Restricted Area

The Antikythera mechanism: A Geocentric masterpiece

2011-03-31T15:41:00.009+02:00

What is the basis of modern science and technology? According to science establishment historians heliocentrism is the cause. An online encyclopedia puts it this way: "the Scientific Revolution can be roughly dated as having begun in 1543, the year in which Nicolaus Copernicus published his De revolutionibus orbium coelestium...". But it turns out that the scientific revolution that took place in Europe in the slipstream of the Renaissance not only was not caused by heliocentrism but in fact the opposite: the knowledge of humans of the universe's geocentricity and the empirical application of that conclusion caused the scientific revolution! The origins of much modern technology can be traced back to the elaborate mechanical devices, or automata, thatburgeoned in post-medieval Europe. Those toys are an outgrowth of the medieval craft of clock making. And that craft, in turn, was an offshoot of the craft of applying complex mechanical technology for the purpose of astronomy related needs. This ancient tradition had survived and was transmitted via the Arab world into Western Europe just before and during the Renaissance. This was as these devices were unambiguously geocentric his is something that even the researchers of this particular mechanism (who mostly, at-least publicly, are believers of a heliocentric model of the universe) assert, albeit grudgingly. They obviously don't want everyone to know that devices like this ancient piece of clockwork expose the ancient roots of modern technology. Hmmm I wonder why?

Greek sponge divers discovered the wreck of a Roman cargo ship off the island of Antikythera in 1901. Various items like statues and luxury goods, including jewelry, pottery, fine furniture, wine and bronzes dating back to the first century BC were lying on there. But the most important finds proved to be a few green corroded lumps, the last remnants of an elaborate mechanical device. which so-far is the oldest known complex scientific calculator/analog 'computer' on earth. The Antikythera mechanism, as it is since become known, was an orrery setup in a wooden box, with dials on the outside and a complex assembly of bronze gear wheels within. X-ray photographs of the fragments (image on the left), in which around 30 separate gears can be distinguished, led the science historian Derek de Solla Price of Yale University, to conclude that the device was an astronomical computer capable of predicting the positions of the sun and moon in the zodiac on any given date. A recent investigation suggests that the mechanism was even more sophisticated than de Solla Price had thought.

This new analysis was reportedly done on X-rays of the mechanism using a technique called linear tomography. This involves moving an X-ray source, the film and the object being investigated relative to one another, so that only features in a particular plane come into focus. Analysis of the resulting images was undertaken by Michael Wright, the curator of mechanical engineering at the Science Museum in London, England, in conjunction with Allan Bromley, a computer scientist at Sydney University, Australia. They found the exact position of each gear, and suggested that Mr. Price was wrong in some accounts: he seems to have wrongly speculated on the number of teeth on particular gears (since a few of the pieces were missing) in order to arrive atparticular astronomical ratios. Mr. Price also postulated an elaborate reversal mechanism to get some gears to turn in the right direction.What happened then was that Mr. Wright noticed a boss fixed at the center of the mechanism's main wheel. To him this was suggestive of a fixed central gear around which other moving gears could rotate. This absolves the need for a reversal mechanism (as suggested by Mr. Price) and leads to the idea that the device was specifically designed to model a particular form of epicyclical motion.

The Greeks wanted to position the objects in the sky in its right place within the celestial sphere. In other words, they recognized the universe as being geocentric and accounted for celestial bodies' motions using elaborate gears around a point that itself moves in a circle around the earth. Mr. Wright found evidence that the Antikythera mechanism would have been able to reproduce the motions of the sun and moon accurately, as well as the movements of the planets Mercury and Venus. Professor Michael Edmunds of Cardiff University who led a study of the mechanism is reported to have said: "This device is just extraordinary, the only thing of its kind. The design is beautiful, the astronomy is exactly right. The way the mechanics aredesigned just makes your jaw drop. Whoever has done this has done it extremely carefully (...) in terms of historic and scarcity value, I have to regard this mechanism as being more valuable than the Mona Lisa". The value of this mechanism lies in the fact that astronomy was essential for navigation. And it is improvements in navigation that resulted in something that directly and fundamentally caused the scientific revolution:the age of discovery or the age of exploration. That period from the early 15th century and continuing into the early 17th century, during which Europeans explored the world by ocean, searching for trading partners and various goods, is responsible for the rapid advancement of technological acumen of the wider society. Therefore it is not the theoretical heliocentric arguments of Copernicus or Galileo that caused this - they were the products of the age, not the cause of it.

This demonstrates how the empirical application of geocentricity, that is, the advance of navigation during the Renaissance period, triggered the age of exploration, that in turn resulted in the advancement of the more wider field of science. Thank God that the explorers and discoverers did not indulge in heliocentric humbuggery, because had they did that, they would have not discovered continents and trading routes, but would have been lost and clueless for every single distance, on every single trip!

The Rotating Earth: theory, fact or fiction?

2008-05-21T18:39:00.534+02:00

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive! --Sir Walter Scott

Throughout ancient times it was obvious that the moon went around the earth. This is still accepted today. But in the past it was also just as accepted that the sun went around the earth. This was not because they lacked fantasy and forgot to imagine non-existent movements of themselves and their surroundings. It turned out, many of them did make their homework and did examine all the evidence before them. Concluding that the earth was a spherical object (not flat!), and that this sphere was neither in rotation around itself nor wandering through space between and around other bodies.

Contrary to today's assumptions, this geostatic and geocentric nature of the earth was repeatedly tested and verified as being factual. This has been done for long time (going back thousands of years) by knowledgeable, civilized, free people of all stripes; They were not crackpots but astronomers, natural philosophers (a.k.a. scientists), explorers, teachers, traders, seamen, navigators and various other men of science and math and other fields of education. indeed they were highly educated, not just simply schooled like the current institutionalized, homogenized, wage enslaved experts of theoretical-science academia, who wouldn't dare bite the hand that feeds them.

Then, all of a sudden, around 400 plus years ago during the age of Renaissance, a band of court astrologers started pushing this idea that the earth could be orbiting the sun, and that the sun was standing still at the center of the celestial realm (hence the claim of the system being a solar system). Nevertheless this (relatively) new claim was not accompanied by any new proof. It was simply invoked and declarations were made that the fixed nature of earth needed to be questioned and subsequently discarded. Then, as new questions arose as a result of this new unsubstantiated claim, various kinds of movements by earth were suddenly invoked to have existence and, subsequently abstract calculations were made of the alleged speed and other attributes of these imaginary movements... presenting the results as if they have measured actual motions. The major and in fact the only reason that was brought up in order to justify advancing this whole idea was that the then somewhat mainstream Ptolemaic model of the universe was deemed outdated and inconvenient in sufficiently predicting the movements of the planets as they appear in the sky (especially one particular kind of movement: the retrograde motion of the planets in the sky).

But all along it was (and still is) a fact that a stationary earth, situated at the center of the universe also accounts for those retrograde motions, as shown by astronomer Tycho Brahe and others. And, although Ptolemy's epicyclical system was one of the more established ones, it did not have exclusive monopoly. There were many ideas and many models in circulation - like those of Pythagoras, Philolaus, Jean Buridan, Martianus Capella, Nicholas of Cusa and René Descartes to name a few. After all, even Copernicus' own system was by his own admission (read the unrevised original, i.e. first edition of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium) nothing more than a synoptic rehash of the already existing and diverse (part geocentric, part heliocentric, fire centric, animal centric...) ideas that the German astronomer-priest knew about, specifically ideas of men like Hicetas, Ecphantus, Heraclides and Aristarchus. So then, all those years - and right up to now - nobody has ever succeeded in showing or even detecting any movement of the earth in space. However this complete lack of scientific evidence is not admitted. Instead a smokescreen of hearsays, popular opinions, organizational rulings, majority votes, superficial analogies, "expert" testimonies, personal convictions and such other means of persuasion (none of which qualify as scientific proof) are proposed and presented in order to support the heliocentric theory that the sun is at the center of the universe.

Heliocentricity is not a logically plausible (let alone irrefutable) theory that is based on scientific data but it's actually, purely based on a series of assumptions that were built-up over the last 200 years. For example many (but not all) of the assertions regarding astronomical distances between celestial bodies are invented and put into calculations on the apriori assumption that the earth must be revolving around the sun. But then at the same time, these assumed distances have another function whereby they are deployed as some sort of petitio principii device to indicate that the sun must be at the center because of that distance! Go figure.

Here is one example of how it's done: we are told that sun is too big to revolve around the earth. But wait a minute, isn't the sun's size determined in the first place by assuming how big it must have to be in order to allow a heliocentric premise? Yes it is! Go figure that. Other needed assumptions include:

The bendover earth assumption (the alleged 'tilt' of the earth's axis, a desperately needed heliocentric variable that has no basis in the physical world where the sun simply spirals from the Tropic of Cancer to the Tropic of Capricorn annually. Both of these tropic latitude lines are not tilted - they are at a 0° angle (= parallel) to the equator. The word "tropic" itself comes from the Greek term tropos, meaning turn, referring to the fact that the sun "turns back" at these lines that aren't tilted in any way,
The earth supposedly tittering around the sun at various speed levels (it orbits at a faster speed at one time, and then it goes relatively slower at another - then back faster again) but somehow, all this alleged speed-change remains unnoticeable),
The moon also being dragged along exactly at those same speed levels (100% complete synchronization with the wobbly earth despite being hundreds of thousands of miles away from it(!) Now how about that?,
Even atmospheric gas (the air) being attached to the earth's surface (again completely synchronized but somehow (simultaneously) free-flowing enough to blow in every direction). These are just samples of the never shown, never detected, never scientifically observed absurdities that are required to save the appearances of the heliocentric model.

Facts are facts

Heliocentrists have been known to point to certain geophysical and astronomical features as arguments which they claim supports their sun-centered view. For example they claim that the Cape Canaveral area in Florida is chosen as a site for NASA's rocket launch center because it is one of the more southern points on the U.S. mainland and therefore closest to the equator. The same argument comes up regarding the reason why Europe's rocket launch center is located in French Guyana (in South America). There is supposed to be an advantage to being close to the equator when the goal is to get a vehicle into orbit: the "rotating" earth supposedly creates a centrifugal force that supposedly "lifts" the missiles. Well, the truth is that there is no real advantage: China's Jiuquan space center is found all the way up in the far north of the country. Why did the Chinese choose this site, when they have vast territory much further south which is closer to the equator? In fact, portions of southern China are closer to the equator than to their northern Chinese space station, from where they toss their taikonauts into orbit. The Russians are also reported to be developing a new space launch facility, which will be located in a location much more further away from the equator than their current Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. There's applied science providing practical proof that, contrary to to helio-story-tellers assumption, a rocket launched tangentially from the Earth's equator doesn't really provide any extra advantageous escape-velocity!

Getting closer to the supposed existence of an "equatorial centrifugal force" on the surface of the "rotating" earth (and other bogus heliocentric claims) is like getting closer and closer to an apparent pool of water in the desert: it dissolves and disappears right before your eyes in a spectacular fashion! Another bogus argument that some solar system advocates bring up from time to time is inertia and momentum. What is it that the moving-earth theorists believe is the substance (or the vector field) that supposedly exerts a huge gravitational force on air molecules which prevents the atmosphere around the earth from trailing behind the allegedly speeding earth (as is the case for comets)? Their answer?: Nothing. Instead, heliocentrists usually propose a fraudulent analogy of how the earth's motion is comparable with some person walking inside a moving train. They claim that since the walking individual inside the train feels more or less the same as he or she feels when walking on the ground, that somehow is supposed to reassure us that the earth could also be moving without we feeling it.

The problem with this analogy is of course the fact that once the person inside the train opens a window and faces the elements, he or she will feel it soon enough what the real speed is that the train is traveling at! Therefore the only correct analogy for someone walking on the ground of earth is someone walking in an open train or better yet - on the roof of a moving train. What will happens then? Well, the person will encounter a force that's proportional and in opposite direction to the moving train.

But why? Isn't the surrounding air supposed to be following the train, just as we are told the atmosphere is allegedly doing so by keeping-up with the supposedly faster-than-bullet rotating earth? Looks like heliocentrists have decided to suspend the laws of physics (aerodynamics) just for this case of a badly needed moving earth theory! But still somehow, this indispensable law of motion is supposed to apply in all other cases of moving things in the universe?! This contradiction is quietly adopted in order to hide the fact that there always is a force that is causing an air drag or friction whenever something moves in the presence of air around it. But a friction with the supposedly moving earth's surface isn't there because, unlike the train, the earth doesn't move!

Getting to the bottom of it

The star whose location is closest to the point vertically above north pole (= celestial pole) is Polaris, a.k.a. the North Star, around which all the other stars appear to rotate (as visible during the night). Now, why is it that only one single star is a pole star throughout the whole year? All kinds of other stars should have taken turn to become pole stars if the earth was slinging around the sun. But since that is not the case and Polaris remains the most northerly of the stars all year round, as seen on photographs of star-trails (see pics. below), it can only mean that the earth is not orbiting the sun. Moreover, a moving and orbiting earth would have caused the paths of stars to appear as (spiral) lines instead of fully circular tracks that we observe night after night, and consequently the shapes of the constellations would have changed considerably over the course of a single year. So what we're looking at is what is real - WYSIWYG: stars orbiting the Earth once a sidereal day, i.e. the time it takes for a celestial object to rotate 360°. For the stars around the Earth this is: 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.091 seconds.

Truth has a way of being indestructible. It may or may not be popular at any given time, it may even be barely noticeable, but it is always there. And it turns out that the truth actually gets in the way of "science"! Modern theoretical (non-applied a.k.a 'pure') physics is not really science-driven but agenda-driven. It is populated with heavily politicized academia. It has become nothing much more than a sham propaganda-exercise of empty eloquence with false authority. The inventor of the electric world we live in, Nikola Tesla was spot-on when he remarked that modern non-applied science has become nothing more than manipulative indulgence in fancy "thought experiments" and abstract, fuzzy math which have no relation to reality. Instead of the theories being made to fit reality, what we have is the opposite: reality being adjusted or in fact completely overthrown, in order to fit agenda-driven theories and models.

A case in point is the time when an astronomer called James Bradley (1693-1762) used his colleague/boss Samuel Molyneux's telescope and had proposed that during one year a star that was right over where he was based in London (called Gamma Draconis) traced out a small ellipse. This was used to support the heliocentric argument that the earth had an elliptical orbit around the sun. The physicist, astronomer and mathematician Ruggero Giuseppe Boscovich (1711-1781) wanted to find out if Bradley's hypothesis was correct and proposed that a telescope filled with water (where light will travel slower in the water) and directed at the star should result in the observed ellipses becoming larger at the same rate of times if the Earth was moving. (consequently if it would make no difference then the earth would be stationary). This scientific experiment wasn't carried out though. Another scientist, François Dominique Arago (1786-1853) put a sheet of glass under his telescope and observed that when he moved the glass, the starlight image that he was looking through refracted and moved along with it. Arago expected that there would be a range of different angles of refraction since the earth is supposedly on the move, i.e. there should be a variety of different movements because of the positions and velocities of the earth at different times of the day and year.

The result however contradicted the expectation: there were no variations at different times of the year. Then sometime later one George Biddle Airy (1801-1892) decided to try out Boscovich's idea of a water filled telescope in order to test Bradleys heliocentric aberration theory a about a century after it was first proposed. He discovered that there was no change in the aberration through the refracting water in a supposedly "moving" earth. Airy didn't observe a larger eclipse and subsequently the experiment was declared a "failure". So that's why it is now commonly called Airy's Failure. Funny that - it was of course a failure in terms of failing to prove heliocentrism. So what did it show then? It showed that only one side was moving and since that was the star side, it means the earth was stationary all along! In 1887, was one of the most important experiments in the history of physics and was performed by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University. This interferometer experiment is usually referred to as the Michelson–Morley experiment.

Since the Earth is in motion, it was expected that the flow of aether across the Earth should produce a detectable aether drift, which the specially built interferometer would measure. Although it would be possible for the earth's motion to match that of the ether at one moment in time, it was not possible for the earth to remain at rest with respect to the aether at all times, because of the variation in both the direction and the speed of the earth 's motion. The so-called null result of the experiment could not be reconciled with the assumption that the earth was moving. Similar other experiments were subsequently carried out (eg. the Trouton–Noble experiment). After 17 years of crisis (the only and dreaded alternative being admitting that the earth is at rest) an obscure office clerk from Basel, Switzerland offered a third way "final solution" to the sun-warped Victorian world at the dawn of a new century: the end of physical reality in physics!

But contrary to many superficial assumptions the geostatic and geocentric view never died out. For example, right up until after World War I (1920) there were organizations out there which openly refused to accept the Copernican/Galilean perspective. The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod was one of those to whom the sun-centered-universe idea didn't held sway. In other words it took a civilization-devastating world war in order to finally push Geocentric cosmology out of mainstream view in the developed world. But that was only a prelude to the resurgence of it during the postwar period by many distinguished professionals: Walter van de Kamp (The Heart of the Matter), Gerardus D. Bouw (With Every Wind of Doctrine & De Labore Solis ), Marshall and Sandra Hall, Malcolm Bowden, James Hanson (A New Interest in Geocentricity), Paul Ellwanger, Richard G. Elmendorf (Heliocentric Humbug! A critical investigation of the Foucault Pendulum), Edward F. Hills (Space Age Science), Robert Bennett, Robert Sungenis... and so on. The following is a description on the recent history of the systems of the cosmos by a woman author, Paula Haigh:

"To begin with, there are presently at least five good sources for obtaining the truth on this important matter of geocentricity. The first of these is included in the extensive scientific work of the French Catholic scholar, Fernand Crombette (d.1970). His works have not yet been translated but some of them have been expounded in English, and all may be obtained from the Cercle Scientifique et Historique [CESHE]. 'The Bible does not make mistakes' was the watchword of this gifted Catholic scientist. Secondly, there is the first-rate paper by Solange Hertz entitled Recanting Mrs. Hertz's work always possesses a spiritual dimension not to be found anywhere else. It is her unique gift. Thirdly, there is the work of the Dutch [-Canadian] Protestant scholar, Walter van der Kamp (d 1998), founder of the Tychonian Society (Canada) and its quarterly journal, The Biblical Astronomer, formerly known as The Bulletin of the Tychonian Society. Mr. Van der Kamp has published a book entitled De Labore Solis: Airy's Failure Reconsidered [1988]... Fourthly, a disciple of Mr. Van Der Kamp, Dr. Gerardus Bouw, professional astronomer, computer scientist and current editor of The Biblical Astronomer, has authored a book entitled With Every Wind of Doctrine: Biblical, Historical, and Scientific Perspectives of Geocentricity.

One must beware, however, of Dr. Bouw's very anti-Catholic prejudices, which sometimes cause him to distort history. Lastly, there has recently appeared The Earth is Not Moving by Marshall Hall. His is a quintessentially popular treatment of this difficult subject, and he must be given much credit for bringing the arena of modern mathematical physics down to the level of us scientifically illiterate mortals. Whatever may be the shortcomings of Hall's book, it is impossible not to enjoy his literary panache. Needless to say, none of these works is known beyond a very limited circle of interested people because, contrary to the generally-held media-imposed assessment of things, there is very little real science these days.

Instead, we labor beneath a scientific imperialism which, having usurped the place of theology and of metaphysics in the true hierarchy of sciences, puts upon unwitting school children and witless TV addicts, its own preferred heliocentric-evolutionary ideology into which it bends every empirical fact. This monstrous establishment of academic sophistry lords it over every aspect of intellectual life today and has succeeded in convincing almost everyone that this science falsely so called is the sole possessor and distributor of all truth and rationality. But the truth is irrepressible and will break forth from under the dead weight of error willy-nilly, sometimes here, sometimes there, as in a footnote in Bernard Cohen's The Birth of a New Physics. Artfully hidden among some details of Galileo's life, we find this gem of an admission: 'There is no planetary observation by which we on earth can prove that the earth is moving in an orbit around the sun.' Sir Fred Hoyle is quoted by Walter van der Kamp in his book as admitting that the geocentric model of the universe is no worse and no better than the heliocentric one. The works listed above cite many other similar admissions of like nature by scientists of our time."

Dr. Robert Sungenis highlights the sophistry that is required in order to maintain the current absurd belief in Heliocentrism:

"The 'quasars' are what led people like [Stephen] Hawking to notice that the Earth was in the center of the universe. [James Clerk] Maxwell said there was absolute space, the basis of Geocentrism, and his equations prove it. Einstein said no. You argue with them. As for Einstein, if you want to believe that lengths shrink when an object moves, time changes in the process, and its mass increases, just so you can explain the anomalies of Michelson's experiment, that's your privilege, but I'd just assume to answer it by saying that mass, time and length stay the same and the Earth isn't moving, and I'm just as "scientific" as you for saying so."

The following excerpt is by Jewish columnist Amnon Goldberg:

"Bertrand Russell admitted that 'whether the earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west, as his predecessors held, the observed phenomena will be the same; a metaphysical assumption has to be made'. Yet today everybody 'just knows' that the Earth goes around the sun (heliocentrism). We cannot feel our motion through space, nor has any experiment ever proved that the Earth is actually in motion', admit Einstein's leading disciples. Invoked 'proofs' such as the phenomenon of the earth's oblateness (slight flattening at the poles), the Doppler Effect (the apparent change in frequency of light as it moves towards or away from the observer), the Sagnac Effect, stellar aberration and [stellar] parallax, nutation, Herschel's star streaming, the Coriolis forces (the cause of water tending to drain clockwise in the northern hemisphere, anticlockwise in the southern), and Fouccault's Pendulum (which can be seen in the entrance of the Science Museum, S. Kensington), are more easily and comprehensively explained by the entire universe rotating about the Earth every 24 hours. No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth. Yet they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the Earth of exactly ZERO mph (...).

Hundreds of experiments have failed to detect even a smidgen of the purported 67,000 mph translational and 1000 mph rotational velocity of the Earth. Not only can it not be disproved that "the Earth stands forever" (Ecc. 1:4) and has no velocity; it cannot be disproved that the Earth is the center of the universe. And the toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre's induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jaseja's lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley interferometry, Lord Rayleigh's polarimetry, Troughton-Noble torque, and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever."
Here is an excerpt from Recanting Galileo by Catholic writer Solange Hertz:

"Speaking of the limitations of the experimental method in arriving at certainty, Pierre Duhem, the eminent French physicist, wrote back in 1908:

"Suppose the hypothesis of Copernicus were able to explain all known appearances. What can be concluded is that they may be true, not that they are necessarily tru
e, for in order to legitimate this last conclusion, it would have to be proved that no other system of hypotheses could possibly be imagined which could explain the appearances just as well."

Long ago Alexander von Humboldt admitted:

"I have already known for a long time that we have no proof for the system of Copernicus. . . but I do not dare to be the first one to attack it."

In other words, the notion that the earth revolves around the sun having become dogma, its denial spells automatic excommunication from the scientific establishment. As for the unthinking masses, a lie need only be systematized in textbooks to pass for truth. When confronted with demands for substantiation of their claims, heliocentricity’s adepts are not above taking refuge in ad hominem arguments, relegating the geocentrist to the fundamentalist snake-handling contingent, the lunatic fringe or gratuitous membership in the Flat Earth Society. The fact remains that the well-known Michelson-Morley experiment, mounted in 1887 to prove the theory, backfired and actually seemed to support geocentricity, or at least an earthly inertia which cannot be overcome.

No significant progress has been made in that direction since. Heliocentricity not only remains unproven, but the Newtonian physics which were its main support are being openly questioned, if not discredited, ever since Maurice Allais and others have shown experimentally that Newton’s theory of gravity can no longer account for proven facts. Creationist scientists worldwide like those organized by CESHE 1 in Belgium and France, are making serious headway against the old myths, which even atheists are beginning to abandon."

Here are some details on that from The Heliocentric Hoax by James V. Forsee:

"One wishing to explore man’s efforts to prove God wrong should investigate the following: the supposed revolution of the earth around the sun can be studied by Bradley' experiment, the parallax of stars, the annual loop of Pluto, the intensification of meteors after midnight, annual Doppler shifts of stars, and so on. The supposed rotation (spinning) can be studied by reviewing the earth’s oblateness, the wind patterns, the force of projectiles and spacecraft, force of air falling bodies, the direct observation from the moon, the Coriolis effect, and so on.

The Foucault pendulum has been proven to be a fabrication, which proves nothing. Is the earth actually moving or are the heavenly bodies doing the moving? Or to use the nebulous phrase of science: 'Is there some unexplained phenomenon to consider?' Study them all. Cold reason should cause you to acknowledge that no conclusive proofs exist to prove Galileo’s theory. Even our most powerful instruments conclusively prove movement only - but movement of what? Perhaps the most notable experiments are "Airy’s failure" and the Michelson-Morley experiment. These two are a ‘must’ for any serious study of this intriguing subject. The Astronomer Royal of England, George Biddel Airy (1801-1892), in 1871 performed a star-gazing experiment which came to be known as "Airy’s failure". The simple solution to all the problems raised in this experiment was that the earth is at rest, immobile, in absolute space (...) But the crushing blow to heliocentrism was the Michelson-Morley experiment, and all those who tried to imitate or perfect it.

Their classical experiment of 1887 was [ironically] another effort designed to vindicate Galileo. But it also backfired. They bounced a beam of light off two mirrors in perpendicular directions and reflected the light back to their source. The lights returned simultaneously, regardless of location, season, elevation or orientation of instruments. The expected result was that the beam of light running parallel to the "supposed" path of the orbiting earth would return more quickly. For those desiring detailed, scientific information on experiments that favor geocentrism, research the Fresnell drag experiments and Arago’s experiment (Livingston). Study the Trouton-Noble experiment, the [self-]induction effect (Des Coudres), the test for rotation of polarized light (Strutt), the Ahranov-Bohm effect (Erlichson), and the phase shift of electrons in a superconductor (Jacklevic)... In De Labore Solis Walter van der Kamp exposes Einstein’s fallacies quite handily.

For those wanting to explore this more thoroughly, you are referred to pp39-51 of that remarkable work. Einstein’s theories do not disprove geocentrism. At the end of a letter in the Bulletin of the Tychonian Society, No. 54, Charles Long, Ph.D. of Minnesota, cogently explains the lack of definitives: 'Einstein is the fellow who went on to compose the General Theory of Relativity. The basis of this theory is that all motion is relative! Einstein wrote his equations describing how the Universe works. If the Earth spins and the stars are at rest – the equations explain all observations. But if the Earth is at rest and stars whirl – the equations still explain all observations. They must, for the theory begins with the assumption that all motion is relative. You can’t say positively that anything is at rest. Take your choice – the equations of General Relativity come out the same. Einstein put Mach’s (Principle) into mathematical form and what emerged is surely one of the ultimate creations of the human mind. Like Galileo, Newton the alchemist, and many others who support godless science, Einstein proved nothing. Even the atheistic philosopher, Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), correctly asserts:

Whether the earth rotates once a day from West to East as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from East to West, as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. That shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption which can never be proved or disproved by observation.

These occult-influenced scientists have trespassed into the sacred realm of metaphysics, that lofty philosophy which seeks to methodically explain ultimate realities. And this crime, in the 16th century, immediately set off alarms heard in the Church, especially by those scholastically sensitive and educated. Having no competence to function in a metaphysical consideration, science’s failure could be predicted from the start; its effort to prove geocentrism wrong failed. But to continue - the very name ‘Einstein’ (savior of heliocentrism) is ‘sacred’ and synonymous with ‘genius’, thanks to the conspiratorial propaganda so thoroughly disseminated.

And in addition to his fallacies as detailed in De Labore Solis, not to mention the common fallacy among writers who confuse Newton’s relativity with Einstein’s, the latter’s fantasy cannot be reconciled with the Sagnac effect. This experiment reveals that the speed of light is not the same in every direction, while the theory of relativity relates that it is the same in every direction. (...) And there is the "quasar distribution problem." In 1976 a heliocentrist of sorts, Y. P. Varshni, analyzed the spectra of three hundred eighty-five quasars (the farthest known stars from earth). One hundred fifty-two of them fell into fifty-seven groupings, all of which had the same red shift. This red-shift hypothesis is not debated among astronomers. To quote Varshni, who arrives at the paradoxical conclusions:

"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."

Exit, Einstein.

In short, modern textbooks lie when they claim proof for heliocentrism. After four hundred years it ‘appears’ that God is right. Have we not now ‘evolved’ full circle to the pre-16th century world view? St. Robert Bellarmine saw no proof nor does Van der Kamp, who said: "Numerous experiments have confirmed its (geocentrism’s) stability; none have dislodged it." Before concluding the scientific section of this study, consider for a moment the supposed antiquity of the earth, ranging into the billions of years, the evolution and descent of man from lower life forms, the abstract theory of relativity, the expanding universe, ‘black holes’, life on other planets -- the entire panoply of organized myth. Each of these theories, masquerading as truth, has its origin in the Father of Lies. The supposed implied existence of life forms on far-away planets are a natural offshoot of heliocentrism. This myth, too, is heretical and dates to at least the time of St. Boniface in the 8th century. These supposed beings (precursors of homo sapiens) in an expanding, vast (nay, limitless) universe, according to the contemporary view in astronomy (which is "acentric" -- no center), would not be descendants of Adam and hence could not be ransomed by the suffering and death of Christ on the Cross. The entire incarnation is in jeopardy."

Malcolm Bowden summerised all the body of evidence as such:

(A) The Sagnac experiment [a.k.a. the Sagnac Interference] proved that there was the ether which could be used as a reference frame for movements. This demolished Einstein's theories of Relativity;
(B) Using the aether as a frame of reference, the Michelson-Morley experiment showed that we were NOT going round the sun;
(C) Airey's experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether;
(D) The Michelson-Gale experiment [also called the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment] showed that the aether was going round the stationary earth 1 rotation per day. (The alternative that the earth was spinning 1 rotation per day inside a stationary aether is disproven by Airey's experiment. Note - to be pedantic, Airey's experiment involved measurments of a small angle due to the high 30 km/s "speed of the earth around the sun". The rotation of the earth at the equator is only 0.45 km/s and is too slow to register any angle change.)

In their own words

Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz (of the Lorentz translation equations, foundation of the General Theory of Relativity) noted that:

"Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest..."

His great contemporary Henri Poincaré confessed:

"A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth's movement. The results were always negative (...) We do not have any means of discovering whether or not we are carried along in a uniform motion of translation..."

Arthur Eddington dared to contemplate that:

"There was just one alternative; the earth's true velocity through space might happen to have been nil."

Wolfgang Pauli admitted:

"The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the earth's motion on physical phenomena allows us to...[Pauli suggests to move on to the abstract, "heliocentric escape hatch" thought-experiment (zero evidence) based theories of Einstein]"

Lincoln Barnett agrees:

"No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion."

And one of the chief participants in the experiment that bears his name, Albert A. Michelson, stunned by the results that went counter to his own heliocentric reflex:

"This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation... which presupposes that the Earth moves."

Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle sums it up:

"Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is "right" and the Ptolemaic theory is "wrong" in any meaningful sense (...) Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published in a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors will turn you down."

Conclusion

The geostatic, geocentric system of the universes is a proven, demonstrable and predictable reality - which makes the heliocentric view nothing but a surreal flight of fancy. Or as Friedrich Nietzsche put it:

"...While Copernicus has persuaded us to believe, contrary to all the senses, that the earth does NOT stand fast, Boscovich has taught us to abjure the belief in the last thing that "stood fast" of the earth: the belief in "substance", in "matter", in the earth-residum and particle-atom - it is the greatest triumph over the senses that has hitherto been gained on earth."

Aha! Somebody's finally honest. So it all comes down to "do what thou wilt - cause God is dead", which in turn leads to freedom from sense itself! Hence, the theory of a moving earth, far from being scientific, is just nonsense.

The truth is... stranger than fiction. --Lord Byron

Home/index

E=mc² didn't lead to the invention of the nuclear bomb

2007-08-19T17:49:00.091+02:00

Contrary to misleading propaganda, the development of the equation E=mc² did NOT lead to the invention of the atom bomb. Nuclear weapons were developed as a result of progressive experiments in elementary-particle physics, which took off as a result of the discovery of radiation/X-ray and especially the subsequent discovery of radioactivity in 1896.

At no time was the equation E=mc² a requirement in these experiments. This equation of mass-energy equivalence was devised as a result of research and experiments on electro- magnetism. Just as E=mc² wasn't (and still isn't) used in order to make conventional bombs, it isn't used in order to make thermonuclear devices either. The reason why the equation is brought up often (whenever the issue of atom bomb is raised) has little to do with science and everything to do with selling a mass market product called Albert Einstein. This, despite the fact that Einstein didn't even invent the equation E=mc² anyway. This fact about the relationship between the equation and the bomb is something that honest scientists have no problem admitting: the Nobel prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg for example has written about this matter in his book Facing Up:

"This is a good place to dispel the common misapprehension that nuclear weapons are somehow an outgrowth of Einstein's special theory of relativity. As originally derived in 1907, Einstein's famous equation E=mc² says that the liberation of an energy E by any system will cause it to lose a mass m equal to E divided by c² the square of the speed of light. This is just as true of a burning tree as of a nuclear bomb (...) If one insists on saying that mass is converted to energy in nuclear reactions, then one must say the same of ordinary burning."

Now, Seven Weinberg isn't some critic of Einstein's relativity theories, in fact he is one of their chief proponents. Someone else is also honest about this issue. Below is an excerpt of an article written by Raeto West:

Atom Bomb: Proof of the correctness of modern physics? Or merely empiricism?

In the popular mind, there is a firm link between Einstein and the mushroom cloud, encouraged by mediocre education, media, and science writers. For example, I remember being assured by a biology experimenter that ‘e=mc2’ is “commonsense”. Although there are a few opposing voices, for example, C P Snow’s essay on Einstein, which explicitly stated there was no connection, most people think that what they’re told is physics—vague speculation, impenetrable mathematics, paradox—led to the atom bomb. The thesis of this piece is that, in fact, the invention of the atomic bomb was almost entirely empirical. Fairly simple new concepts of the nucleus, electrons, neutrons, atomic weights etc. sufficed. Specifically, ‘e=mc2’, quantum ideas, uncertainty in measurement and the more elaborate mathematics had no effect on the discoveries leading to the invention; these discoveries each came as a complete surprise.

The link with ‘modern physics’ is a myth. If Einstein had never lived, atomic weapons could have been developed exactly as they were. [Note on words: because scientific understanding has (so far) been incomplete, there’s no firm line between empiricism, which is something like trial-and-error, and science. Empiricism means something that works, even if it’s not understood. Consider metal smelting:—before the discovery of oxygen, oxides, and so on, metals were made by recipe: you mix reddish ore with charcoal and make the mixture hot, and out comes iron. Or consider electricity generation:—this looks much more scientific, far more than (say) a windmill, but arguably is just as purely empirical: Faraday found that a metal thing moved in a magnetic field gives an electric current—nobody knows why—and this is what a generator does. Technology may be scientific, or it may be trial-and-error, or a mixture: thus crystallography theory is mostly scientific, while flight is mostly experimental technology, and metallurgy and weather forecasting are a mixture. I haven’t attempted here to define these terms precisely. The point is, important discoveries can be made by pure chance.]

What follows is confined to fission, as in the atom bomb, not the ‘hydrogen bomb’. Fusion came later, and in any case depended on the chance discovery of fission. The facts about fusion (if it exists) are largely censored, as is probably reasonable in view of the dangers. I’ve listed below, in approximate sequence, most of the key discoveries which led to the atom bomb. The sources are mainly popular—Ronald Clark’s The Greatest Power on Earth (1980), George Gamow’s little book The Atom and its Nucleus (1961), Thomas Powers’ Heisenberg’s War (1994), H T Pledge's Science since 1600 (1939, 1966) and many others including Fermi’s autobiographical writings. However, some evidence is Phil Holland’s, drawn from his long experience of nuclear power. Discovery of the first particles, electrons, in 1895 by Thomson. Since these don’t travel through air, vacuum technology of pumps and airtight vessels had to have been invented; so this discovery could not have happened before the end of the 19th century. As with ‘Becquerel rays’ (a photographic plate or plates happened to be fogged) this was pure accident. The effect of a magnet on the rays was noticed, leading to the division between positive and negative (and, later, neutral) particles. But no theory accounted for these discoveries, although a link was made with electricity and charged ions.

Discovery of radium by the Curies. In 1903 radium was found to give off 100 Calories per gramme per hour. 1g was estimated to give 1M Cals before decaying. This was completely unexpected, and incidentally allowed guesses as to the age of the earth to be extended enormously back in time. It was not called ‘nuclear energy’—this was before the ‘nucleus’ had been found. Nor I think was there any link with e=mc squared, which was only popularised fifteen or so years later. Sommerfeld seems to have popularised the idea of a ‘different order of magnitude’ of energy being ‘locked up’ within ‘the atom’.

Rutherford’s suggestion, about 1910, that the atom must have a nucleus, concentrated in a tiny proportion of space, was made when it was found that only one positively charged particle out of very many was deflected when passing through gold foil. (This was followed by years of puzzlement as philosophers tried to grasp the idea of matter which was mostly space). Rutherford also discovered the splitting of nitrogen nucleus with alpha particles. He was ‘.. completely astonished..’ In 1913 and 1914, H G J Moseley is credited with establishing that the number of positive charges in the nucleus is the 'atomic number', which gave a firm foundation for arranging elements in the periodic table. He seems to have used X-ray crystallography, which has a theoretical basis (Bessel numbers), based on straightforward wave theory, for which Bragg became well-known. Nothing in Moseley's work, so far as I can tell, had any content based on 'modern physics.' He was killed in 1915.

Discovery of isotopes (the word means ‘the same place’—meaning the same place in the periodic table, insofar as this existed at the time) by the mass spectroscope, mainly the work of Aston, who for example used chlorine. The technique works by separating fast-moving molecules of the sample into a sort of spectrum, the heavier ones being more difficult to deflect. All this was completely empirical. Discussion well into the 1930s was of the nucleus being made of hydrogen nuclei and helium nuclei (as neutrons were not yet discovered). Joliot, with Marie Curie’s daughter, used polonium with beryllium, presumably, again, in a purely empirical way, and found the combination gave what came to be called neutrons. Chadwick in 1932 formally announced his discovery of the neutron. This was important, because, being neutral, these particles could penetrate the nucleus more easily. Possibly Chadwick expected this discovery, since the fact that isotopes exist makes things like neutrons an obvious possibility—since they allow the nucleus to be made heavier without changing its charge. Proton bombardment in 1930-2 was supposedly encouraged by Gamow’s calculations re waves [Clark]—which made the nucleus appear not quite so charged as was thought, because it might be made of waves in some sense. A famous experiment by Rutherford and others was interpreted as lithium capturing a proton and splitting. The calculations perhaps led to the experiment being tried—one of the few examples of the influence of 'modern physics'. However, this experiment seems to have had little importance, since neutron penetration of the nucleus turned out to be important.

The discovery of fission in uranium was purely by accident. Fermi, working through elements methodically to see what happened when they were 'bombarded' with neutrons, expected to make new isotopes, but in 1934 was puzzled by his results with uranium, and probably dismissed what he found as a contaminant. Only in 1939 did Hahn & Strassmann identify barium (and krypton?). Then Lise Meitner and Frisch provided the ‘liquid drop’ model of fission of nucleus into two parts. [Powers] Szilard noticed fission fragments must emit neutrons if they split; H G Wells's chain reaction idea, based on the ideas of Frederick Soddy (The Interpretation of Radium, 1907, revised later as The Interpretation of the Atom), in The World Set Free (1914), became a possibility [Clark]. Again, this was empirical—it was found that elements with high atomic numbers have proportionally more neutrons than low ones. Nobody had any idea why. But, clearly, if a heavy element split, there would be surplus neutrons. Uranium-235 isotope fission was proved to happen by experiment; it was guessed, and proved, that U235 was the portion of uranium which was most liable to fission. Nobody knew (or knows now) why it differed from U238, except perhaps in the sense that an odd number was expected to behave differently from an even number.

1939: Bohr and Wheeler at Princeton realised fast free neutrons were produced during fission. In 1939 Joliot, and Fermi, showed ‘two or more’ free neutrons came out with each fission of U 235. This encouraged speculation about a possible chain reaction. But, again, this was a purely experimental result. Plutonium, a new element of mass 239, was discovered in a cyclotron; again, purely by chance. In 1940 it was suggested it might be fissionable. Fermi discovered entirely by chance that neutrons could be controlled: the difference between a marble bench and a wooden bench suggested that ‘light atoms, comparable in size to the neutron’ [sic; Gamow] were best to slow down neutrons. Hence the use of graphite. [PH. There was a similar incident in which Fermi decided for no particular reason to try a block of paraffin wax.] The critical mass (the amount varies with shape and surroundings) had to be determined. Nobody had much idea what it was. In 1940 Frisch and Peierls calculated (wrongly) the critical mass. Various other wrong values were obtained. The actual values found were found empirically by many experiments over many years, ‘some of which led to unexpected criticality incidents. I know of one incident at Windscale.. some incidents in USA did a lot more radiation damage.’ [PH]. When in 1941 plutonium 239 was found to be even more fissionable, another project was started to separate this in the US [about this time was the well-known event of Slotin ensuring his own death when he separated masses with his hands.]

Another incident (p. 167 in Clark) describes a man simply leaning over U235 pieces, causing them to approach danger point. Fermi worked on the atomic ‘pile’ with graphite to slow neutrons down—so they didn’t just move fast out of the equipment—and cadmium a moderator [found empirically to absorb neutrons! Nobody knew why; possibly because there are many of isotopes of cadmium]. In Chicago in December 1942, the pile was found to get hot. This was ‘the boiler’, not yet ‘the bomb’. The separation of U235, again, was an empirical engineering problem. Uranium hexafluoride, for use in gas separation, is corrosive and the problems were considerable. Even then, the theory of gases was wrong and separation occurred the other way round from what was expected with some isotopes. [PH] Before the first bomb test, in 1945, there were doubts about ‘igniting’ the atmosphere, or the hydrogen in water, suggesting, what is perhaps obvious enough, that there was considerable doubt as to the processes at work. Even some calculations as to explosive yield were wildly wrong.

Conclusions:

■ How was it known that fission was likely to give off enormous amounts of energy? Without being fairly certain on this detail, the entire, expensive project—‘No other nation had the mental and physical resources.. $2 bn.. entire towns built’ [Clark] —would not have been started. The answer seems to be the line from the Curies to Fermi. It’s true that e=mc2 seems to be used as a buttressing argument, but the defining evidence was empirical. Moreover, there is some doubt as to the correctness of nuclear reactions and their thermodynamics; thus the ‘weights’ of neutrons and protons etc. are given with seeming confidence, and yet of course there are long processes of inference, possibly wrong, going into these calculations. The complete failure of fusion power adds weight to this suggestion. I would suggest that e=mc2 was adopted simply because it gave a big number, rather than through any cogency in argument. It's possible that nuclear reactions involve large amounts of energy because the nucleus is harder to alter than the outer parts of atoms: so that, if all the products of an atom bomb were collected together, perhaps they would add up to exactly the original contents—though this would be a difficult experiment to try.

■ So it seems that the atomic bomb was certainly helped by some aspects of 20th century physics—the fairly simple sort listed above. The supposedly theoretical stuff, from relativity and quantum theory to Schrödinger’s waves and uncertainty principle as popularly misunderstood, probably had not the slightest effect. The following remarks are political rather than scientific:

■ The situation in atomic physics—except that lucky discoveries seem to have petered out—is the same combination of accident and observation. Advances are largely delusory. Look for example at nuclear power; people promoting the excitement of new technology, stress the wonders of such power stations. And yet, the absurd fact is that they use steam turbines! This is a technology Faraday would have recognised, and moreover not a very good one, since more than three quarters of the energy is wasted in transmission and other losses. Presumably, if the physics were genuinely understood, electricity could be manufactured or controlled directly.

■ Another highly dubious idea seems to be the supposed predominance of Jews in developing the atom bomb. In fact, few if any of the key ideas seem to have been Jewish, although it's true that almost all the technical spadework of Los Alamos was carried out by Jews. Apart from this, it’s possible that their main role was after the war, in spreading atomic technology to Stalin's Russia—many of the atom spies were Jews—and the Middle East. This of course is a field abounding in mythology. Thus, in Powers’ large book on Heisenberg, the ‘Jewish physics’ idea in Germany is attributed to [Philipp Eduard Anton von] Lenart [Lenard] whose ‘crude’ leaflet was handed out at a lecture; Powers gives only one passage from it, that Einstein’s ideas were unsubstantiated speculations, puffed by Jewish newspapers—something which seems largely accurate—but no other evidence.

■ Viewed in the light of a huge engineering project, the whole conventional justification for the atomic bomb looks doubtful. Bertrand Russell's idea (elsewhere, this site) that it was to be used to keep Asia down may prove to be more accurate.

■ Perhaps this story also helps answer a question posed by one of the Mrs Bertrand Russell, namely, that if these people were so transcendentally brilliant, how come they could find no better political solution than a balance of terror? The sad fact would appear to be that they were simple technical types, blundering along. This piece (above) provoked a reply by a man who spent much of his life working on atomic power and weapons, and who says e=mc2 was important in developing nuclear weapons. Phil Holland comments:

“I enjoyed this correspondence — it is the usual support for e=mc2 ('don't try to prove it but suggest it must be true' and 'don't quote experimental results but hint that some experiment must have proved it'.”

So then, this issue demonstrates that there is a big gap between science as it is conducted by scientists, and science as it is propagated to the wider public. Basically what's happening here that scientists are systematically behaving like astrologers of the past who habitually were selling falsehood but supplemented that with factual (astronomical) information. For example they were capable of timing the regular movements of stars and used this knowledge as a cloak of credibility and performed the quack of devination/fortune-telling.

Likewise our modern day astrologers and alchemists (the non-applied hacks) are piggybacking on the prestige of applied science/technology in order to be reputable and so get away with flogging (by 'means of persuasion' and propaganda tactics) their unproven, false theories as if they are things that are genuinely proven matters.

That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun.