per hour and the sun rotating in the galaxy at millions of miles per hour. Charles Lyle claimed the earth was millions of years old and the Bible was wrong just like it was about its position. Darwin came along adding that it was also wrong about how it was created and how beings were created…just like it was wrong about its age and position. Satan is intent on attacking the foundations of the gospel and Christianity and does not want us to know that we are God’s creations and have a divine purpose here on this earth.


Chronological History of Events Related to Geocentricism

The 1919 Solar Eclipse that Supposedly Confirmed Einstein's Theory of Relativity was a Fraud

The 1919 Solar Eclipse that Supposedly Confirmed Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was a Fraud

There can be no clearer definition of scientific fraud than what went on in the Tropics on May 29, 1919. What is particularly clear is that Arthur Eddington fudged the solar eclipse data to make the results conform to "Einstein's" work on general relativity. Poor (1930), Brown (1967), Clark (1984) and McCausland (2001) all address the issues surrounding this eclipse. Prior to 1919, general relativity was ...
Read More
Galileo Convicted of Heresy for Teaching the Heliocentric System of the Earth Revolving Around the Sun

Galileo Convicted of Heresy for Teaching the Heliocentric System of the Earth Revolving Around the Sun

Despite the considerable evidence that the Bible provided the necessary intellectual basis for science, atheists often claim that, historically, science and religion have been at war. For centuries, they say, the church opposed the advancement of science and human progress in general. When asked for evidence in support of this view, they usually cite the ‘Galileo affair’. Few, however, know what really happened, and many historians ...
Read More