Author Topic: THE EARTHMOVERS (Read 119385 times)

cassini · « **Reply #550 on:** December 13, 2014, 02:06:38 PM »

Later, in 2006, Smoot also won a Nobel Prize in physics for his CMB work. Proving the Big Bang has to be worth another million dollars:

‘This work helped further the Big Bang theory of the universe using the (COBE) satellite. According to the Nobel Prize committee, “the COBE project can also be regarded as the starting point for cosmology as a precision science.”’--- Wikipedia.

‘Both Hawking and Smoot made statements which together just about covered the two ends of the emotional spectrum. Smoot is a religious man and has accepted the big bang as a creation event. Hawking sees things differently. To him, the variations in the CMB seen by the COBE are simply evidence for the presence of quantum fluctuations in an inflationary Universe consistent with his No Boundary Proposal. Any wonder he’s smiling.’ ---J.P. McEvoy and O. Zarate: op. cit., p.172-3.

McEvoy and Zarate end their tale by showing us a picture of Hawking and Smoot with the following caption attached: Smoot saying ‘If you’re religious, it’s like seeing God,’ and Hawking saying: ‘It’s the greatest discovery of the century – if not of all time.’

‘The Universe is incredibly regular. The variation of the cosmos’ temperature across the entire sky is tiny: a few millionths of a degree, no matter which direction you look. Yet the same light from the very early cosmos that reveals the Universe’s evenness also tells astronomers a great deal about the conditions that gave rise to irregularities like stars, galaxies, and (incidentally) us.’ --- Arstecnica website.

Now you see why the CMB has to be the greatest of all discoveries for them, because it shows the Big Bang ‘gave rise’ to man. Now the detectors may well have found radiation, but that is a long way from proving it came from a metaphysical big bang as the following nuclear physicist argues. The CMB however, does not prove the Big Bang theory. Hubble found red-shifts in the light of distant galaxies. From this arose the Big Bang theory. As we said before, many different theories for the possible cause of these red-shifts have been put forward, some of which Robert Gentry records in his book Creation’s Tiny Mystery. Copernicus also addressed the possibility of an expanding universe due to a rotating geocentric motion of the universe. To say the CMB proves one of them, the Big Bang theory, is scientific nonsense, no matter who or how many says it does.

‘In 1978 Penzias and Wilson received the Nobel Prize in physics for their discovery of the CMR in 1965. Since then it has been widely claimed that this pervasive radiation field is a relic of the time eons ago when radiation quanta decoupled from matter in the primeval fireball. ( J. Silk: The Big Bang, W.H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco, 1979.) …But if the radiation from this primeval fireball is assumed not to interact with matter after the time of decoupling, then how did this initially hot radiation [3000ºK] lose its energy, or temperature to later become the 3ºK CMR? The standard explanation is that the general relativistic analysis of the space-time expansion of the Big Bang predicts that the decoupling radiation quanta will lose energy just as a result of the expansion of the universe. There is however, nothing in modern experimental physics which suggests that radiation quanta change energy by moving through free space.’ ---R. Gentry: Creation’s Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates, 2004, pp. 284-5.

‘On the other hand, the question of whether the Big Bang model is a correct description of the origin and evolutionary development of the universe is entirely hinged on the ultimate validity of general relativity’s fundamental postulate, which in principle denies that privileged reference frame exists. Very germane to this discussion is the recent admission of an eminent physicist [V.F. Weisskopf (1908-2002) American Science, 71, no.5:473, 1983.] to the effect that the CMR presents undeniable experimental evidence for the existence of an absolute reference frame in the universe, a result which is consistent with Marinov’s evidence for absolute space-time [S. Marinov: Eppur Si Mouve, East Wall Pub., Graz, Austria, 1981.] and also with at least one of the earlier gravitational theories reviewed by North.’ [J.D. North: The Measure of the Universe, Clarendon Press, 1965]- ---R. Gentry: Creation’s Tiny Mystery; http://www.halos.com/book/ctm-app-17-i.htm

Study of the CMB continued with the United States government’s agency the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). In June, 2001 a satellite WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) was launched from Cape Canaveral aboard a Delta rocket. Then there was the European Space Agency’s PlANCK mission launched in 2009 to map the cosmic microwave background in greater detail. By 2013 the cosmologists reckoned the temperature variations of the cosmos were now known and from these had conjured up a history of the universe since the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. Throughout the world, in scientific institutions and universities, massive crowds turned out to hear of and see the ‘proofs’ the CMB had established for their Big Bang theory. One of these, they claim, was the first evolution of the stars from particles 200,000,000 years old. Hundreds of websites were created to show the world what their science had discovered.

‘Irrespective of how it originated, the most important fact about the CMR is that it represents unequivocal evidence of an absolute reference frame in the universe… I suggest [this] evidence which has received worldwide acclaim as confirmation of the Big Bang is really its death knell for, ironically, it is now clear that the existence of the CMR essentially falsifies the fundamental postulates of the theory of relativity [that there is no reference frame in the universe]…In simple terms, the theory of relativity has been falsified because a major prediction of the theory is now known to be contradicted by [another] unambiguous experimental result.’ ---- R. V. Gentry: op. cit., pp.284-292.

cassini · « **Reply #551 on:** December 13, 2014, 02:24:39 PM »

During this time of discovery two scholars, Robert Sungenis and Rock deLano also took an interest in the CMB’s findings. To them, one of these mysteries was no mystery at all. It seems the data shows the earth lies at the centre of the universe, confirming their belief that God created a geocentric world for all to see and witness so that mankind would know He exists and is Creator of all.

‘All in all, there are three basic [CMB] alignments of the Earth with the universe:
(1) The cosmic microwave radiation’s dipole is aligned with the Earth’s equator.
(2) The cosmic microwave radiation’s quadrupole and octupole are aligned with the Earth‐Sun ecliptic.
(3) The distant quasars and radio galaxies are aligned with the Earth’s equator and the North Celestial Pole. Essentially, these three alignments provide the X, Y and Z coordinates to place Earth in the very center of the known universe.’ ----Robert Sungenis: website, Debunking David Palm, 2014

Such were the accolades from the scientific community for the CMR/CMB, with its two Nobel prizes, that Sungenis and deLano felt confident in the science involved. Accordingly they decided to make a movie out of it called THE PRINCIPLE. This ‘principle’ is that all cosmology and its theories are based on Copernicus’s heliocentric theory. The theories include the Nebular theory (how their solar-system was formed) to the Big Bang theory. Every single piece of information about the universe is interpreted according to the Copernican (heliocentric) principle. In fact had we made the movie we would have called it DEBUNKING THE PRINCIPLE, for that is exactly what it does.
Sungenis and deLano contracted a few prominent physicists including Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, Julian Barbour, and mathematician George Ellisto to comment on the CMB’s findings in this docuмentary, including the fact that it shows the earth to be the centre of the CMB’s universe. In their movie, the trailer of which can be found on google, they acknowledged that the evidence does indeed point to a geocentric universe. Shortly however, when news came out that Robert and Rick were biblical creationists and had made the movie to show science demonstrating a geocentric cosmos, the above tried to wriggle out of their comments saying they were ‘tricked’ into making them.
This is of course in keeping with the Earthmovers ever since 1870 when Airy showed evidence that it was the stars that move causing stellar aberration. This happened again when Albert Michelson in 1897 found evidence the earth does not orbit in space. He too followed the Copernican principle and totally disregarded any geocentric findings in his tests. This in turn, as we saw, led to Einstein’s theories of relativity, the basis of the Copernican principle since 1905. Edwin Hubble, when he found evidence that all galaxies seem to be moving away from earth in 1929, also refused to consider his findings in a geocentric reference frame because as he said: ‘Such a position would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe… a favoured [geocentric] location must be avoided at all costs…such a favoured position is intolerable.’ [Edwin Hubble: The Observational Approach to Cosmology, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1937, pp. 50, 51, and 58.]
The Copernican Ideology, we see, has censored empirical science for many years now and they do not intend to allow the CMB to change their shameful tactics. THE PRINCIPLE movie and its lesson must not be allowed to succeed, mankind must never be allowed even consider a geocentric creation any more, and any that do try to find the truth will continue to be labelled a ‘lunatic,’ as Fr Hull called them in 1913. Well, we will see.

cassini · « **Reply #552 on:** December 25, 2014, 12:34:13 PM »

Epilogue

“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truths if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.” --- L. Tolstoy, (As quoted by physicist Joseph Ford in Chaotic Dynamics and Fractals (1985).)

Very true, a lesson Tolstoy himself could have learned from. One of these truths is that mankind has never proven the earth is spinning or moving around the sun. As far as science is concerned, both geocentrism and heliocentrism must be held as possible theories for the order of the universe. This fact we hope we have shown in this synthesis. Nevertheless, the idea that the earth spins and orbits the sun has been so ingrained into the human psyche that even when told how, why, and when they cheated its way into the ‘truths of science’ it doesn’t seem to matter, it is a truth as far as their minds are concerned.
If this problem were only one for science then it wouldn’t matter greatly. But this principle goes much, much further, for heliocentrism, since 1741 was also presented as ‘a truth of faith’ in spite of it having been defined and condemned as formal heresy in 1616. Thus, as far as this synthesis is concerned, this places the doctrinal U-turn in the Copernican/Galileo revolution as the most serious aspect of the affair, one that put the eternal salvation of souls at risk. Without a doubt it was the first stepping stone to modernism within the Catholic Church, a modernism that Pope Pius X would define in his 1907 encyclical Pascendi as ‘the synthesis of all heresies.’ So devious was/is this heresy that we doubt, without divine help, the Church can be cleansed of it. In the first place the fact that heliocentrism may not even be true would be unacceptable to most Catholics who received any sort of education. Second, the fact that modernism is rampant in the Church from parish to Rome itself means they don’t care about silly things like heresy. Updating the Bible and Church teaching is par for the course for them. To those who consider themselves ‘traditionalists’ the idea that popes were deceived into allowing heresy loose into the Church from 1741 is too much to cope with. Most would seek refuge in the litany of reasons invented to allow the U-turn and leave the blame for the controversy on the heads of those popes and theologians of 1616 and 1633.

‘Nevertheless, for those who still have a love for truth and knowledge let us give the facts, the truth, as others tried before and continue to try, and demonstrate their truth, and the reader can take it or leave it.’ --- Introduction to The Earthmovers.

Cantarella · « **Reply #553 on:** December 25, 2014, 02:58:02 PM »

These are fascinating reads, Casini. Thanks for posting.

glaston · « **Reply #554 on:** December 26, 2014, 06:30:10 AM »

One for you boffins to suss the truth in this!

Einstein - faux-jew plagiarist extraordinaire?

Quote

Other esoteric concepts were covered in some depth by the kabbalists. Many kabbalists were also alchemists and scientists. As a result, some kabalistic texts about the nature of emanations and the behavior of light (as a divine power) have a remarkable power even to this day.

For instance, one Latin kabalistic text from the Middle Ages discusses the properties of spirit and body in some detail. If you substitute "spirit" for "energy" and "matter" for "body", the text looks suspiciously like a sneak preview of Einstein's theory of relativity.