Heliocentrism CANNOT Shed Ancient Concepts of Cosmology nor Is It Supported by Observations
- F M SHYANGUYA
- Jun 3
- 5 min read
Updated: 23 minutes ago
(Cf. Heliocentrism CANNOT shed Ancient Concepts of Cosmology - https://web.archive.org/web/20210224203227/https://thewarourtimebitsandpieces.blog/2019/08/01/heliocentrism-cannot-shed-ancient-concepts-of-cosmology/)
What is Science?
9. I am religious and I also find science very exciting. Is there a conflict between science and religion? According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS): "Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Progress in science consists of the development of better explanations for the causes of natural phenomena. Scientists never can be sure that a given explanation is complete and final. Some of the hypotheses advanced by scientists turn out to be incorrect when tested by further observations or experiments. Yet, many scientific explanations have been so thoroughly tested and confirmed that they are held with great confidence. Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow. Science has been greatly successful at explaining natural processes, and this has led not only to increased understanding of the universe but also to major improvements in technology and public health and welfare." - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) | WMAP Site
![S. Ioannes Paulus PP. II [Karol Wojtyla]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/667c40_8a28afc372ac46498ea8df507c5e4a9f~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_960,h_1200,al_c,q_85,enc_avif,quality_auto/667c40_8a28afc372ac46498ea8df507c5e4a9f~mv2.jpg)
13. [...] What matters, in a scientific or philosophical theory, is first of all that it be true or, at least, seriously and solidly founded. And the aim of your Academy is precisely that of discerning and making known, in the current state of science and in its own field, what can be considered as acquired truth or at least endowed with such probability that it would be imprudent and unreasonable to reject it. In this way useless conflicts can be avoided. - Address of Pope St John Paul II to the Participants in the Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences [IT]
ASSERTION
The Heliocentric Model of the universe:
A) Cannot shed the ancient concepts of Cosmology, for example, flat, stationery, non-rotating, non-revolving earth, and a firmament. and lights (sun, moon, and stars) in the firmament.
Nor
B) Is it supported by observations.
SUPPORT
I.A) Heliocentrism Demands a firmament.
NASA Data
1) The accepted boundary line between the atmosphere and space is about 100 kilometers (62 miles) above Earth’s surface. - The Atmosphere: Earth’s Security Blanket
2) Earth Data
2.1) Mean orbital velocity: 29.78 km/s / 66,615.963 mph
2.2) Max. orbital velocity: 30.29 km/s / 67,756.8 mph
2.3) Min. orbital velocity: 29.29 km/s/ 65,519.864 mph
Meaning the velocity (vs. speed since there is a change in both magnitude and direction) is NOT constant!
2.4) Equatorial radius 6,378.137 km. Therefore, calculated rotational speed at the equator is 1037.56045833 mph
Cf. Earth Fact Sheet
3) Our solar system is moving with an average velocity of 450,000 miles per hour - Our Sun: Facts
4) When measured relative to the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) (a remnant of the Big Bang), the Milky Way is traveling at approximately 550 kilometers per second (1.23 million miles per hour - AI Overview
I.A) With these incredible and varying speeds with changes in direction, for example, the orbit of earth around the sun is described as elliptical, the model demands a barrier between the earth's atmosphere and [the vacuum] of space.
I.B) Observation: we do not feel any of the earth's motions; something mainstream science concedes.
On Twitter/X, @Grok answering for @NASA and mainstream science, whilst conceding we don't feel any of the earth's motions, couldn't give a coherent answer as to the reason why, yet discounted the simplest explanation of all which, by Ocham's razor, ought to be that we don't feel the any earth's motions because there isn't any!
In addition, @Grok couldn't provide any citations by @NASA for @NASA's position on the topic nor explain why the centrifugal acceleration at the equator of about 0.0337 m/s² due to the earth's rotation isn't felt, when mainstream science states that the minimum acceleration that humans can typically perceive is around 0.02 m/s².
II) A spherical earth is modeled but in practice, a flat earth is assumed:
a) Sailing has uninterruptedly from the past to the present always used plane trigonometry and not spherical/globe trigonometry, nor any trigonometry from any of the shapes they fancy to give to the earth like oblate spheroid or pear-shaped.
b) The curvature of the earth has yet to be observed, nor can it be practically proven from their own curvature math [e.g. Omni Calculator > Earth Curve Calculator].
The following is a concession:
In the thermosphere, Earth’s curvature becomes distinctly clear and space travelers begin to experience “weightlessness”. Cf. Peeling Back the Layers of the Atmosphere | NOAA.
c) Surveyors, engineers, and architects are never required to factor [in] the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects. [Cf. 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball | Eric Dubay - YT (English), Proof 7)]
d) With the earth’s surface connected waters being about 70% and the rest 30% being continental landmasses [cf. UNIVERSE TODAY > Planet Earth > Earth Surface] and given the properties of water like water seeking its level hence the term “sea level”, the earth’s surface must be flat.
e) Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL) is an indispensable navigational measurement tool in Aviation.
f) NASA and other governmental agencies and institutions assume a flat, nonrotating earth in their calculations.
g) None of their shapes [spherical to oblate spheroid to pear shape] can adequately explain the reality of the latitudes actually being concentric circles centered around the magnetic north pole and therefore increasing in distance toward the south Antarctic ice barrier.
h) They have yet to demonstrate northerly/southerly circumnavigation of the earth in any of their models.
III) 2017 & 2024 Total Solar Eclipses and Lunar Eclipses cannot be modeled and explained by the heliocentric model.
a) Both 2017 & 2024 total solar eclipse paths crossed United States from west to east. Yet from NASA:
Earth rotates or spins toward the east, and that's why the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars all rise in the east and make their way westward across the sky. - Excerpt from Answer to Question: "Why does the Sun rise in the east and set in the west?" - StarChild is a learning center for young astronomers ages 5-13 to learn about the solar system, the Milky Way galaxy, and the universe beyond.- starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov
b) Four reasons the Lunar Eclipse are not caused by the Earth's Shadow:
Reason 1) Shadows are not red.
Reason 2) Shadows change direction almost 90 degrees
Reason 3) Eclipse shadows observed cannot be modeled by sphere casting a shadow onto another sphere
Reason 4) The heliocentric model and the explanation of how lunar eclipses occur cannot explain the selenelion eclipse, a lunar eclipse where the Sun and the Moon are both visible at the same time (above the horizon). An even rarer form of selenelion eclipse occurs if it is a partial lunar eclipse, and the upper part of the Moon is eclipsed. Some call this an “impossible eclipse.”
IV) One ought not be able to see Mercury and Venus at night since they are between the sun and the earth.
V) At a particular place on earth, one ought not see the same stars night after night.
Conclusion
The Heliocentric Model of the universe cannot shed the Ancient concepts of Cosmology let alone be a replacement model for it. Heliocentrism is overwhelmingly a non-starter.
Comments