https://go-transcribe.com/transcript/Ubzz8QyKAFn6bPfPYsGAFfQPZJuTeX Religion disguised as science. [[Globe Deception Timeline 1|Globe Deception Timeline 1]] All content from this stream, so just go watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoqpZ7UJvxI&t=1758s&ab_channel=WitsitGetsIt ![[Attachments/ezgif.com-animated-gif-maker (5) (2).gif]] ![[Attachments/Geocentrism.pdf]] ![[Attachments/Geocentrism (2).mp4 (4).doc]] > 1. Modern historians have overstated the revolutionary significance of the heliocentric system and the simplification it introduced. > 2. The Copernican solar theory is a step in the wrong direction for actual computation and underlying kinematic concepts. > 3. It is possible to return to Ptolemy's point of view of a motionless Earth. > 4. The choice of reference system has no effect on the structure of the model, and the Copernican model requires twice as many circles as the Ptolemaic models and is less adaptable. > 5. Heliocentrism has never been proven and is a philosophy. > 6. Philosophical criteria are used to choose models in cosmology. > 7. Geocentrism is a valid frame of reference, and heliocentrism is no more or less correct, but heliocentrism comes with a ton of other claims about the whole universe. > 8. The heliocentric model is less viable because it has all kinds of discrepancies, such as dark matter and dark energy. > 9. The Earth's unique position in the universe is unwelcome and must be avoided at all costs. > 10. The horror of a unique position is intolerable and must be compensated by spatial curvature. > 11. Albert Einstein made significant contributions to the field of theoretical physics, including the special and general theories of relativity, the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, and quantum theory. > 12. The current scientific consensus is that the solar system is heliocentric. > How dare you! Heliocentrism has never been proven. Rather it is a religion. Here's a quote to start us off. I can construct for you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view, there's absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria and choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that. Physicist George F.R. Ellis. Shout out to my boy William for becoming a member. Hey, everyone, give him a round of applause. Welcome to the misfits, brother. Okay, so point blank the quote says it pretty clearly right here. You can't disprove it that the Earth is at the center and stationary and geocentric. It's philosophy. You're taught it's a fact and it's actually been proven for a long time. Moving on this now, this quote is obviously not cherry picked, and anyone with even the slightest bit of intellect can tell without even going looking at the source, that it's not cherry picked. To be honest, now, these people, majority of these people, let me say this disclaimer here to really avoid, I want you to be open minded and honest and listen to the information. What you're going to find is there will there will undoubtedly be people in the comments saying that I cherry picked the quotes there out of context, and that I quote mined them. I objectively did not with any of these and you can fact check all of them. That should make you think. Why would they have to lie about what's really happening? I want to make sure this disclaimer is known. Majority of these people are under the assumption that the Earth is a ball that revolves around the sun. That's what they believe. These are top level physicists, astrophysicists, astronomers, cosmologists. But they will tell you point blank it cannot be proven. It is a philosophy. And that is the point. That's the point of the stream and the presentation, so that you understand someone has chosen your philosophical worldview for you, presented it to you as if it was science and definitive fact, when in reality it is not. It is philosophy. It is a religion. That is what this presentation is made to elucidate. That is it. We are not claiming these people think that the earth is flat and stationary. So all of that is called a straw man fallacy, a red herring fallacy. And it's just really lame. So just think for yourself. Probably the best thing to do. And notice that when people have to lie all the time, it's probably because they can't debate the actual arguments. So this guy, Albert Einstein, I don't know if you heard about him. He was married to his first cousin and then wrote about how he wanted to hook up with her daughter when she was a minor. And oftentimes forgot to put clothes on and couldn't even pass his college entry exam for university. Uh, stole almost all of his work. He patented a blouse. And was an ethnic supremacist. Anyway. He says, let's see what's going on with this dude. Albert Einstein here. This guy invented special relativity to counter experiments that revealed the Earth was motionless in space. This eventually led him to general relativity, which forced him to accept a motionless earth in the center of the universe as a viable cosmological system. This is a fact. System crasher one 113 DLP. Thank you for the super chat for the diaper bag fun. Keep up the great work bro. Appreciate it. Thank you for the super chat. Will do. And I did hear that diapers are going to be. You're gonna be fun to deal with. All right. Thank you for the super chat. So he came up with special relativity in response to Michelson-Morley. We're about to cover that in just a second. And then I to try to explain away the experiments that show that the Earth is stationary. Oh, well, though this doesn't show that. And what happened, ironically, was he built general relativity upon special relativity, and what he was forced to admit and concede with general relativity was that the Earth could be stationary, and that's a viable cosmological system. Awkward. All right, moving on. This is the depiction of Michelson-Morley. They shot, uh, lasers perpendicular to each other. And the idea was there was an ether, an electromagnetic background, a background for electromagnetic phenomena that sustains the energy, and that there was the Earth shooting through space within that revolving around the sun. So it was the idea was, well, if we shoot these lights in different directions based on the fact that the Earth is shooting through space, the light going against the motion of the earth will take longer to get to the receiver. So this was the expected result. As you can see, the one light is behind the other light. Okay. So this was the expected result. Based on the assumption that the Earth was moving and within an ether, this was the actual result. Now, as you can see, they are not exactly the same. But they are nowhere close to the expected results. Expected result with the Earth moving around the sun. Actual results not exactly the same. A little bit different. Did not match the predicted value. This is called phase shift or fringe shift. There would be a difference in where the light is. E equals mc squared means Einstein married his cousin twice. Yikes! Shout out to my boy awesome Austin at Meltdown. Thank you for the super chat! It's very funny. So this is the actual result. And this is known as the, uh, the most famous failed experiment ever. She changed physics for good. Okay. Oh, no! How dare you! I'll come back over here. I gotta let you guys see the rest of that. I hope that this is understood though. This is the. This is so much understood. If you look up Wikipedia, if you talk to a lot of like physicists now, like the guy had debated, if you talk to an anti flat earther or some call themselves ballers or whatever, they'll regurgitate Wikipedia and they'll talk about, you know, the regurgitate the script and what they will say. Is that the Michelson-Morley experiment. Disproved the ether. They will all say this. They'll swear up and down. That's what happened. Wikipedia says it. They'll all say it. Now, what actually happened was it showed that there cannot be a stationary ether. And if there is an ether, there cannot be a ball that revolves around the sun. It showed that if there was an ether, the earth could not be revolving around the sun. It was allegedly going 30km a second. This would show a certain difference in the light, like we just showed. Which I'm going to, I'm going to go back and show it to you guys. So. They had an option. Throw out the ether, which was the glue the foundation for all electrical field theory at the time, which is the only way that we had made any discoveries. And in fact, using that framework is the very way you have the Electric Society that you have to this day, literally. So it was either unthinkable, the idea to throw out the medium that sustains electromagnetic propagation, electromagnetic waves and light waves or. Throw out that the earth is revolving equally as unthinkable. Right? We could never do that. So that was what actually happened. They want to leave that part out. But that's not really my problem. Oh, we got it pulled back up. So again. This is the expected results. This is the actual result. You see, it is still different, but it's not where it's supposed to be. This is what they then had to say happened. The measuring apparatus itself shrink. Wow. Actual results. They said that the measuring apparatus. Physically shrink, but you couldn't tell that it shrank and it shrank because it was in motion. This is what special relativity said. That that that what the physical apparatus that measured the light shrink. But you just couldn't tell by measuring it. And that simultaneously time expanded. And slowed down, so it was supposed to have to travel further and take longer. But since the measuring apparatus contracted without being able to notice, time expanded and slowed down without being able to notice. It looked like it went the same distance and took the same time, but it actually didn't. The universe is just playing a trick on you. This is, to this day, the explanation for this experiment to try to explain that the earth is a ball that revolves around the sun. Science again, this is a religion, and when the evidence shows you what you don't want to see, you will make up whatever you need to to keep your religion intact. At least the illusion of such. Albert Einstein I have come to believe that the motion of the earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment. That's, of course, the physicist. Also known as a pseudo scientist. Albert Einstein. So this is weird, right? I mean, this is the quote I told you about at the end of this. It says, though the earth moves around, the sun revolves around the sun, and they say it's just cherry picked. This is not cherry picked. What he's saying is what he's saying that an optical experiment. Cannot detect the motion of the Earth. You can't do that. So when you invoke, you know, mechanical gyros which don't detect anything, or fiber optic gyros, laser gyros, you can't and simultaneously invoke relativity. The person that made relativity, which is what you use, is telling you right now. You can't prove it. Okay. Moving on. Another quote. This is a different quote from him. And this is in Einstein's writing about general and special relativity, to the question whether or not the motion of the earth and space can be made perceptible. And terrestrial experiments. The word terrestrial means on the Earth. On or in regards to the earth. I know that sounds crazy that I just had to define that, but people literally they're desperate out here. They are getting desperate out here. So. So the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result. Physicists Albert Einstein. I could put myself on the camera in the corner, but. I would be blocking some of the presentation. Thank you, Trey, for becoming a member. Level three. What a legend. Hey, everyone, give him a round of applause. Welcome to the Misselwitz level three crushing. Thank you very much. Greatly appreciate it. Okay, so he's point blank saying there's nothing you can do on the earth to prove that the Earth is moving. And so when I say Einstein himself said, according to relativistic application, that you cannot prove the earth is moving from the Earth via experiment. And then I show you this quote. It's not, quote, mining. It's not cherry picking. It's objectively what Einstein and Relativity says. Moving on. The spare. Now here is Mickelson himself. So we have Albert Mickelson. Some say Mickelson. From the Michelson-Morley experiment. This is what he said about the experiment. He said this conclusion directly contradicts the explanation, which presupposes that the Earth moves. So again, if you look it up, uh, it didn't prove anything to do with the Earth. It just disproved the ether. That was all it showed. It didn't have anything to do with the earth moving. Although the paper is literally tile tighter, titled Earth's Relative Motion Through the ether. This is the guy that did it. Telling you this conclusion of the experiment directly contradicts the explanation that presupposes that the Earth moves, presupposes it's a religion. It is a philosophy. Here is Henri Poincaré. And, uh, he's actually the original person that put out relativity. Let me, uh, move this up. So. Henri Poincaré relativity put it out a year before Einstein. He put out relativity a year before Einstein. Einstein stole it from him. In fact, he then came out and released a refutation of the theory. Einstein stole his work from this guy. I wonder why you haven't heard about him. A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth's movement. The results were always negative. Always. So when you bring up a pendulum from 1851 called Foucault's Pendulum, and you claim that he proved the earth was spinning and you can still use that, you're incorrect. Stop blindly believing whatever you read on Google, because they've become so desperate in attempt to counter the flat Earth movement, they have just started making stuff up. You can't prove that the Earth is moving. We do not have and cannot have any means of discovering that. Point blank. And again, none of these are out of context. Go look the quote up if you don't believe me. The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the Earth's motion. Then he goes on in the rest of the quote to explain the theory of why you can't detect the Earth's motion. So this is literally just pointing out that all the people that brought you the current paradigm and the very current paradigm you adhere to. If you think the Earth's a ball that spins around the sun. It says that you can't detect the Earth's motion. Okay. The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the Earth's motion, any effects. Okay, this is Wolfgang Pauli, very famous physicist within the heliocentric paradigm. Next quote. There was just one alternative. The Earth's true velocity through space might happen to have been nil. Physicist Arthur Eddington from the infamous Eddington experiment, where him and Einstein worked together to allegedly validate relativity by seeing a star behind the eclipse, because it allegedly proved the bending and warping of space time and the star bent around the eclipse. Very infamous relativity and heliocentric proponent. He's talking about the Michelson-Morley and he's explaining. Either. We had to come up with the idea that the measuring apparatus physically shrink, but we just couldn't tell. And then time slowed down so it looked like it was the same time or the other alternative. Was that the Earth's true velocity through space might happen to have been nil, also known as stationary. Moving on. Hendrik Lorentz, who is the guy who came up with the Lorentz contraction, which is what they utilize to say the physical measuring apparatus was shrinking and is still used to this day. The Lorentz contraction and Lorentz transforms. He said briefly. Everything occurs as if the earth were at rest. I want to come back over here for a second physicist, Hendrik Lorentz. Briefly, everything occurs as if it were at rest. If you believe that the Earth is a globe, and we were told the truth about the earth, and it is in fact a ball with a radius of 3959 miles, with a circumference of 24,901 miles around at the equator, tilted over, wobbling, spinning 1037mph east at the equator and shooting around the sun. And you believe there's something called gravity, and it bends the immensity of the oceans, water around the exterior of the spinning sphere, inside of a vacuum, with gas pressure sitting next to this vacuum within this vacuum. And relativity is holding all this together and making the Earth revolve around this solar system with other planets. If you choose to believe that which you certainly have the right to do that, you must understand that your position requires, necessitates, dictates. It's that you can never prove that the Earth is moving from the Earth, or with any experiment or with any observation, and it will always look like the Earth is at rest. The universe is just set up in such a way as if to deceive you and trick you into thinking that it's stationary when it's actually tilted, wobbling, spinning, revolving, carrying, getting carried through space by the sun half 1,000,000mph as the galaxy goes one point 3,000,000mph, this is the only position you can take. This is like if you're debating someone about the Bible and they tell you that the Bible is real, and then you're like, okay, well, what about where it says here? And they deny it says that and they say it doesn't say that. And then you pull it out and say, look, it says it right there. And then they just say, you're stupid, right? It's the same thing. You cannot have a justified belief if you do not know what your belief is. The irony of people bashing people and ridiculing them because they say the earth is flat is pretty mind blowing, when almost always what it is, is one group of people haven't researched it at all. The other group of people used to think what that group of people thought because they hadn't really researched it, chose to research it in depth and then test it and found out it wasn't true. So there. That's just a fact. If you want to be an honest proponent of the fact that you think the Earth is a globe, you must absorb the position for what it actually is. And that position is you can't prove that the Earth is spinning from the Earth, because relativity says it'll always look exactly like it was stationary. And we're in a frame of reference due to relativity, it always looks like the earth's not moving and is at rest. This is objective. So be a big boy and absorb your position for what it is, please. All right, moving on. In order for the Earth to be at rest in the center of the system of the sun, planets and comets, there is required both universal gravity and another force in addition, that acts on all bodies equally according to the quantity of matter in each of them, and is equal and opposite to the accelerative gravity with which the Earth tends to the sun, and thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest, as in the Tychonic system physicist Isaac Newton. This is in there because, of course, for one, he's assuming that the Earth is a sphere, and he's assuming that space is a vacuum with these two assumptions baked in. He's saying for that to be the case and for the earth to be at rest, this is what's required. He actually then attributes gravity to God, and he said he didn't offer a mechanism. And anyone that thinks that gravity will act on another another thing of brute matter through the vastness of a vacuum without some type of medium acting in between, is, to him, so great an absurdity that no man and competent faculty of thinking in philosophical matters could ever fall into it. This is in here because a lot of people bring up Newton, who discovered gravity with 666 Newtons on the Earth in 1666 as an apple fell on his head. And I guys just didn't fall in the water beside him. And, uh. He's sitting here saying, yeah, the earth could definitely be at rest, just like in the Tychonic system. So there you go. Bao Bao. Moving on. Next quote. It is both amusing and instructive to speculate on what might have happened to such an experiment. If such an experiment could have been performed in the 16th or 17th centuries, when men were debating the rival merits of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems, the results would surely have been interpreted as conclusive evidence for the immobility of the Earth, and therefore as a triumphant vindication of the Ptolemaic system and irrefutable falsification of the Copernican hypothesis. Physicist G.J. Whitrow. Thank you nominal for the $10 super chat. Thanks for the gravy. Absolutely. Thank you for the support. Greatly appreciated. Much love. Okay, that quotes pretty straightforward there. Um. He's talking about Michelson-Morley. He's like, it's interesting to look at the idea of if that experiment had to happen back then when they were debating whether or not the Earth is stationary or not. And apparently, you know, science had this victory that it's revolving around the sun. Well, they would have thought for sure that that proved the Earth wasn't moving. Only was it when some crazy, crazy, uh, haired, fuzzy haired crackpot came up with the theory that, well, you can't tell, but everything's physically shrinking when you try to measure it, to prove the Earth is moving and time slows down. So it always looks like it's the same time. So you can't tell that it's not moving or that it's moving, but it always looks like it's not moving. But I promise it is moving. So anyway, there you go. He's sitting here point blank, telling you again. Michelson-Morley showed us that the Earth was stationary back in the day. They would have most assuredly interpreted that as the Earth was stationary. So, you know, you can let Wikipedia say what they want to. This is why this conversation censored. If you found it to this channel. Try to be honest, you're not going to get the real information to many places. Next quote. One of the most surprising findings is that the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave radiation temperatures at large, angular scales do not match those predicted by the standard Big Bang model. The European Space Agency Planck probe 2013. And this is where they looked out at background energy in the sky. And it had even distribution as the from going away from the Earth as the center. So like it says right here. The most surprising, surprising findings is that the fluctuations in the radiation temperatures, uh, do not match those predicted by the standard Big Bang model, which is that everything came from nothing and there was a preexisting energy. But we won't talk about that part. And then the universe is just expanding in all directions. The universe has no, uh, locational location preference regarding the Earth, and it's just random. The evidence didn't show us that, though. Neither geocentric quote, of course. Again, the European Space Agency moving on. Here's another quote regarding that information and data. Quote. Looking into this anomaly more deeply, we will find that it remains robust throughout all seven years of published WMAp data, and furthermore, that it is very difficult to explain within the context of the canonical inflationary lambda cold dark matter of cosmology, also known as the Big Bang. The observations disagree markedly with the prediction of the theory now, as opposed to saying maybe our theory is wrong in the Earth is stationary, and that's why all the energy looks like the Earth is stationary. We will ignore that and desperately try to come up with some other theory and attempt to save our Copernican principle of philosophy. Weird. Astrophysicist Glenn Starkman, Craig Copi, Dragan Hutterer, and Dominic Schwarcz. Next quote. The apparent alignment in the cosmic microwave background, and one particular direction through space is called evil because it undermines our ideas about the standard cosmological model. The Copernican principle seems to be in jeopardy. Astrophysics. Physicist Ashok Singhal. Um, I'm gonna come over here to talk to you for a second. So this is in regard. Now I have these quotes kind of all discombobulated. Um, but I'm going to give you context as we go through them. This is in regards to them looking out at energy, the background energy around the earth. When you look out to the sky and it shows that the earth is in the center, it's an even distribution in the temperatures all specifically coordinate with where the Earth is. And it doesn't really make sense because they're supposed to be all random and have no preference as to the location of the Earth. Because remember, the Copernican principle is that the Earth occupies no special or unique position in the universe. It's a tiny speck of dust and this ever expanding universe of nothing. It's purely random and it doesn't really matter at all. The evidence didn't show is that though it showed us that it was literally in the center, so they called it the axis of evil. They gave a moral descriptor, evil, to an observation of the universe. It's a philosophy and it's it's a weirdo philosophy, to be honest. So I just want you guys to fully understand what the context, the whole context is, just what the title of the stream is. It's geocentrism. And these aren't just some quotes. This is all built upon the experiments and the data and the studies. I just. I just get tired of hearing people misrepresent what the actual situation is. If you want to believe the earth is a spinning ball, go for it. At least honestly absorb what your position is and if you don't know, inform yourself prior to being so sure about your position. That is always the wisest thing to do. See, I would do it like this, but I'm going to block that thing. I mean, I guess you guys can tell me if you want, but it'll be blocking the, uh, quotes. And a lot of people like to take screenshots of the quotes. Here is another, uh, quote about this observation. Why is the solar system cosmically aligned? The cosmic alignment was not random and in fact showed that the Earth was the center. Or best case scenario, for heliocentrism. All the data makes us look like we're in the center. Uh, astrophysicist Dragan Hutterer. Quote. No longer could astronomers hope that the Copernican dilemma, as in the dilemma with their philosophical preference that the Earth is not special. That the Copernican dilemma would disappear with improved data. The data were in hand and their implication inescapable. We are at the center of a spherically symmetric distribution of gamma ray burst sources, and this distribution has an outer edge. Oh, it's supposed to be infinitely expanding in all directions with no location preference regarding the Earth. The evidence showed us the opposite of that. And when they first got the evidence showing us that the earth at the center, they thought, oh, man, this puts the Copernican principle in jeopardy. This is a dilemma. But once we get better, more improved data, then we'll know for sure that we're good and actually we're not at the center. And then the more improved data came and it showed even more definitively that the Earth is in the center. Astrophysicist Jonathan Katz. Next, we have a lot of quotes. Next quote. But when you look at the CMB map, that's the cosmic microwave background. You also see that the structure that is observed is, in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the Earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe that would say we are truly the center of the universe. Physicist Lawrence Krauss, who is atheist of all atheists. Crazy. So that's point blank there, right? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. That would say we are truly the center of the universe. Is the Copernican principle coming back to haunt us. Moving on. Next quote. All this evidence that the universe looks the same. Whichever direction we look might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. You don't. You don't say. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. This is, however, an alternative explanation. There is, however, an alternative explanation. The universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy two. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann's second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for or against this assumption. I'm going to read that again. We have no scientific evidence for or against this assumption. Now, actually, we have tons of evidence against it, because all the evidence shows us that the earth is the center. So they're like, oh, well, it'll just look like you're at the center everywhere. So I'll try to go through the quotes without giving my commentary first. I'm going to start over. Sorry. Quote all this evidence that the universe looks the same. Whichever direction we look might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternative explanation the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy. To this, as we have seen, was Friedmann's second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for or against this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty. It would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe. Physicist Stephen Hawking. It would be most remarkable because it would mean that the Earth was placed in the center, and that it occupies the special, unique position of all positions where everything moves around us. You can call it modesty, but the truth is, you don't want to be humble and modest enough to acknowledge a creator. That's weird. Next quote, Michelson and Morley found shifts in the interference fringes, but they were very much smaller than the size of the effect expected from the known orbital motion of the Earth. Physicist John de Norton. Now, if anybody saw the debate I had. He was telling me that they saw nothing. I'm going to come back over for this to. Hmm'hmm. The talking point for this is a Michelson-Morley. They didn't detect anything and it debunked the ether. They did detect something though. Every time it's ever been done, they detect something. I showed you the visualization, the expected result and the actual result. The actual result did not show them going together perfectly. It showed that there was just a slight difference. Every time that this has been done since then. It always measures a fringe shift every single time. In fact, it was replicated even by the Air Force in 1987 and then it was published. The results were published in a nature um article, and it showed the same thing that Michelson-Morley got. There is a fringe shift, but it's not what was expected. Hillside. Cheers, brother. Thank you for the, uh, $20 super chat. Greatly appreciated. And, uh, cheers back my guy. Thank you for the support. So that so in the debate you I was told they didn't they didn't measure anything. No. It was nothing because they classified it as a no result, meaning they expected it to be a certain amount because they assumed that the Earth was moving around the sun. They didn't find that. So they said, oh, it's a no result. It's not what we expected to find. And then the experimental error is the excuse. Well, the instruments have an error bar. And so it's just going to fall within that error bar, even though in fact this is the truth of the matter. That's just a talking point because it is a religion. It is a cult. And you must follow the cult script and you must repeat the talking points and the script and be a good boy. And don't think for yourself. You repeat what Google and Wikipedia says, or we're gonna make fun of you. So, um, like I said, there, there always was a difference. And the the apparatus that Michelson-Morley used was sensitive enough to detect as little as two miles a second. And the claimed orbit. Orbital speed of the Earth going around the sun was close to 20 miles a second, so it was close to 20 miles a second assumed orbital motion speed through the Earth, and the apparatus was sensitive enough to detect two miles a second, and it did consistently detect the fringe shift, but not what was expected less than one sixth the value predicted by the motion of the Earth. Thank you can edits for the $10 Super chat gravy. Yes, sir. Thank you for the support, brother. Much love. It's greatly appreciated. This is some gravy. Anyone that's honest about this. This was one of the biggest. The biggest red pills for me is when I found out like oh wow, you guys, you guys know that all the evidence shows you're at the stationary and you're pushing this philosophy on me and all my homies and my children and my fam. I mean, I don't have children yet, though I do on the way, but all my friends and family, all of us, when we're young, as if it's fact, it's like science and it's just like weirdo philosophy that you're scared that the earth being special. That's so weird to me. If the Earth is special, it's special, bro. Don't make this weird. All right, let's move on. How dare you! In a world. So again, Michelson and Morley found shifts in the interference fringes, but they were very much smaller than the size of the effect expected from the quote unquote, known orbital motion of the Earth. Okay, seems different than the mainstream anti flat Earth talking points, but what do I know? Next quote. But when you look at the cosmic microwave background map, you also see that the structure that is observed is in fact, in a weird way. Oh, did we go backwards in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the Earth around the sun? Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking at the whole universe that would say we are truly the center of the universe. Physicist Lawrence Krauss sorry, I don't know if it went backwards. It did. Okay. Next quote. What happened when the experiment was done in 1887? That's Michelson-Morley. There was never, never in any orientation at any time of the year, any shift in the interference pattern. None. No shift, no fringe shift. Nothing. As in, the difference didn't change. Throughout the year. In any orientation. What's the implication here was an experiment that was done to measure the speed of the Earth's motion through the ether. This was an experiment that was ten times more sensitive than it needed to be. It could have detected speeds as low as two miles a second, instead of the known 20 miles per second that the Earth is in its orbital motion around the sun. It didn't detect it. What's the conclusion from the Michelson-Morley experiment? The implications is that the Earth is not moving. Physicist Richard Wolfson. Yeah. You don't say. On its face. We know that the apparatus, the measuring device, was sensitive enough. To detect two miles a second, and they claim the Earth's moving 20 miles a second, ten times more sensitive than it needed to be to detect the Earth's motion. It didn't. And then if we're going around the sun, we're going around the sun in an elliptical orbit. So what's going to change throughout the year? So they test it throughout the year. And guess what happened? Nothing. It didn't show any difference. And it did not detect what needed to be detected for the Earth to be moving. Based on this, the conclusion, the implications of the experiment was that the Earth is not moving. Again physicist Richard Wolfson. Moving on. Next quote. We know now that the difference between a heliocentric and geocentric theory is one of motions only, and that such a difference has no physical significance. The Ptolemaic and Copernican views, when improved by adding terms involving the square and higher powers of the eccentricities of the planetary orbits, and physically equivalent to one another. Astronomer Fred Hoyle. Who coined the terms Big Bang. Very famous astronomer telling you that there is there physically equivalent to one another. The geocentric and heliocentric models. That's not what you're told in school, though, is it? You're told it's a definitive act, and anyone that even dares to question it is crazy. Moving on. Next quote. Tycho Brahe. Proposed a dualistic scheme with the sun going around the earth, but with all other planets going around the sun. And in making this proposal, he thought he was offering something radically different from Copernicus. And in rejecting Tycho's scheme, Kepler obviously thought so too. Yet, in principle, there is no difference. Of course, there is a major difference overall. One is that the Earth is not moving. One is that the Earth is moving. One is that the Earth is a tiny speck of dust in the ever expanding universe of nothingness. Because if it's in a heliocentric model, you're making a claim about the rest of the universe to. Because then you're making a claim about where the planets have to be relative to you and the solar system and all this other stuff. Or the Earth is geocentric and the center of all things. These are drastically different, but they are not different mathematically or in in the sense of a coordinate system or in the sense of all physical observations or evidence. You can try to use either system if you apply relativity, which simply says if the Earth is moving, it will appear like it is stationary. That's what it says. It says although all evidence shows the Earth is stationary, it's actually moving. That is what relativity is. So that's what he's saying here. Moving on. Next quote. There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove that the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun. Thus, all Galileo's discoveries with the telescope can be accommodated to the system invented by Tycho Brahe. Just before Galileo began his observations of the heavens and this tychonic system, the planets move in orbits around the sun while the sun moves in an orbit around the Earth in a year. Furthermore, the daily rotation of the heavens is communicated to the sun and planets so that the Earth itself neither rotates nor revolves in an orbit. Physicist Bernard Cohen. Now people again, the, uh, I the globe Earth zealots, if you will. Do whatever they can to try to dismiss this, and they try to claim that these are out of context. They're all in context. And all of this is exactly what they said and what they meant. And is just subjective. If you even slightly interpret and understand what relativity itself is and what the actual heliocentric model is, what they want to try to say is, oh well, they're just talking about revolving around the sun. You can't prove it. They don't mean rotating because they want to prove. They want to claim that they can prove the earth is spinning with a gyro, and they and the pendulum like they want to come up with ever they can right here, very point blank explains to you, no, no, no. First of all, if the earth is not revolving, it's not rotating either, okay? If it's rotating, it has to be revolving. They both go together. And that an equally viable system is that the Earth is stationary. And that there's no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove that the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun. Again, physicist Bernard Cohen. All right. Next. Quote before Copernicus, people thought that the Earth stood still and that the heavens revolved about it once a day. Copernicus taught that really, the earth revolves once a day, and the daily rotation of the sun and the stars is only apparent. Galileo and Newton endorsed this view, and many things were thought to prove it. For example, the flattening of the earth at the poles and the fact that bodies are heavier there than at the equator. But in the modern theory, the question between Copernicus and his predecessors is merely one of convenience. All motion is relative, and there is no difference between the two statements. The Earth rotates once a day and the heavens revolve about the Earth once a day. The two mean exactly the same thing, just as it means the same thing. If I say that a certain length is six feet or two yards. Astronomy is easier if we take the sun as fixed, and if we take the earth. Let's read that again here. Astronomy is easier if we take the sun as fixed. Then if we take the earth. Oh, that's how we determine what's true. Whatever's easiest and goes with our philosophy. We should probably teach children this as definitive fact. And this is censored, right? To discuss this conversation, we get censored. Why would that make any sense to anybody that can actually. Think for themselves and search out the truth. Astronomy is easier if we take the sun as fixed than if we take the Earth, just as accounts are easier in decimal coinage. But to say more for Copernicus is to assume absolute motion, which is a fiction. All motion is relative, and it is a mere convention to take one body as at rest. All such conventions are equally legitimate, though not all are equally convenient. Philosopher. Uh. Bertrand. Bertrand. Russell. Bertrand Russell. Next quote I tell my classes that had Galileo confronted the church in Einstein's day, he would have lost the argument for better reasons. You may use my name if you wish. Mathematician Carl Wolfmann. I tell my classes that had Galileo confronted the church in Einstein's day, he would have lost the argument for better reasons. You may use my name if you wish. It is a way of acknowledging the fact. The fact he has to say, you can use my name as you wish, just goes ahead and shows you the problem. If anyone dares and speaks just the intellectual truth, they have to be afraid. If you're on the side of that, you're weak. Sorry about it. Next quote. It is very important to acknowledge that the Copernican theory offers a very exact calculation of the apparent movements of the planets, even though it must be conceded that from the modern standpoint, practically identical results could be obtained by means of a somewhat revised Ptolemaic system. It makes no sense, accordingly, to speak of a difference in truth. It makes no sense. Accordingly, to speak of a difference in truth between Copernicus and Ptolemy, both conceptions are equally permissible. Descriptions. What has been considered as the greatest discovery of occidental wisdom, as opposed to that of antiquity, is questioned as to its truth value. Physicist Hans Reichenbach. Oh, how dare you! Let's move on. Quote. The Earth centered system is in reality absolutely identical with the system of Copernicus, and all computation of the places of the planets are the same for the two systems. Astronomer J.L. Dreyer. I want to come back over here to make sure everyone's understanding the purpose of this presentation. This is it. You will be told that if you dare question that the earth is revolving around the sun and there's a solar system, and we know exactly what it is, and the sun is the center of it, and we're flying through space. You're crazy. You deny science. You don't understand all that scientific evidence we have. And all the people that say that they don't even understand any of the core principles of relativity. Some of us have actually read relativity, both special and general, and read Einstein's writings about those theories. And we've read his letters and we know what it actually says. We read the historical evolution of physics and science, and we know what the truth is. The truth is, if the earth is a spinning ball, it's going to look like it's flat and it's going to feel like it's stationary. And all observations are going to show us that the Earth is stationary, even if it wasn't. That is the current paradigm. That is because it has to be the current paradigm, because all attempts to ever prove the earth was moving has felt all of them have felt. This is the actual truth. Anyone? I don't care how many degrees they have that is, saying something different is lying. Now again, that's why I started this off with the quotation do not attribute malice to that which can be adequately explained with incompetence. But you know, look, you can't prove the earth is moving. That's a fact. Don't make it weird, bro. All right, moving on. Quote. The ancient argument over whether the earth rotates or the heavens revolve around it. As Aristotle taught, it seemed to be no more than an argument over the simplest choice of a frame of reference. Obviously, the most convenient choice is the universe. Nothing except inconvenience prevents us from choosing the Earth as a fixed frame of reference. If we choose to make the Earth our fixed frame of reference, we do not even do violence to everyday speech. We say that the sun rises in the morning, sets in the evening. The Big Dipper revolves around the North Star. Which point of view is correct? Do the heavens revolve or does the earth rotate? The question is meaningless. Physicist Martin Gardner, just so you know, pretty much every single physicist, astronomer, astrophysicist, and cosmologist and philosopher on this list are very, very famous and very prominent and very accredited. The reason that they're there is not because we are appealing to their authority. I am certainly not doing that. It is because the number one weapon used against us as a form of gaslighting and the form of psychological manipulation, is to try to convince us that we're crazy because we're going against all of the experts. And this is incorrect. And they don't understand what the experts actually say. So again, one of the last ditch wants the last ditch attempts to dismiss the validity of my presentation here. First, it is that the quotes are out of context. They are all objectively in context, and they are saying exactly what I'm saying that the people are stating in every situation. So once that doesn't work now, most of them will just keep saying it. You couldn't be much more dishonest than to just keep saying it over and over and over. Once objectively refuted, right? So some people won't do that. And then what they will then say is, oh, it's just talking about the earth revolving around the sun, not it rotating, though we can prove it spinning. But you cannot. If it is rotating, it is revolving, it is revolving, it is rotating. And if it is stationary, it is doing neither. This is objective. And here you go. Do the heavens revolver. Does the earth rotate? The question is meaningless. This is a pretty modern quote, relatively speaking, huh? Relatively. And, uh, this is. Yeah, this is just a simple concept. Either the Earth is stationary or everything makes us think the Earth is stationary, but actually it's moving. Next quote to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible. In terrestrial experiments, we have terrestrial means on the Earth. We have already remarked that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative results. That's from relativity, the special and general theory cited in Stephen Hawking's A Stubbornly Persistent Illusion, 2007, page 169. Here's where we're going to get to, where most of them are specifically cited for those of you that are spiraling. But the reason this is important, it's called a stubbornly persistent illusion. The whole entire idea of the writing from Stephen Hawking titled that is that the the like reality is so stubborn, right, that it gives us this illusion that the Earth is stationary and at the center. That's the whole point. This is 2007. Another like attempt to dismiss this objective recollection of your model. The heliocentric model is, oh, you're just bringing up quotes from so long ago, you still use relativity. Okay. You steal? What is the that you left out say? I don't remember. You can just go look into it, I decided it, it's in. It's in, uh, relativity. The special and general theory. I think he's actually the part that's left out is where he references a particular section in his theory. Oh yeah, I did remember. Okay. So anyway. This is this is Stephen Hawking, 2007. Right? I mean, again, I'm not appealing to their authority. They think the earth's a ball. Like, what do they actually know? But they understand that the globe Earth heliocentric model and they at least accurately represent it as opposed to the people that run around now pretending that if you dare question it, you're stupid. Don't just elevate above that. If you want to know the truth, then look into the truth. And the first step is to fully examine and interpret and understand the actual options. One is that the earth is spinning ball. Flying around in a vacuum, an infinite expanding nothingness and all this other stuff. The other option is the Earth is a stationary topographical plane and it's contained. Now, you could also say an option is that the Earth is stationary on a ball. You can go that route if you want, but. You need to understand what the model that we were all taught is. Before you can truly have a justified belief that it is accurate. So anyway, that's the context of this quote. So this is not the optical one. This is a different one. Again we've already read it from Einstein as well. It says terrestrial experiment. So, yeah. You can't prove that the Earth is in motion from the Earth with any experiment. Quote if the Earth isn't moving relative to the ether, then Earth alone among the cosmos is at rest relative to the ether. Now, that may be an absurd possibility, but maybe it's true. I think you can see. Now think about the bias in that. Right? Like, no. Now, that may be an absurd possibility. Why? Because that's what all the evidence shows. You're actually speaking backwards anyway. Now, that may be an absurd possibility, but maybe it's true. I think you can see that this is not going to be very philosophically satisfying, and it isn't satisfying physically either, but it violates the Copernican principle that the Earth isn't special. It is particularly absurd in light of what we know from modern cosmology, namely, that there are places in the universe, distant galaxies in particular, that are moving away from us at speeds very close to the speed of light. It's absurd to imagine that everything in the universe is pinned to Earth when there are such a wide range of speeds relative to Earth throughout the universe, but it suffices to rule it out on this philosophical ground. Philosophical ground. Now, his actual like logical postulation here as to why it suffices to rule it out philosophically is the assumption that there is a vacuum out in outer space, and that they actually understand the mastership and the quality and characteristics of what they observe in the sky via the lights and the quote unquote, redshifts, and the assumption that there is a vacuum out there. And that is where you get the claim that these galaxies are going near the speed of light in all directions. You must make all these other base assumptions within those base assumptions, he says. It seems philosophically absurd to him to think that all that would be going on while pinned to the Earth as the center. But he points out very point blank here that the Earth alone among the cosmos is at rest relative to the ether. If the Earth isn't moving relative to the ether. Now, that may be an absurd possibility, but maybe it's true. I think you can see that this is not going to be very philosophically satisfying. And as he comes down right here, he explains, but it suffices to rule it out on this philosophical ground. But actually it doesn't. Your philosophically and logically bankrupt my guy. Moving on. Quote. Thus, we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a motionless earth. This would mean that if we use a system of reference rigidly fixed to the earth, in which all stars are performing a rotational motion with the same angular velocity around the Earth's axis, one has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations by distance rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating hollow, thick walled sphere, and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus, from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right. What point of view is chosen is a matter of expediency. So I tried to explain this to Bryant, and in fact, I used an actual letter from Einstein himself explaining that if the Earth is stationary and the sky moves around it, you'd get the same results. This is what's being explained here, and this is assuming relativity, assuming gravity, and then still trying to apply it to an assumption of a vacuum. And none of those are actually proven, founded, or verified at all, right? In fact, they've been falsified. But the point is that within this paradigm of relativity and what people believe, you cannot in any way claim that you have proven one. Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right, according to Einstein's view. And they proved that you can have a rotating, hollow, thick walled sphere, and that the inside the cavity, it will behave as if there were centrifugal and other inertial forces, usually attributed to absolute space physicist Max born. Next. Where, uh, where's the curvature at? Yeah, but. You know, the fact that people believe the earth is a. Moving as a as another crucial component. The cog desk wants to hold on to the moving earth too. If you have to think the Earth isn't moving, then you still have to think that you have to accept the fact that the model that they taught you mainstream, that everyone believes actually could be wrong, and that is the main enemy we're fighting, is the need for people to be accepted, and they want to be that. The truth is, if you come over to the truth side of things, you're going to feel more at home and have more family and feel more accepted with people that truly care about the truth and you than you ever have up to that point. But you have to be able to get over the fear of not being accepted by the illusory consensus and majority that actually don't care about you, don't care about this, are distracted, and don't realize the philosophical and spiritual implications of this discussion. And they don't care. They just want to make sure that they can feel like they're accepted and they're cool. And then people will project their intellectual insecurity, attack others and ridicule them, lie constantly, insult them, and try to intimidate you away from looking into this by projecting their own fear onto you. Be stronger than that. Look into the truth for what it is, and accept the truth for what it is, regardless of what it is. The truth is not fear investigation and those truly seeking the truth do not fear the investigation or do not fear the process of investigation. All right. Quote. It is possible to describe the entire universe using any chosen point as the unmoving center. The earth will do very well, and no one can prove that choice is wrong. Scientists today prefer to picture everything in motion and nothing as being the center. If you haven't given much thought to the implications of the 20th century science, you may be challenged to realize that because of the concept of relative motion, no one can prove that the Earth moves. Kitty Ferguson, science writer. You may be challenged. To realize that because of the concept of relative motion. No one can prove that the Earth moves. Next quote. We can take either the Earth or the sun, or any other point for that matter, as the center of the solar system. This is certainly so for the purely kinematical problem of describing the planetary motions. It is also possible to take any point as the center, even in dynamics. Although recognition of this freedom of choice had to await the present century. Astronomer Fred Hoyle again coined the tum Big bang. Well, I would hate to have to be the one to inform you, Mr. Fred. Truth is, you actually don't have that freedom of choice. In the present century, we are drastically censored, ridiculed and misrepresented. To such an extent that there are so many professors and physicists across this nation and across this world that know this truth, have realized this truth, and literally do not think that they can come out and say it. Because that they think that they will be fired in their entire life, will be ruined, and you will not be allowed in any type of peer review, any type of, uh, you know, accredited circle. Yeah, that's the world we live in. And that's how you know they're not hiding anything. And we're definitely wrong. They have to make sure everyone can't hear what we're actually saying. Seems legit. Kind of like when your girlfriend that cheated on you delete your Snapchat. That's how you know that she wasn't talking to anyone on Snapchat because she deleted it. All right. Quote. Let it be understood at the outset that it makes no difference from the point of view of describing planetary motion, whether we take the Earth or the sun as the center of the solar system. Since this issue is one of relative motion only, there are infinitely many. Exactly. That seems like a typo. There are infinitely exactly equivalent descriptions referred to different centers. In principle, any point will do the point. Jupiter. So the passions loosed on the world by the publication of Copernicus book de revolutionibus orbium coelestium libri the six. How dare you? Again? Um. We're logically irrelevant. So the publication of Copernicus's book were logically irrelevant. Yeah. So what's the philosophy? Have you ever felt the earth moving? Can you show me any experiment that definitively proves the Earth is moving? If you actually understand relativity. And if the sky is moving that you'd get the same effects that are often attributed to the earth moving. Have you ever had to count for the earth moving when you're doing anything in your life? Does it look like the stars all move around a central point central to you? So. What's motivating you to hold on to this philosophy? It is fear of societal ostracism and everyone knows it. Next quote. If we were to adopt a frame of reference like Tycho's in which the earth is at rest, then the distant galaxies would seem to be executing circular turns once a year. And in general relativity, this enormous motion would create forces akin to gravitation, which would act on the sun and planets and give them the motions of the Tychonic theory. Wow. If we were to adopt a frame of reference like Tycho's in which the earth is at rest, then the distant galaxies, which we don't actually know how far that they are. The what they call galaxies, the phenomena we do observe in the sky. That's it. We observe a phenomenon in the sky. They call galaxies, how they define them and what they claim they are and all the intricacies of it. Pump the brakes. The galaxies would seem to be executing circular turns once a year. Wow. You're saying that if the Earth was at rest that the galaxies do a turn every year, they just do a circular turn once a year? That's just so illogical and irrational. How? Why would that ever happen? The galaxies would just move with the rest of the clock system above us in a perfect synchronization. No way. That's so illogical. Huh? If there is at rest, then the galaxies will be executing circular turns once a year. And in general relativity, this enormous motion would create forces akin to gravitation. Just the motion of the sky itself would create enormous motions translated to the earth within the paradigm of general relativity. Yikes. Next quote. So which is real? The Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. No one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest. Physicist Stephen Hawking. I feel like that one should really soak in for a second. And I'm going to read it again. Hey, you. Hey, you! You look at me. I don't know why the YouTube counter's not working. How dare you! All right anyway. So this is Stephen Hawking, very famous. Famous, uh, guy over there, right? So this is what he said, and I want you to just really soak it in here. So which is real? The Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. No one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest. The claim. I was just talking about revolution around the sun. Not talking about rotation. No, it's talking about both. If the earth is at rest, it's not rotating. If the sun is moving around the Earth, it can't be rotating. If it's at rest, that's the opposite of rotating. There is no evidence that the Earth is rotating or revolving. All the evidence shows that it's stationary. That that's what I'm want to make sure is abundantly clear by the end of this. And honestly, if it's not, you're being dishonest with yourself. You're lying to yourself. Moving on. Quote, the Michelson-Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassing alternative. On the one hand, they could scrap the ether theory, which explains so many things about electricity, magnetism and light. Or if they insisted on retaining the ether, they had to abandon this still more venerable Copernican theory that the Earth is in motion. To many physicists, it seemed almost easier to believe that the Earth stood still, then that waves, light waves, and electromagnetic waves could exist without a medium to sustain them. It was a serious dilemma, and one that split scientific thought for a quarter century. Many new hypotheses were advanced and rejected. The experiment was tried again by Morley and by others with the same conclusion. The apparent velocity of the earth through the ether was zero. Historian Lincoln Barnett. Now, of course, waves actually aren't things. They're types of motion. But of course, with all these quotes, I am not claiming to believe what their worldview is or their interpretation. I am simply showing the accurate explanation and description of the decision on the table. It is that the earth always looks like a stationary. But relativity said that's what it would look like. It's actually moving. And that in Michelson-Morley they had the decision of whether or not to accept that the Earth was stationary and that there was an ether to sustain electromagnetic propagation, electromagnetic energy, which is what was the foundation for electrical field theory up to that point, which gave us everything that we have to this day and really hasn't progressed much, or they had to throw out this background, the state energy, even though we now have quantum energy, zero point energy, vacuum energy is what they call it, where you always have a background of energy. And it's been proven more and more and more consistently now than ever. So either throw out that idea and accept that the earth is at rest if you keep that idea. All right. It's very simple. Okay. Moving on. Next quote. The easiest explanation was that the earth was fixed in the ether, and that everything else in the universe moved with respect to the Earth and the ether. Such an idea was not considered seriously, since it would mean, in effect, that our Earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage by moving around it. Physicists James Coleman if you saw the debate, if you've heard some of the talking points they try to claim, well, Michelson-Morley showed that the ether had to be stationary and the Michelson gel show that it had to be moving. It can't be both. So basically they're saying, for one, all these physicists are drastically incompetent and know nothing about it. But the truth is, and we've just explained it and I can show you the actual paper. Of course, it always did detect a difference. All it did was show you that the ether is not stationary. That's all that it did. And it showed you that actually the earth is stationary and the sky moves around it. And if it's not, the universe acts in such a way that it tricks you into thinking that's the case. Literally, that is what was the conclusion. Therefore, they came up with special relativity to choose the latter, which was that the earth is actually moving. In revolving, but it looks like it's stationary with the sky moving around it, even with all our experiments and attempts to detect the motion. Because you no matter physically, contracts and time expands and slows down. So every time you try to measure it, it's going to look like it's the same, even though it's actually different because we're going 70,000mph. Moving on. Quote. Thus the failure of Michelson-Morley 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. Yet we have known since Galileo that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Why should it be at rest in space? Physicist. Physicist Adolph Baker. Um, so once again, just explaining this, just refuting the idea that, you know, all it did was definitively show that there is no ether. No, actually, what it showed was that, um, the Earth was stationary. All right. Next. There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove that the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun. Physicist Bernard Cohen. Point blank. There's no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove that the Earth is moving in orbit around the sun. Next. Older quote here. I have already known a long time that we do not yet have proof for the system of Copernicus, but I shall not take the risk to be the first one attacking it. Alexander von Humboldt. Isn't that interesting? And this is still the same situation now. People are just scared to speak out. And that's sad, bro, because that's the opposite of science. That's what religion is. Quote. Thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo, it is remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the Earth moves. Physicist Julian Barbour. This is a recent quote, as in like relatively recent. Even now, 350 years after Galileo, it's remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the Earth moves. And this is the truth. You have to. You have to claim it always looks like the earth is stationary. No matter what we do, no matter what experiment, whether it's the gyro, the mechanical gyro, the ring laser gyro, uh, the pendulum, we can never actually, when we do Michelson-Morley, we shoot things in different directions based on the supposed motions of the earth. We can't. It looks like the earth's not moving. And when we do Michelson gel, it shows the sidereal rotation perfectly because we see the sky move around us and we detect that perfectly with our method using interferometry lasers. But whenever we try to do it to detect the orbit, we don't detect anything. So it leaves us one option here. The stationary in the sky moves around it. Next quote. We can't fill our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion. Historian Lincoln Barnett, next quote cosmology is not even astrophysics. All the principal assumptions in this field are unverified or unverifiable in the laboratory laboratory, and researchers are quite comfortable with inventing unknowns to explain the unknown. How then, could, after 50 years of failed attempts in finding dark matter, the fields of dark matter, dark energy have become such lofty priorities in astronomy funding to the detriment of all other branches of astronomy. I demonstrate in this article that while some of this is based upon truth, at least just as much of A-cdm cosmology has been propped by a paralyzing amount of propaganda which suppresses counter-evidence and subdues competing models. I believe astronomy is no longer heading towards a healthy future, unless funding agencies rethink their master plans. By backing away from such a high emphasis on groping in the dark. Richard Loo AC, DM cosmology. How much suppression of credible evidence does the model really lead its competitors using all evidence? 2007 abstract. Here I have the explanation of what he was just talking about. A-cdm, which is the lambda cold dark matter or the the Big Bang. Right. So the Lambda-CDM model is a parametrization of the Big Bang cosmological model, in which the universe contains three major components. First, a cosmological constant denoted by lambda associated with dark energy. Second, the postulated cold dark matter, abbreviated CDM, and third, ordinary matter, which is only 5% of the alleged universe. It is frequently referred to as the Standard Model of Big Bang cosmology, because it is the simplest model that provides a reasonably good account of the following properties of the cosmos. One. The existence and structure of the cosmic microwave background, or the Earth is stationary in the center. Two the large scale structure in the distribution of galaxies or the Earth is stationary. Three, the observed abundances of hydrogen, helium and lithium, or the Earth is geocentric and stationary. Again, if you don't understand, they had to propose the concepts of dark matter and dark energy to try to explain away all of these discrepancies, like the abundances of alleged hydrogen using spectroscopy within their own paradigm of reification fallacies for the accelerating expansion of the universe, as they have to invoke some type of crazy energy because it needs to go so super fast. All right. Next quote. Yeah. Simplest model. Exactly. What a joke. Quote. Uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma ray burst sources. Now watch out for the gamma ray burst sources, because this, uh, have you seen this presentation to people? Or you go look in the comments, or you go look at some like anti flat earther like glow proponents, you start to tell them some of this information. You're really going to have to watch out for the gamma ray bursts. Like they will come at you with a quickness. The distribution of gamma ray burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell with us at the center. Some other extremely contrived and implausible distributions are also possible, but Copernicus taught us that we are not in a special preferred position in the universe. Earth is not at the center of the solar system, the sun is not at the center of the galaxy, and so forth. There is no reason to believe we are at the center of the distribution of gamma ray bursts. If our instruments are sensitive enough to detect bursts at the edge of the spatial distribution, then they should not be isotropic on the sky. Contrary to observation, if our instruments are less sensitive than the nose three by two law. Huh? Uh, should hold. Also contrary to observation, that is the Copernican dilemma to this day. After the detection of several thousand bursts and despite earnest efforts to show the contrary, no deviation from a uniform random distribution in the directions of gamma ray bursts on the sky has ever been convincingly demonstrated. Jonathan Katz, The Biggest Bangs The mystery of gamma ray burst The Most violent explosions in the universe, Oxford University, page 84, 90 and 91. Next quote. These are point blank explaining to you. Instead of just accepting the truth, they frantically tried to figure out any possible way to keep the idea that the earth is insignificant and not special alive because of their philosophical devotion. What? A fundamental presupposition of modern cosmology is the Copernican principle. That we are not in a central or otherwise special region of the universe. Studies of of type la supernova, together with the Copernican Principle, have led to the interference that the universe is accelerating in its expansion. The usual explanation for this is that there must be a dark energy to drive the acceleration. Alternatively, it could be the case that the Copernican principle is invalid. Oh, so the most typical explanation for this is that there's something we can't define called dark energy. We call it dark because it doesn't interact with the electromagnetic spectrum, also known as light, and we call it energy because it just must be creating tons of energy to be able to create this motion. We don't know what it is at all though, but it has to drive the acceleration. So there's this infamous deity that goes and controls everything that fixes our model, basically. Alternatively, it could be the case that the Copernican principle is invalid. Oh no, no, we'll literally make up words and math equations and make up stories that we can't figure out at all, or even define before we ever even consider the possibility that it's an invalid. Uh, so alternatively, it could be the case that the Copernican principle is invalid and that the data has been interpreted with an inappropriate theoretical framework. If we were to live in a special place in the universe, near the center of a void where the local matter density is low, then the supernova observations would be accounted for without the addition of dark energy. Timothy Clifton, Oxford Astrophysics PhD. Living and avoid testing the Copernican principle with distant supernova. Wow. Everything excited? If you'd like to take a picture. Moving on. I know that this is like, really like information and heavy, but I just wanted to get this out there in the ether. All right. Next quote. Dark energy is problematic. No one really knows what it is. We can make an educated guess and use quantum theory to estimate how much of it there might be, but then we overshoot by an astounding factor of ten to the 120th power. Now you'll have people come up with all kinds of stuff. No, other people don't think it's that big. Only one person said that. Oh no, not only one person said that and he didn't just make it up. So we're going to read again where it comes from. The discrepancy. Dark energy's problematic. No one really knows what it is. We can make an educated guess and use quantum theory to estimate how much of it there might be, but then we overshoot by an astounding factor of ten to the 120th power. That is grounds enough, says George Ellis, to take a hard look at our assumptions about the universe and our place in it. If we analyze the supernova data by assuming the Copernican principle is correct and get out something unphysical, I think we should start questioning the Copernican principle. Whatever our theoretical. Predictions, they will in the end have to give way to the observational evidence. So what would it mean if the outcome were that the Copernican principle was wrong? It would certainly require a seismic reassessment of what we know about the universe. If the Copernican principle fails, all that goes with that, the Big Bang goes out the window to cosmology would be back at the drawing board. If we are in a void, answering how we came to be in such a privileged spot in the universe would be even trickier. We aren't in a void of empty nothingness and it isn't too complicated. There must be intelligent design behind all creation requires a creator. There must be an intelligent, sentient design to place order in place. How dare you use logic instead of believing my illogical religion? Next. 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. Of course, it is for all things that we do anyway. Anything that we do, we use the earth as the fixed frame of reference. Anything that we do in the real world, any practical use case. Consequently, both the special and general theory of relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes. Y.p. Varshini. The redshift hypothesis for quasars is the Earth the center of the universe? Astrophysics and Space Science, page 43. 1976 thus. Now here we go. I'm going to start kind of going to I don't want to go too fast, but. Okay. And like I said, I know that, uh, some people may think this is information heavy and stuff like that, but I want to make the stream in such a way that you cannot leave here lying to yourself. I mean, you can, but. Okay. Quote. Thus the theory might be valid, provided the universe were packed with matter to the very threshold of perception. Nevertheless, the ever expanding model of the first kind seems rather dubious. It cannot be ruled out by the observations, but it suggests a forced interpretation of the data. The disturbing features are all introduced by the recession factors, by the assumption that redshifts, or velocity, shifts the departure from a linear law off redshifts, the departure from uniform distribution, the curvature necessary to restore homogeneity, the excess material demanded by the curvature. Each of these is merely the recession factor. In another form, if the recession factor is dropped. If redshifts are not primarily velocity shifts, the picture is simple and plausible. There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of the time scale, no trace of spatial curvature, and no limitation of spatial dimensions. Moreover, there is no problem of inter nebular material. Edwin Hubble, The Observational Approach to Cosmology, page 63. So there is no problem of inter nebular material, also known as primarily dark matter. In today's situation. So. And then this he knew about this a long time ago. Obviously I actually dark matter discrepancy was really first like pinned and 33 1933 it's not new okay. Moving on. Quote. If the redshifts are a Doppler shift, which, by the way, that's what they always are in reality, you know, like on the earth, in reality, if the redshifts are a Doppler shift, the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe. So if redshifts are what they are. Then the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe. Curiously small and dense, and it may be added suspiciously young. Edwin Hubble, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 17 506 1937. Bro. Bro. If the redshifts are a Doppler shift, as they always are, the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, as in the medium surrounding you. As dense, the universe is close. It's much smaller than they told you. The Earth is stationary and geocentric is special within the center of this electromagnetic fluid like medium that's very dense around you. Wow. No way that would just be able to explain everything. That's far too illogical. And may it be added, quote unquote, suspiciously young. That's right. Here is a is like lethal. Oh it's just a quote. Oh it's from so old. It's from so long ago. This is one of the heroes of the current model. And it's not like what he came up with has been changed. It's still used. That's why you can still invoke him and you can still invoke Einstein. Because what they proposed is still what is used. Next quote I demonstrate by means of philosophy. That the earth is round. I would love to hear your philosophical debate, my guy. I would have loved to sit down with you and hear all this astounding immaculate philosophy you have that the earth defies physics. Was it like the Greeks who thought the earth must be round because the perfect shape is a sphere? Oh, wow. Philosophical giants, of course. Quarters and pizzas and plates are also rounds. So is a Frisbee. That the earth is round, inhabited on all sides, that it is insignificantly small and is borne through the stars. Kepler. What a cool story, bro. I'm really proud of you for coming up with this logically bankrupt idea that you call philosophy. At least you admit it. Quote. The struggle so violent in the early days of science between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system would be used with equal justification. It doesn't really seem like we have equal justification nowadays, does it? It's almost as if it's not like that anymore. Is equal justification, constant ostracism, and being ridiculed by society and. Being so attacked that it's basically impossible for you to come out in any professional status and even dare question these things. Anyway. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences the sun is at rest and the earth moves, or the sun moves and the earth is at rest would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems. Einstein and Infeld, the Evolution of Physics, page 212. Now, of course, what do we naturally observe every day? We observe that the earth is at rest and that the sun moves. All evidence shows us that beyond our observations, to do anything in the world, real world, with any success at all, with practical use, we have to use the earth to be, as it is presented as stationary. With the sun moving. Wow, you're so crazy. If you think it's possible that the sun looks like it's moving in the sky because it's moving in the sky. All right, next quote. And this is, of course, Einstein again. Quo. In the effort to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment, the thought was advanced that the Earth might be stationary. Such an idea was not considered seriously, since it would mean, in effect, that our Earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage by revolving around it. Arthur Otis. Light, Velocity and Relativity, page 58. Next quote I have two things to say that might surprise you. First, geocentrism is a valid frame of reference. And second, heliocentrism is not any more or less correct. Astronomer Phil Plait, now he goes on to later say, because he got some kickback for this. Well, no, I think heliocentrism is the answer. Lower. Underneath this quote, he talks about how he thinks that the Earth is in a heliocentric model. But the point is, we're utilizing this to show that it's a philosophy, and people come up with philosophical criteria and reasons why they think that the Earth is revolving around the sun, and for whatever reason that they may have, whether it be religious, philosophical, or theoretical as to why they want to believe the Earth is not special is irrelevant to the point of this presentation, and it should be irrelevant to the determination of what is true. Someone else's bias, philosophically, should have no bearing on your determination of what is truth. Okay. And what he's telling you, which is what is just objectively the case. I have two things to say. It's actually not objectively the case. I'll explain why, but I have two things to say that might surprise you. First, Geocentrism is a valid frame of reference. Okay. Will you go tell that to some people? They'll try to laugh at you if you say, did you know that actually the earth doesn't move around the sun? They'll ridicule you. They have no idea what they're talking about. In second. Heliocentrism is not any more or less correct. Now, this is inaccurate. Actually, it is less correct. It's less viable. And I'm going to explain that right now. So he says, I have two things to say that might surprise you. Geocentrism is a valid frame of reference, and heliocentrism is no more or less correct. This is actually an inaccurate statement, though, because heliocentrism comes with a ton of other claims. So if you claim that the Earth is revolving around the sun, you don't get to just tap out right there and make the claim about the solar system. It comes with claims about the whole universe. If that is the case and that's the universe, or that that's the solar system within the universe, then that has drastic implications as to master distribution. What's outside of the solar system, how it's within all this other area of space. Uh, Jimbo Elrod, junior, welcome to the misfits. Let's give him a round of applause. Thank you for coming to misfit. Thank you for being a member. I can get you over here. We can get you. Oh, yeah. So that's that's the truth of the matter is actually the heliocentric model is less viable because it has all kinds of discrepancies. The same ones that Edwin Hubble were talking about are still here. Dark matter and dark energy. We covered modern quotes. We covered old quotes. It's still the same problem. It's been the same problem the whole time. If you think that the Earth is a tiny speck of dust in an ever expanding universe revolving around the sun 66,600mph, then you have the problems of dark energy, dark matter, the fact that you think you're looking back in time when you look super far back and the galaxies are way too frequent and way too developed within your paradigm, the galaxies have 3% of the mass predicted. You need way, way, way more energy to explain how the universe can expand the way that it is with all these presuppositions that, okay, actually it's all random and chaotic. Never mind. The information showed us that it's all moving away from the earth, like the Earth is a center. So we must come up with a new idea, which is that no matter where you are in the universe, it's going to look like you're in the center over and over. They're modify their belief system to keep it intact due to religious zealotry and philosophy. That's what it is, frankly. And you can't have any explanations for any of this. If the Earth is just stationary and the earth has the sky moving around it, we don't have these problems. If you have a more dense medium and the Earth is stationary, you don't have these problems. So it's not that heliocentrism is not any more or less correct. It's objectively less correct. It's less viable. It's actually been falsified, as has the radius value of the alleged sphere Earth. This is objective. Why do they tell you that this is all definitive fact for one side, when actually it just isn't? Though if it really was a ball that spins around and then revolves around the sun, they wouldn't have to lie to you and tell you that it's been definitively proven. They would tell you it's a philosophy and we haven't proved it. We can't prove it from the earth. They would be honest. Usually you don't have to lie a lot if you're telling the truth. All right. Next quote. The explanation, which had the most appeal in accounting for the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, was one that was literally dreamed up for the purpose. Literally dreamed up for the purpose that science. Guys. That's science. It is the so-called fitzgerald-lorentz contraction, which we just read Lorentz earlier, saying that everything briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth is at rest. In 1893, Fitzgerald suggested that all objects contracted in the direction of their motion through the ether. He reasoned that if ordinary objects flattened out upon impact with other objects, a rubber ball hitting a wall or a ripe tomato dropped on the floor, for example, then they would in or then why would it not be possible for objects that move through the ether to have the force of the ether push them in or contract them? This would adequately explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. The arm of the interferometer moving against the ether would be shortened so that even though the light wave traveling in that particular arm might be slowed down by the ether wind, this would be compensated for by having its path shortened. Wow. Objections to the fitzgerald-lorentz contraction hypothesis were rampant, as was to be expected not only because there was no evidence to prove that such an effect took place, but particularly because Fitzgerald could not explain why objects would contract due to motion through the ether. The contraction hypothesis was originally advanced as a possible explanation for Michelson. And Morley's results providing such an effect existed then to. The theory said that all materials traveling with the same velocity with respect to the ether would contract the same fractional amount. Since iron is much heavier and stronger than wood. For example, one would expect a greater contraction for wood than for iron. But this two went unanswered. And then Einstein stole this idea, which you see right here, that he actually proposed it within the idea of the ether, desperately trying to explain Michelson-Morley, but keep the earth revolving around the sun to keep the Copernican principle alive. Einstein stole this. Einstein didn't come up with anything. His entire theory. He stole. He stole this as well. He stole this Lorentz contraction. And instead of it being in the ether, he had to throw the ether out. Right. So we just invoked space and time, he says. He says ether exists in the sense that there must be physical properties. So you can call it that if you want to. But he threw the ether out and then he hijacks this, but then doesn't give an explanation as to the mechanism that contracts because he throws out the background medium that could be mechanical. And of course, the contraction issue has numerous problems with it. Like why does it all contract the same? Despite what it's composed of. Uh, and many other things. And it's to this day not explained, but this must be the case. You must claim that what they tried to measure the light with physically shrink. And no one could tell in time, physically stretched out time, the concept of time, the concept physically stretched out and slowed down while the measuring apparatus physically shrank. So it tricked you into thinking that nothing happened. And we can't explain why to this day. But here's some math to fix your problem. Next quote. The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion through the ether, because the effect looked for the delay of one of the light waves is exactly compensated by an automatic contraction of the matter forming the apparatus. Sir Arthur Eddington, Space, Time and Gravitation, page 20. Now I'm debate a bunch of people, um, pretty frequently, and they will just do mental gymnastics. So I had to go and get this quote. This is point blank explaining it to you, right? The claim is that during the Michelson-Morley experiment, they failed to detect the motion of the Earth because they expected the delay of the light waves, but it was compensated exactly. It just coincidentally, the exact amount needed to compensate for it happened by way of an automatic contraction of the matter forming the apparatus that was measuring the light's. But you can't tell. This is still the claim today. This is this is zealotry. This is a religious zealot. That's what that is. That is the most dumb thing I've ever heard. Oh, the physical apparatus physically shrinks, the matter physically shrinks, but it looks like it's exactly the same size and not does it only shrink? It just happens to shrink with the perfect rate. Exactly what is needed to make you think by tricking you that the Earth is stationary. Wow. And that is Arthur Eddington. Space, time and gravitation. Arthur Eddington of course, very, very famous. Did the, uh, observation with Einstein. Okay. Next. The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the Earth's motion on physical phenomena allows us to. And then he goes on to explain relatively relativity's role in explaining away this problem. So the failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the Earth's motion on physical phenomena allows us to. Assume that the Earth is in a relative frame of reference, and with the bending and warping of space and time relative to the displacement of mass, causing a gravity well actually physically widens and dilates time itself, slowing it down while simultaneously all matter in the vicinity of that motion physically shrinks so that any type of measuring rod or clock and any attempt to measure the difference will never be done, never be detected. The universe is basically a magician and a wizard who has brought their wand out and crafted the universe in such a way that it deceives you and you will never know the truth. So anyway, because people will try to say that it's out of context. It's not out of context. He's the point is, again, here's Wolfgang Pauli telling you that, uh, they failed in all the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the Earth's motion on physical phenomena. Uh, and that is Wolfgang Pauli, the theory of relativity, 58, page four. Next quote. Quote. The data were almost unbelievable. There was only one other possible conclusion to draw. That the earth was at rest. Wow. So unbelievable that everything you've ever experienced is actually just what's happening. Oh my goodness. Bernard. Don't say His name. Mickelson and the Speed of Light, 1960, page 76. The reason these quotes are older is because this is when people were still at least addressing it. Now people are so brainwashed. It's like very disheartening to be honest. Next quote. It is shown that the cosmological interpretation of the redshift and the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result, namely that the Earth is the center of the universe. Y.p. Varshini. The redshift hypothesis for quasars is the Earth the center of the universe? Astrophysics and Space Science, page 43. Next quote. Although dark energy may seem a bit contrived to some, the Oxford theorists are proposing an even more outrageous alternative. They point out that it's possible that we simply live in a very special place in the universe. Wow. That's so outrageous. Are you guys seeing this? Bruh, don't make it weird. Why you guys make it so weird? Although dark energy may seem a bit contrived to some a bit. You mean completely made up and contrived and desperate due to philosophical zealotry? So although dark energy which can't be defined, no one knows what it is and everyone disagrees on how much it's off by when. Most people think it seems to be off by ten to the 120th power. It may seem contrived because we've just desperately come up with a terme to fix our mathematical discrepancy with the band aid, that we can't even come up with a theory to define it, and we don't have any evidence for it. But the Oxford theorists are proposing an even more outrageous alternative than that. They point out that it's possible that we simply live in a very special place in the universe. Specifically, we're in a huge void where the density of matter is particularly low. The suggestion flies in the face of the Copernican principle, which is one of the most useful and widely held tenets in physics. It's is it? Is it useful? Copernicus was among the first, quote unquote, scientists to argue that we're not in a special place in the universe, and that any theory that suggests that we're special is most likely wrong. Wow. The principle led directly to the replacement of the Earth centered concept of the Solar System with the more elegant, sun centered model. They have no bias at all. Huh? Dark energy may seem like a stretch, but it's consistent with the venerable Copernican principle the proposal that we live in a special place in the universe, on the other hand, is likely to shock many scientists. Wow. You mean what all the evidence says? American physical Society. Dark energy is it merely an illusion? Science daily, September 26th, 2008. Next quote. The Copernican Principle states that humans are not privileged observers of the universe and provides our philosophical. Basis for assuming that on the largest scales of the universe is spatially homogenous. While it is one of the foundational aspects of modern cosmology, this assumption remains untested outside of the standard paradigm. Though it may seem pedantic to test something so quote unquote obvious. The standard paradigm itself is built on shaky foundations, relying on an unexplained, gravitationally repulsive dark energy component for observations to fit the model. The implications of this cannot be overstated. Assuming that the laws of physics do apply equally everywhere in the universe, the only non Copernican configuration possible is one in which we live in a place that originates from special initial conditions. Wow. Testing the Copernican principle by constraining spatial homogeneity. Wessel Valkenburg. And that's his university paper. Lawrence. Uh, institution. Lawrence. For theoretical physics in the Netherlands. I think this quotes from like 2012 I'm not positive, but you guys can look it up. It's cited their next quote. I mean, if you don't get it by now, I'm just having. I have to just beat you over the head with these if you. I mean, come on. Next quote. The popular belief that Copernicus's heliocentric Freudian slip there. His holy system because it's a religion. How dare you! The popular belief that Copernicus system. Constitutes a significant simplification of the Ptolemaic system is obviously wrong. The choice of the reference system has no effect on the structure of the model, and the Copernican models themselves require about twice as many circles as the Ptolemaic models, and are far less elegant and adaptable. Look, I want to come over here for you guys with this one. Don't make this weird. I'm telling you, man, this is wild to me. Every time I go through these, I'm just like, bro, what did they do? The spell they cast on to the world, bro. So this is what's so funny now. People say, oh, it just worked so much better. We could never explain if the Earth was stationary in the center, we could never explain it. Yeah we could, yeah, we could actually, but. So here, he says. The popular belief that Copernicus heliocentric system constitutes a significant simplification of the Ptolemaic system is obviously wrong. The choice of the reference system has no effect on the structure of the model, and the Copernican model themselves require about twice as many circles as the Ptolemaic models, as in the one of one of the geocentric ones, and are far less elegant and keyword here. Adaptable. So less viable. That's what that means. Less viable. That's what it means. So you want to let people, like, tell you all these stories about how you're crazy to ever dare question it. The truth is, the geocentric model, objectively, is more viable on many fronts. All the observations show us that all the evidence shows us that both terrestrial and when we look out in the sky and people make up stories, and to deny this because of a philosophical bias, and to make claims antithetical to all empirical evidence and observations and logic because of this philosophical bias, how is that not a religion? You were tricked into our religion. It's just a fact. Think for yourself. If you're going to be in a religion, at least make up your own mind to be in one. Moving on. Modern historians, making ample use of the advantage of hindsight, stressed the revolutionary significance of the heliocentric system and the simplification it had introduced, in fact, the actual computation of planetary positions. Follows exactly the ancient patterns and the results are the same. The Copernican solar theory is definitely a step in the wrong direction for the actual computation, as well as for the underlying kinematic concepts. On three Planetary Theory of Copernicus, Otto Neugebauer, page 103. Moving on. Quote. We're getting through them. I wanted to make this just where you have to just be so dishonest to leave here if you can't admit, oh, it's just a philosophy. We actually can't prove it. We can't prove the Earth is moving from the Earth. Quote. Thus, we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a motionless earth. One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations by distant rotating masses. We already read this one. Of course, this is based on the assumption of the vacuum that the Earth is a sphere and that relativity is real, and it still explains that this has already been done. And he calculated a field due to a rotating hollow, thick walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. I tried to tell um. Bryant this in our debate. And he just said, nuh uh. Next quote. Additionally, we must take seriously the idea that the acceleration apparently indicated by supernova data could be due to large scale inhomogeneity with no dark energy. Observational tests of the latter possibility are as important as pursuing the dark energy or exotic physics option in a homogeneous, homogeneous universe. I can't believe I saying that word wrong. My goodness. Huh? Uh, dark energy option in a homogenous universe. Theoretical prejudices as to the universe's geometry and our place in it must bow to such observational tests precisely because of the foundational nature of the Copernican principle for standard cosmology, we need to fully check this foundation, and one must emphasize here that standard CMB. And this and I hate that word. Studies do not prove the Copernican principle. They assume it at the start. Standard cosmic microwave background studies do not prove the Copernican principle, but rather they assume it at the start, and this base assumption must be reexamined. George Ellis. In homogeneity effects in cosmology. March 2011. Next quote. So if Earth is at rest relative to the ether, then it alone is at rest. That makes us pretty special. Do you really want to return to this period? Uh pre-copernican idea. Do you really think you and your planet are so special that in all the rich vastness of the universe, you alone can claim to be at rest? Uh, stop making claims about the distances, begging the questions, conflating multiple models, and then trying to pretend you have some type of logical postulation that you're enlightening us with. My guy. He's just explaining right here. He's addressing it because the evidence is showing that the Earth is stationary. Well, you think the Earth is at rest relative to the ether because then it is it alone is at rest because everything else is obviously moving around us. That makes us pretty special. Do you really want to be special? Do you really want to think that the place that you live is so special? That in the entire universe, you're the one that's at rest and everything moves around you as if you were created and cared about. Physicist Richard Wolfson next quote. In order for the Earth to be at rest in the center of the system, we already read that. This is where he actually talks about it either. I just think this is a funny quote. Uh, may not. Planets and comets and all gross bodies perform their emotions more freely and with less resistance in this ethereal medium than in any fluid which fills all space adequately without leaving any pores, and by consequence is much denser than quicksilver and gold, and may not its resistance be so small as to be inconsiderable. For instance, if ether for so I will call it, should be supposed 700,000 times more elastic than our air, and above 700,000 times more rare. Its resistance would be above 600 million times less than that of water, and so small a resistance would scarce make any sensible alteration in the motions of the planets in 10,000 years. And that's Isaac Newton just explaining that there could be an ether. A lot of people probably pretend that he thought there was gravity, and he thought that there was. He knew what it was. He was a vacuum out there. He thought the vacuum was stupid. He said to think that something like gravity could act on other matter through the vastness of a vacuum is, to him, so great an absurdity that no one that's even slightly competent and philosophical deduction would ever fall into such a stupid idea. Here he is talking about the ether. Just thought that that was funny. Move on. Oh, here's the quote. It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact, as it must do. If gravitation, in the sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me, that gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another. And that's what mass attracting mass is, by the way. At a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is, to me so great and absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws. But whether this agent be material immaterial, I have left the consideration of my readers. Isaac Newton in a letter to Richard Bentley in 1692. So you guys need to stop making claims about Newton if you don't know what he actually said. He thought mass attracting mass was ridiculous. Next quote Newtonian laws operate in a world model that is very different from everyday intuition, because Newtonian space is infinite and homogenous, Earth and its surface are not special places. The directions up, down and sideways are fundamentally similar, nor is rest privileged over uniform motion. None of these concepts matches everyday experience. They troubled Newton's contemporaries and even Newton himself. Uh, Frank Wolchek. Say his name. He's an he's a professor of physics at MIT. Nobel Prize winner. Once again explaining that the, uh, the Earth being stationary is synonymous and you cannot actually empirically and scientifically differentiate the two within their paradigm, which, by the way, you should learn that obviously, if this is the case, it's a house of cards. Go test the earth and look at all the evidence for yourself. Next quote. According to the standard concordance model of cosmology, over 95% of the energy content of the universe is extraordinary. Dark matter or dark energy, whose existence has been inferred from the failure of the Standard Model of particle physics, plus general relativity, to describe the behavior of astrophysical systems larger than a stellar cluster. This is again, I was in the debate and I said, no, relativity does not work. It doesn't work on the quantum or the cosmological scale. Every time I say this in debate, I get called names. I get told I'm stupid, ridiculed, and laughed at. But it is just objective and just the slightest understanding of relativity would tell you that it only applies to and predicts the 5% of matter. That is observed in the material perception, and everything outside of that is literally denoted as the discrepancies within the relativity prediction. There is no such thing as gravity that works in your paradigm. If you assume it, you can't even explain it theoretically. Of course, if the Earth is stationary topographical plane that's contained, we have no problems whatsoever, but we'll get to that. So just to read it again, according to the standard concordance model of cosmology, over 95% of the energy content of the universe is extraordinary. Dark matter or dark energy, whose existence has been inferred from the failure of the Standard Model of particle physics, plus general relativity, to describe the behavior of astrophysical systems larger than a stellar cluster. While the very homogeneity and inhomogeneity of the universe owe to the influence of an inflation field whose particle physics identity is completely mysterious even after three decades of theorizing. Testing the cosmological principle should be one of the key goals of modern observational cosmology. Large angle anomalies in the CMB. Uh, Craig Cope, Dragan Huber, Dominik Schwarz, and Clint Glenn Starkman and, uh, yeah, that. Yeah, an intellectually honest person would immediately go back to the drawing board and reexamine and question the Copernican principle if all the evidence has falsified it, gone against it, and refuted the idea. Or someone that is religious. And or brainwashed or suffering from Stockholm syndrome, or cognitive dissonance, or pride and ego, or their job has relied on them teaching this idea. They will not do that. They would rather lie. Whether that be to you or to themselves or both. Moving on. Quote. We now have increasing direct evidence that dark matter does not exist in galaxies. Then it is unlikely that some dark matter is hidden somewhere else in the universe. Therefore, the widely accepted CMB cosmology is in difficulty. For this reason, it is worthwhile to reconsider the expansion in the universe by starting from scratch. Our result has the merit that it does not contain hypothetical stuff. In inhomogeneous cosmology and the cosmic rest frame Guntur Sharif. Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of Zurich. Winton. Herster 190. 2013. And Switzerland. Moving on. We're getting through. Quote, dark energy appears to be the dominant component of the physical universe. If we believe in our psychopathic pseudo scientific fairy tale of an idea that the Earth is not special and was not created, and is an ever expanding, infinite universe of nothingness where everything came from nothing but there was a preexisting energy. So it's not nothing. But let's not talk about that part, and it's going to look like we're the sinner no matter where we are, even though we're not the sinner, because we're just a stupid little tiny speck of dust in an ever expanding emptiness, a void of chaotic happenstance that has no meaning and has no purpose. Sorry, I digress. Oh sorry, I misread the quote a little bit. Dark energy appears to be the dominant component of the physical universe, yet there is no persuasive theoretical explanation for its existence or magnitude. The acceleration of the universe is, along with dark matter, the observed phenomena that most directly demonstrates that our theories of fundamental particles and gravity are either incorrect or incomplete. Didn't I say that? Didn't I say that and also be told I was wrong in the debate with Brian? Yeah, the fundamental particles and gravity are either incorrect or incomplete. Best case scenario, they're incomplete, but obviously they're just wrong. Most experts believe that nothing short of a revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics will be required to achieve a full understanding of the cosmic acceleration. For these reasons, the nature of dark energy ranks among the most compelling of all outstanding problems in physical science. These circumstances demand an ambitious observational program to determine the dark energy properties as well as possible. I don't know what it said over there. I accidentally cut it off of it. Report of the Dark Energy Task Force 2006. Next quote. Studies of the cosmic background radiation have confirmed the I hate this word. I don't know how to say it. I don't even want to try because I hate the way I say it. It doesn't matter. Have confirmed that the nature of the radiation or its complete uniformity in all directions. If the universe possesses a center, we must be very close to it. Otherwise, excessive observable uh, anisotropy in the radiation intensity would be produced, and we would detect more radiation from one direction than from the opposite direction. But we don't do that, do we? Joseph Silk, University of California. Oh, how dare you go too far! Oh, we still got a decent amount of goats left. You guys going to be troopers? You guys let me know if you want me to finish. We got, uh. Yeah, we're definitely finishing. We got 20, like, 20 left. All right. In the Friedmann universe, one possible interpretation of the coordinates is that the whole space is on the surface of an expanding balloon and has no center. But in such a universe, there is no cosmic microwave background dipole, even in the presence of a peculiar velocity. In other words, the observations of a cosmic microwave background dipole excludes such an interpretation of the coordinates for the Friedmann universe. Uh, why tamazawa the CMB dipole and Existence of a center for expansion of the universe, Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics, University of Michigan, page two, 2008. Now they've, of course, tried to come up with all kinds of ways now to try to say, oh no, the dipole dad is wrong. Just one person thought that because they can't accept that maybe the Earth is special. It's all it is. It's just full of philosophical religious zealotry. In a world. Quote. We found something very bizarre. There is some extra, so far unexplained structure in the cosmic microwave background. We had expected that the microwave background would be truly isotropic with no preferred direction in space, but that may not be the case. The octopole and quadrupole components are arranged in a straight line across the sky, along a kind of cosmic equator. That's weird. We don't think this is due to foreground contamination. It could be telling us something about the shape of space on the largest scales. We did not expect this and we cannot yet explain it. Doctor Tegmark, MIT professor of physics. Next quote, one could just as legitimately assume the Earth to be fixed, and the entire universe, with its great spherical cloud of black body radiation to be moving the equations are the same. Indeed. Indeed, from the standpoint of relativity, the choice of reference frame is arbitrary. Naturally, it is simpler to assume the universe is fixed and the earth moving then the other way around. But the two ways of talking about the Earth's relative motion are two ways of saying the same thing. The Relativity Explosion, Martin Gardner, page 184 through 85. Wow. Obviously, I'm not intellectually honest. People know these quotes are not being invoked as if we believe everything that they're saying. It's called a hostile witness. Do not wrap misrepresent the situation. If you believe the earth is a ball, you have no no position to ridicule people that don't think it's spinning around in a vacuum because within your own paradigm. You can't know that. Moving on. Next quote. Abstract. Using Mach's principle, we will show that the observed diurnal and annual motion of the Earth can just as well be accounted as the diurnal rotation and annual revolution of the universe around the fixed and centered Earth. This can be performed by postulating the existence of vector and scalar potentials caused by the simultaneous motion of the masses in the universe, including the distant stars. Now I want to explain this part actually. Okay, so we're going to come over here like this. So I explain and we'll cover this later. There's a letter from Albert Einstein to Ernst Mach, and he says, basically, I'm sorry. I'm I'm sorry. I just got through trying to check out my minor cousin cousin's daughter. Let me. Okay. Sorry, I my wife just pulled me from out outside. I forgot to put clothes on again. It's one of those days. Anyway, I apologize for you getting ridiculed for the idea that you were wrong with your mocking prince. So Ernst mock. In fact, I'm pretty much a fan. Boy. Little Gamma, I've stolen all my work and I'm going to have to also steal yours. What I've discovered is that in order for me to propose relativity in a desperate attempt to save the Copernican principle and the idea that the Earth is in fact a ball spinning around in a vacuum, I must actually integrate your principle, this being that if the Earth was stationary and the sky was moving around it, we would get the same centrifugal and Coriolis effects on the earth. The only difference is they would be actual and not fictitious. It would drag the pendulum around. In fact, if I do not integrate this into my stupid little psychopathic pseudoscientific begging the question grappler reification fallacy theory, then I will not be able to pretend that the eclipse somehow validates my theory. Therefore, I apologize, and I want you to know that you will soon be getting, uh, glorification and justification for your theory. So basically, you know, he's explaining that if the Earth is stationary and the sky moves around it, you get the same effects and that he must acknowledge this to build relativity. Now the story is now I have again, I talked to people a lot to hear the best that the globe can come up with in the trenches and, um, basically what they came up with after like two weeks all working together. The first like few days is I'm lying, the letter doesn't exist. The letter is heavily censored. Took me hours to find it. Could only find it in German. Had to go get it. Translated by like multiple people to make sure that we got the right translation. Sure enough, this is what it says. Heavily, heavily censored. For obvious reasons. So once they find out, oh, this is legit. It's a super sensor. You're like, okay, well, I need to explain this. This kind of messes up my whole idea, right? So they come back and their rebuttal is, oh, well, you'd have to explain it within relativity. You know, you can only say that if you use relativity, but okay. No, I'm explaining that within your paradigm of relativity, you can't claim you proved anything was moving. Thanks for playing. It was tough on him. So then what they end up doing after a few weeks was, oh, well, I saw where somewhere in the 50s, I guess. Einstein said that he didn't agree with that anymore because someone came up with an idea. Now, he never cited this, never cited it, I don't know, but, um, this guy came up with the idea. Well, that couldn't be. That wouldn't work after all, because the stars that are thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of miles away. They would have to be going faster than the speed of light to do that. Now, of course, we don't believe in thousands of light years and all this nonsense, right? So we don't have to believe in that idea of a vacuum, empty vacuum of nothingness and star super far away. Because if they're moving around the earth, they'd have to be going so fast to translate the motion, blah blah blah. Okay, now the principle is the same and it's objective. Now here's the guy still assuming this nonsense, showing you that actually that critique was wrong. You know, Einstein super incompetent. So he would just always waiting for people to come tell him what to think. I don't think he actually understood anything. I think he was like a propped up grabber. That's what I actually think. But either way, I think he was just a Zionist propped up. How dare you, Austin? I'm triggered, I don't care, I'm sorry. Do some research. He didn't come up with anything. But now here is this guy right here telling you that he can still do this for you today. And this is this is a big deal because, you know, this is why we're censored. We have people running around talking about the Foucault's Pendulum from 1851, talking about gyroscopes, even though mechanical gyros don't detect it, making up all kinds of nonsense. When relativity itself says if the Earth was stationary and the sky was moving around it, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. This is subjective. It's just subjective. And they love their equations, their math and their model. And it has to work out. Here you go. Here's your hostile witness. Sit down. Stop claiming that you proved that the earth is moving. You didn't. You couldn't. If relativity is true, if your model is true, if your model is correct, you couldn't prove it. This is just the state of your model. That's how bad it got. This is just subjective. So please. Just chill out, bro. Stop making it so weird. All right, moving on. I want to explain that quote. Do the heavens revolve or does the earth rotate? The question is meaningless. A waitress may just as sensibly ask a customer if he wanted ice cream on top of his pie, or the pie place under his ice cream. Martin Gardner The Relativity explosion pay 84 to 85. Of course, the question isn't that meaningless because if the Earth is stationary, it comes with philosophical implications such as it was placed there. Next. Quote one can, of course, believe anything one likes, as long as the consequence of that belief are trivial. But when survival depends on belief, then it matters that belief corresponds to manifest reality. We therefore teach navigators that the stars are fixed to the celestial sphere, which is centered on a fixed earth and around which it rotates in accordance with laws. Clearly deducible from common sense observation, the sun and moon move across the inner surface of the sphere and hence perforce go around the earth. This means that students of navigation must unlearn a lot of the confused dogma they learned in school. Most of them find this remarkably easy because dogma is as may be, but the real world is, as we perceive it to be. If Andrew Hill will look in the Journal of Navigation, he will find that the Earth centered universe is alive and well. Darcy Petty of Royal Air Force College Cranwell, uh, Lincolnshire, England. New sign to 79, volume 83 1168, page 543. Um, this is also pretty censored too. It's really funny, but. Of course, the Earth is actually a stationary topographical plane, but you'll get there, Darcy. Maybe you did. Next quote. No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion. Lincoln Barnett in his book The Universe and Doctor Einstein, second edition. Next quote today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is right and the Ptolemaic theory is wrong in any meaningful sense. The two theories are physically equivalent to one another. 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. Astronomer Fred Hoyle, who coined the terms Big Bang and this is a thousand times worse today than it was then. Whereas if you get on YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, you name it Facebook, you try to talk about these truths. You will be drastically censored, shadow banned, put into a corner, demonetized, and then you will have all kinds of bots. Troll your channel with all kinds of psychological attacks and manipulation to try to basically demoralize you. Then you will have actually other toxic people come and be allowed to do all the craziest stuff death threats, you name it. And this is the thing, you have to just rise above it and understand these people, they hate their life. These people are bots. It doesn't matter. The truth is that the government is doing that because they're afraid of what we're saying. They're afraid of what we discovered. They're afraid of our tests, and they're afraid of our actual position being presented. Hence the flat Earth Society and misrepresentation of our actual position everywhere that you look. Hence all the anti flat earth losers that could never make any type of content that people want to see without flat earth, whose entire life and obsession and profession is hating on flat earth. While we are censored into oblivion. You should understand this is why people like Orson. Why don't you have a peer reviewed? Are you kidding me? Decades ago, it was known that if you even tried to question the Copernican principle and the idea that the Earth revolving through a vacuum around the sun, that you wouldn't be able to get anything published, you're talking about now where censorship is up by like 1,000% more than that. You're asking me why we don't have peer review? So you're being disingenuous. If you talk like that and you and you act like that, that's weird. To me. That means that you're making it weird, bro. You're just being weird. All right. Anyway, moving on. Next quote. We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance. Astronomer Fred Hoyle again, next quote from the same guy. We might hope, therefore, that Einstein's theory, which is well suited to such problems, would throw more light on the matter. But instead of adding further support to the heliocentric picture of the planetary motions, the Einstein theory goes in the opposite direction, giving increased respectability to the geocentric picture. Again, Sir Frederick Hoyle, uh, Nicholas Copernicus and the essay on his Life and Work, page 87. Next quote. This null result was one of the great puzzles of physics at the end of the 19th century, obviously talking in context of Michelson-Morley. One possibility was that velocity would be zero and no fringe shift would be expected, but this implies that the Earth is somehow a preferred object only with respect to the Earth, with the speed of light b c as predicted by Maxwell's equations. This is tantamount to assuming that the Earth is the central body of the universe. Dudley, Clinical Physics Principle with applications, 1985, page six, 13 through 14. In 1980. Page 625. Physics textbook. Next quote. Obviously I'm speeding up or almost at the end. Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east, as Copernicus taught, or the heavenly or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west, as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This 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. Denis schema the unity of the universe and this should go without being said. They've conflated philosophy, uh, and metaphysical assumptions and beliefs with science to brainwash the masses. Next quote again once more. For the record, it has been shown at least six different ways this century alone that the equations and physics used by NASA to launch satellites are identical to the equations derived from a geocentric universe. Thus, if the space program is proof of anything which it's not. It proves geocentricity and disproves heliocentrism. The evidence for heliocentrism is even weaker than the evidence for evolution. Oh, you know, man, this guy doesn't like evolution. He's just one of those guys like you guys. Gotta calm down, man. Drink some water. Astronomer Gerardus Bal, PhD. Next quote. But what is less known is that Tycho Brahe, Kepler's tutor. How interesting is that? Tycho Brahe was Kepler's tutor. You know, like Kepler's motion. Motion? Uh, planetary motion, laws of planetary motion. But what is less known is that Tycho Brahe, Kepler's tutor, developed a geostatic system that was just as accurate and elegant as Kepler's. He probably stole it, just like Einstein. That's all that ballers can do. The sun orbits around the Earth, and all the other planets orbit around the sun. The trajectories are ellipses, and all the Kepler's laws are satisfied. Luka Popovic, Newton Motion analysis of Neo Tychonian model of Planetary Motions, 2013. Next quote. We can take either the earth or the sun, or any other point for that matter, as the center of the solar system. This is certainly so far. So for the purely kinematical problem describing the planetary motion. If we wish to consider the Earth to be at rest, it will be necessary to give an annual epicyclic motion, epicyclic cyclic motion to every object in the distant universe, as well as to the planets of the Solar system. We cannot dismiss such a procedure simply on grounds of inconvenience or quote unquote, absurdity. And of course, that's what exactly is done. That's, again, Fred Hoyle. Next quote. We got like ten more. Quote, often the simplest of observations will have the most profound consequences. It has long been a cornerstone of modern science, to say nothing of man's cosmic outlook, that the Earth attends a modest star that shines in an undistinguished part of a run of the mill galaxy. Life arose spontaneously, and man evolved on this miscellaneous clump of matter, and now directs his own destiny without outside help. This cosmic model is supported by the Bell, the Big Bang, and expanding universe concepts, which in turn are buttressed by the simple observation that astronomers see redshifts wherever they look. These redshifts are due, of course, to matter flying away from us under the impetus of the Big Bang. But redshifts can also arise from the gravitational attraction of mass. Allegedly, if the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked. The argument advanced by George Ellis in this article is more complex than this, but his basic thrust is to put man back into a favored position in the cosmos. His new theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations, even though it clashes with the thought that we are godless and making it on our own. Editor of nature magazine, Paul Davies. And what's so crazy is, of course, you have fluid like medium background. You have all kinds of electric, uh, components that say superfluid. You'd have electromagnetic, perpetual energy with basically no resistance or friction. Um, there's all kinds of different things that could be going on, but it certainly is what they said it is. Moving on. Quote. Now imagine that the whole mechanism is picked up and put down again, with the sun fixed at the central position formerly held by the earth. All of the geometric spatial relations of the Earth, Sun and Mars are preserved. And since only the fixed point of the mechanism has been changed, all the relative motions must be identical. The Tychonic system is transformed to the Copernican system simply by holding the sun fixed instead of the Earth. The relative motion of the planets are the same in both systems, and the harmonies are therefore preserved. Thomas Kuhn. The Copernican revolution. Next quote. This assumption is made because it is believed to be unreasonable that we should be near the center of the universe. George F.R. Ellis. Is the universe expanding general relativity and gravitation? Oh, it's considered to be. It's believed to be unreasonable that we should be near the center of the universe. Why is that? Oh. Oh. Because it would mean it was created next. Quote. In a Ptolemaic system, the Earth is considered to be at rest and without rotation in the center of the universe, while the sun, other planets, and fixed stars rotate around the Earth. In relational mechanics, this rotation of distant matter yields the force. Now, the gravitational attraction of the sun is balanced by a real gravitational centrifugal force due to the annual rotation of distant masses around the Earth, with a component having a period of one year. In this way, the Earth can remain at rest and at an essentially constant distance from the sun. The diurnal rotation of distant masses around the Earth with a period of one day yields a real gravitational centrifugal force, flattening the Earth at the poles. Foucault's pendulum is explained by a real Coriolis force acting on moving masses over the Earth's surface. The effect of this force will be to keep the plane of oscillation of the pendulum rotating together with the fixed stars, Andre, associate professor of physics at the University of Campinas, Unicamp in Brazil. Relational Mechanics, page 193 191. And I was told that I was wrong about that. Of course. Uh, it's just it's just. Please, can people stop lying? You're making it so weird, dude. According to your own belief system, your own religious idea. Of the earth being insignificant, your little religion that is spinning and vibrating and all that stuff. You can't prove it. And if the sky was moving, you get the same results. Just absorb your position for what it is. Most people don't know that I do this for honest people. That. Haven't looked at it yet. Write that neatly. You need to know what you were actually tricked into believing because they lied to you. Whether you want to believe it or not, you were lied to. They told you this was science and it's not. It is philosophy. Next quote. The problem which now faced science was considerable. For there seemed to be only three alternatives. The first was that the earth was standing still, which meant scuttling the whole Copernican theory and was unthinkable. The second was that the ether was carried along by the earth in its passage through space. The third solution was that the ether simply did not exist, which to many 19th century scientists was equivalent to scrapping the current views of light, electricity and magnetism, and starting again. Ronald Clarke, Einstein, The Life and Times, page 109 through 110. Next quote. We're almost done. What happened when the experiment was done in in 1887? We already read that one. Good. Next quote. Now imagine that the whole mechanism is picked up and put down again, with the sun fixed at the central position formerly held by the earth. All of the geometric spatial relations of the Earth, sun and moon. Oh, we also read that one next quote. This assumption is made because it is believed to be unreasonable that we should be near the center of the universe. We should read that 150 times, but we also read that one. All right, here we go. This is a letter from Albert Einstein to Ernst Mach, June 5th, 1913. This was not easy for me to find it. It was actually very difficult. So I can only find it in German. I finally found it after hours and hours. I took some screenshots, put them together for this right here. So you can take this screenshot if you would like. And, uh, I'll try and put a bunch of, uh, sources in. I just, I don't feel like getting all these sources. I would. You guys can look these up. Has someone got a link to all these quotes or do I gotta do it? That's so funny that you just said that while I was talking about that. Um, hopefully someone can help me out because I had to put all these together. So I would love for you guys to help me out. This took me forever to put together and then type them all out and make all the memes. All right, here's what it says. If one accelerates a heavy shell of matter, then a mass enclosed by that shell experiences an accelerated force. If you have an empty shell and it's moving, then what's inside of it will be affected by that acceleration. If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell. That is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around. It is a great joy for me to present to you this, especially that criticism by planks which we know was surely published unjustified with the highest honor greets. I greet you heartily your devoted Albert Einstein. Um, and it skipped this part. Highly appreciated, dear colleague. These days you may have received my new work about relativity and gravitation, which has been finished after endless struggle and torturous doubt. Next year at the solar eclipse, we will see if the light rays of the sun are being bent or curved. If, in other words, the fundamental underlying assumption of the equivalence of acceleration and the frame of reference on the one hand and gravity fill in the other really applies your happy investigations on the foundations of man mechanics, Planck's unjustified criticism notwithstanding, will receive brilliant confirmation, for it necessarily. Turns out that inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies, quite in the sense of your considerations on Newton's Pell experiment. Of course, if there is a background medium that connects all things, it seems to make perfect sense that we may get some type of effects push down on us from outside as it moves around the stationary topographical plane Earth. But hey, what do I know? That's just the most logically viable explanation. With all the experiments and all the measurements and all the evidence ever. And then this is the end of it where he says, look, you know, you can't claim the pendulum proves the Earth's spin. If the sky was moving around a stationary Earth, it would do the same thing. Okay. Now, I read this quote in my, um. My debate and I'm going to end it with this quote. And this sums up all of it. None of this was cherry picked. All of this is in context. They meant everything that they said. It is just objectively what they were saying. Okay. Quote. Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth. This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. What would we what would have to happen for that to be the case? Because that's not even true. Nothing could happen that would make you do it. It's already been debunked and you can't explain the phenomena for decades now. There's nothing that could happen. Therefore, we disregard this possibility now. That's what actually happens. The unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs. Such a favored position is intolerable. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity and to escape the horror of a unique position. It must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape. Edwin Hubble. The horror of a unique position. A special position is intolerable and must be avoided at all costs. Now, like I said, I know that this was like real. Attention. I mean, like, information heavy is like reading. This is me reading a lot of quotes. But what I'm hoping is that some of you guys can go through it. Screenshot, pick out quotes, share with other people. If someone if you want to wake someone up. I think a good first step is to point out the geocentric aspect of things and how there is no actual evidence that the Earth is moving. Summary **The Debate over the Center of the Solar System** The research paper provided focuses on the [geocentric](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=83754) and heliocentric models of the solar system and the debate surrounding the motion of the Earth. The paper provides a collection of quotes and viewpoints from [physicists](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=23269), [astronomers](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=580), and scientists, presenting the idea that there is a philosophical, as well as scientific, flexibility in choosing the center of the solar system. The quotes suggest that from a purely observational and relative motion perspective, the choice of the Earth or the Sun as the center of the solar system is arbitrary and both are equally permissible. The paper discusses famous experiments such as the Michelson-Morley experiment and quotes from notable figures in science like [Stephen Hawking](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=19376148), Albert Einstein, and others, indicating that there is a [lack of definitive evidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=1670234) to prove the Earth's motion and that the choice between [geocentric](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=83754) and heliocentric models is a matter of expediency and philosophy. The quotes in the paper suggest that the observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the Earth or the Sun to be at rest, and that it is impossible to use either the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system as a model of the universe. The paper provides historical context and emphasizes the philosophical implications of the debate surrounding the motion of the Earth. [ 13.116197 ] **Equivalence of Geocentricity and Heliocentricity** The research paper provides a compilation of quotes from various [physicists](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=23269), [astronomers](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=580), and scientists throughout history, all pointing towards the idea that [geocentric](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=83754)ity, where the Earth is seen as stationary, is just as valid as heliocentricity, where the Earth is seen as orbiting around the sun. The quotes emphasize that the difference between the two theories is simply one of relative motion, and that this difference has no physical significance. It also highlights that the observed motions and phenomena could be equally explained by considering the Earth to be at rest and the universe to be moving around it, as much as the opposite. The paper also raises questions about the validity of experimental results and theoretical propositions supporting heliocentricity, and suggests that the [Copernican principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=7327), which holds that the Earth is not in a special place in the universe, may not be supported by observational evidence. The quotes further challenge the idea of [dark matter](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=8651) and [dark energy](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=19604228), and the assumptions of homogeneity in the universe, and call for a reexamination of fundamental physics and observational [cosmology](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=1864889) to gain a deeper understanding of the nature of the universe. The paper ultimately points out that the historical, theoretical, and experimental evidence presented in the quotes indicates the need for a comprehensive reevaluation of the assumptions, paradigms, and beliefs in [cosmology](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=1864889) and astronomy. [ 13.1 ] The article discusses various perspectives related to [geocentric](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=83754)ity and heliocentricity, presenting opinions and statements from different sources. It emphasizes the idea that observable phenomena could be interpreted based on either a [geocentric](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=83754) or heliocentric model, questioning the underlying assumptions in science. The article mentions NASA's use of physics equations, arguing that they are similar to those derived from a [geocentric](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=83754) universe, thus suggesting that the [space program](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=31216548) supports [geocentric](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=83754)ity and disproves heliocentrism. It also references historical figures like [Tycho Brahe](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=30027) and [Kepler](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=15736), discussing their models and perspectives on [planetary motion](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=22498). [ 13.17 ] The debate surrounding the center of the universe is highlighted, including discussions on the nature of the ether and the concepts of [spatial relations](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=4218673) in different astronomical models. The article includes quotes from various individuals, including [astronomers](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=580) and [physicists](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=23269), expressing [skepticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=26810) about the current understanding of the universe and advocating for reconsideration of widely accepted concepts. [ 1520 ] **Einstein's Letter and Spatial Curvature** Additionally, the article features a letter from Albert Einstein discussing the effects of acceleration and rotation on masses, and the implications for scientific understanding. It also mentions the reluctance to accept the idea of Earth's unique position in the universe, as well as the potential implications for spatial curvature. [ 20.121 ] **Avoiding Earth's Favored Position** The text concludes with the assertion that the favored position of Earth must be avoided at all costs, and that spatial curvature is seen as the only escape from the horror of a unique position, citing Edwin Hubble. The overall tone of the article suggests a [skepticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=26810) towards prevailing astronomical and cosmological theories and a call for reevaluation of scientific assumptions. [ 13.119.120219 ] # Key Points 1. The paper presents the concept of [geocentrism](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=83754) as an alternative to [heliocentrism](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=244588), discussing the idea of relative motion and how observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the Earth or the Sun to be at rest. [ 13.119 ] 2. It provides a comprehensive compilation of [quotes](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=494689) and statements from various sources, highlighting [skepticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=26810) and [critique](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=453596) of the prevailing scientific beliefs, emphasizing the need to reconsider and reevaluate fundamental assumptions about the motion of the Earth and the nature of the [universe](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=31880). [ 1013.11620.1789.1 ] 3. The article contrasts geocentric and heliocentric views, questioning the basis of the heliocentric model and presenting various arguments and discussions from [scientists](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=26997) and [astronomers](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=580) to encourage critical thinking about the Earth's motion and position in the [universe](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=31880). [ 13.1197 ] # Synopsis **Geocentrism and Challenging the Heliocentric Model** The research paper discusses the concept of [geocentrism](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=83754), challenging the widely held belief in [heliocentrism](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=244588). It presents numerous [quotes](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=494689) from prominent physicists, [astronomers](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=580), and [scientists](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=26997) throughout history, as well as contemporary science writers, to support the idea that the Earth could be at rest and at the center of the [universe](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=31880). The paper emphasizes that the issue is one of relative motion and describes how observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the Earth or the Sun to be at rest. The paper also delves into the implications of the concept of relative motion and how it impacts the understanding of [planetary motion](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=22498), the structure of the [solar system](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=26903), and the nature of the [universe](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=31880). Overall, it highlights the philosophical and scientific challenges to the heliocentric model and promotes the consideration of [geocentrism](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=83754) as a valid and equally permissible alternative to the widely accepted heliocentric view. [ 13.1 ] **Comprehensive Compilation of Quotes and Statements** The research paper provides a comprehensive compilation of [quotes](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=494689) and statements from various sources, highlighting the concept of the Earth being stationary and at the center of the [universe](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=31880) as an alternative to the widely accepted heliocentric model. The paper covers a wide range of topics, including the Michelson-Morley experiment, the concept of ether, the challenges of [dark matter](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=8651) and [dark energy](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=19604228), the [Copernican principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=7327), [relativity](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=30001), and the cosmic microwave background radiation. It also delves into the philosophical and scientific implications of these ideas and the challenges to the current paradigms in physics and [cosmology](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=1864889). The [quotes](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=494689) reflect a deep [skepticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=26810) and [critique](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=453596) of the prevailing scientific beliefs, emphasizing the need to reconsider and reevaluate fundamental assumptions about the motion of the Earth and the nature of the [universe](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=31880). Overall, the paper presents a thought-provoking and critical examination of established scientific dogma related to [cosmology](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=1864889) and the Earth's motion. [ 13.1 ] **Contrasting Geocentric and Heliocentric Views** The article presents numerous [quotes](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=494689) and discussions regarding the geocentric theory of the [universe](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=31880), contrasting it with the heliocentric view. The author questions the basis of the heliocentric model and presents [quotes](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=494689) from various [scientists](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=26997) and [astronomers](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=580), such as Fred Hoyle, Dudley, and Paul Davies, discussing the implications and complexities of the Earth's position in the [universe](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=31880). The article also features a letter from Albert Einstein to Ernst Mach, expressing Einstein's thoughts on the equivalence of acceleration and gravity in the context of mechanics. Additionally, the author emphasizes the reluctance to accept the possibility of a [unique position](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=804169) for the Earth in the [universe](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=31880), highlighting the concept of spatial curvature to avoid such a scenario. The article raises arguments against the heliocentric model and aims to encourage critical thinking about the Earth's motion and position in the [universe](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=31880). [ 13.119.1 ] **Reconsidering Geocentrism** So, in this passage, the author is discussing the concept of [geocentrism](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=83754), which is the idea that the Earth is at the center of the universe and that everything revolves around it. The author provides quotes and explanations from various scientists and thinkers throughout history to support the idea that it's possible to describe the universe from the perspective of the Earth being at rest and not moving. They highlight how different frames of reference can be used to describe [planetary motion](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=22498), and how even famous scientists like Stephen Hawking have stated that our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the Earth or the sun to be at rest. This supports the idea that the concept of [geocentrism](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=83754) is a valid and equally permissible way to describe the motion of celestial bodies. The author also discusses the philosophical and societal implications of challenging the accepted [heliocentric model](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=244588), and encourages readers to consider different perspectives and question the commonly held beliefs about our place in the universe. The overarching message is that the Earth being at the center of the universe is a valid concept and has been supported by various historical and contemporary figures. [ 13.1 ] **The Contemporary Scientific Debate on Geocentrism** This scientific article discusses the concept of [geocentrism](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=83754), the idea that the Earth is at the center of the universe and does not move. The quotes touch upon various perspectives, including historical experiments and theories related to the motion of the Earth, the existence of [dark energy](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=19604228) and [dark matter](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=8651), and the interpretation of cosmic microwave background radiation. These quotes present different viewpoints on the Earth's motion, including the interpretation of scientific data, the implications of theories such as [relativity](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=30001) and the [Copernican principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/?curid=7327), and the challenges of integrating different paradigms within scientific research. The article also addresses the controversial nature of challenging established scientific paradigms and the potential consequences of holding different belief systems within the scientific community. [ 13.1 ] **Challenging the Heliocentric Model** This article discusses the idea that the Earth might be the center of the universe, rather than orbiting the sun. The author quotes various scientists and astronomers from history, presenting different viewpoints on this topic. They argue that there is no conclusive evidence proving that the Earth moves, and they suggest that the idea of the Earth orbiting the sun is based on philosophical beliefs rather than scientific proof. The author questions widely accepted scientific theories and beliefs about the Earth's position in the universe, suggesting that there may be more to explore and understand about our place in space. [ 13.18 ] Me: WHICH system is more viable, geocentrism or heliocentrism PDF: The PDF file presents arguments in favor of geocentrism as a more viable system compared to heliocentrism. It challenges the traditional view that heliocentrism is the only correct model and suggests that geocentrism is a valid frame of reference. The document argues that geocentrism is more adaptable, elegant, and requires fewer assumptions than heliocentrism, and it questions the philosophical and religious biases that may influence the acceptance of one model over the other,,,. Me: Who would accept helipcentrism over geocentrism PDF: The PDF file suggests that the acceptance of heliocentrism over geocentrism is influenced by philosophical, religious, and theoretical biases. It implies that many physicists, astrophysicists, astronomers, and cosmologists accept heliocentrism as the dominant model, despite acknowledging that it cannot be proven and is based on philosophical criteria. The document encourages open-mindedness and honest consideration of the information presented, suggesting that the acceptance of heliocentrism may be influenced by societal and educational factors. Me: Is the author biased PDF: The PDF file appears to present a perspective that challenges the traditional view of heliocentrism and advocates for a reconsideration of geocentrism as a viable model. The author's stance may be perceived as biased by some readers, as it strongly advocates for geocentrism and questions the acceptance of heliocentrism. It's important for readers to critically evaluate the arguments presented and consider alternative viewpoints to form an informed opinion. Me: could you list al the people quoted PDF: Sure, here is a list of the people quoted in the PDF file and the page numbers where their quotes can be found: 1. Einstein - Page 13 2. Arthur Otis - Page 13 3. Phil Plait - Page 13 4. George F.R. Ellis - Page 1 5. Astrophysicist Dragan Hutterer - Page 5 6. Edwin Hubble - Page 21 7. Wolfgang Pauli - Page 15 8. Bernard Mickelson - Page 15 9. Y.p. Varshini - Page 15 Note that some of these quotes are attributed to the same person on different pages. 1. Einstein - Pages 1, 13, 20 2. Arthur Otis - Page 13 3. Phil Plait - Page 13 4. George F.R. Ellis - Page 1 5. Astrophysicist Dragan Hutterer - Page 5 6. Edwin Hubble - Page 21 7. Wolfgang Pauli - Pages 15, 20 8. Bernard Mickelson - Page 15 9. Y.p. Varshini - Page 15 I hope this helps! Me: What is the most commonly quoted idea? PDF: The most commonly quoted idea in the provided excerpts seems to be the notion that the choice of reference frame in describing the motion of celestial bodies is arbitrary and that both geocentric and heliocentric models can be used with equal justification,,. This idea is attributed to several individuals and is referenced multiple times throughout the document. Me: What is a reference frame PDF: A reference frame, also known as a frame of reference, is a coordinate system that is used to describe the motion of an object. It provides a set of axes against which position and motion can be measured. In physics, the choice of reference frame is crucial for describing the motion of objects and is often relative to an observer or a point of reference. Different reference frames can be used to analyze the same physical situation, and the choice of reference frame can affect how the motion of objects is described. Me: is it possible for someone to prove the earth rotates around the sun from the earth? PDF: No, it is not possible to prove that the Earth rotates around the Sun from the Earth alone. This is because the Earth is always in motion relative to other objects in the universe, and it is impossible to observe the Earth's motion from a fixed point in space. The apparent motion of the Sun and other celestial bodies in the sky can be explained by either a geocentric or heliocentric model, and both models are equally valid from a purely observational standpoint. However, the heliocentric model is generally accepted as the correct model based on other lines of evidence, such as the laws of planetary motion and the observations of other planets in the solar system. PDF: Here is a breakdown of the number of times each person is quoted in the provided excerpts: - Physicist Bernard Cohen: 3 times,, - Albert Einstein: 2 times, - Edwin Hubble: 1 time - Y.p. Varshini: 1 time - Physicist Julian Barbour: 1 time - Alexander von Humboldt: 1 time - Albert Michelson: 1 time Note that some of the quotes are from the same person but from different sources or contexts. Me: who invented heliocentricity PDF: The heliocentric model of the solar system, which places the Sun at the center with the planets orbiting around it, was first proposed by the ancient Greek astronomer Aristarchus of Samos in the 3rd century BCE. However, his ideas were not widely accepted at the time, and it was not until the 16th century that the heliocentric model was revived and developed by the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus. Copernicus published his heliocentric theory in his book "De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium" (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) in 1543. His work was a major milestone in the history of astronomy and helped to usher in the Scientific Revolution. LINKS [[0 Published Articles/Kinematics vs Dynamics]] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoqpZ7UJvxI&ab_channel=WitsitGetsIt https://t.me/AntiDisinformation/8590 ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-03-31.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-44-28.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-44-26.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-44-24.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-44-20.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-44-17.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-44-10.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-44-07.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-44-05.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-44-03.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-44-00.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-43-58.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-43-56.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-43-53.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-43-50.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-43-47.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-43-44.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-43-41.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-43-39.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-43-36.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-43-34.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-43-31.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-43-28.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-43-25.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-43-23.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-43-20.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-43-17.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-43-14.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-43-11.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-43-09.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-43-06.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-43-03.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-43-00.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-42-57.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-07-30.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-07-26.jpg]] ![[Attachments/photo_2024-01-28_17-03-49.jpg]]