Making Sense of the Senseless……
Heliocentrism Is Dead. There Is No Stellar Parallax!
Copernicus was a Sun worshipper who had been studying Platonic mysticism, which claimed the Sun was the highest in the observable Universe. It was this that drove him in his quest for Heliocentrism, at the cost of the facts.
Heliocentrism, the long standing belief that the Earth revolves around the Sun, is dead.
The key evidence for it, stellar parallax, does not exist. The implications of this stunning fact are enormous. Not only does this end Heliocentrism as a viable system, it also ends our ideas about the distance of the stars.
Tycho Brahe has been right all this time. The Sun revolves around the Earth and the Earth is the center of the Universe.
Do you not believe me? I don't blame you. The implications are enormous.
But allow me to explain what is going on.
Throughout antiquity and the Medieval era, Geocentrism had been the norm. Ptolemy was the great sage of this idea and his system, which claimed that all celestial bodies circle the Earth, was generally accepted as the standard.
However, already in antiquity, astronomers were starting to have doubts, as they were suspecting the Planets, Mercury and Venus in particular, were circling the Sun.
By the time of the late Middle Ages, it was becoming clear that the Planets were indeed circling the Sun and that the Ptolemaic system needed a serious update to accomodate this.
Then Copernicus published his famous 'Revolutionibus' in 1543, describing the orbit of the Planets around the Sun.
However, Copernicus did a whole lot more than just that: he also put the Earth in an orbit around the Sun.
And this was a wild leap of the imagination, which was absolutely not warranted with the available evidence.
In the first place, astronomy had always seen the Planets as simply wandering stars, luminiscent spheres on the firmament, only different from the other stars because they were moving, unlike the others.
To suddenly claim the Earth was just another Planet was not at all uncontroversial, and it still isn't.
Secondly, we should be witnessing stellar parallax when the Earth circles the Sun.
If the Earth is orbiting the Sun, then this should show in relative movements of closer and further away stars.
Parallax is what we see when we drive by a landscape and closer by objects seem to be moving more quickly than those further off.
Stellar parallax, then, should result from the movements of the Earth. Closer stars should show relative motion compared to further away stars.
And this was simply not being observed at the time.
However, Copernicus and his followers explained this away by saying that the Stars were simply too far away for the effect to be observed.
In doing so, he also laid the foundation for the insane size of the Universe that 'science' nowadays claims. The Universe has been ballooning immensely, since the days of the Copernicus…
It is for these reasons that Tycho Brahe published his 'An Introduction to the New Astronomy' in 1588, proposing a Geocentric, Neo-Ptolemaic system, where the Sun revolves around the Earth and the Planets around the Sun.
The Tychonic system is simpler than the Copernican one and definitely fitted the observable evidence of the time better than Heliocentrism. It still does today.
By explaining away the lack of stellar parallax, Copernicus was in fact not in accordance with Occam's razor, which claims that the simplest solution is usually best.
However, the Tychonic and Copernican Systems would compete with each other for centuries. The reason for this is mainly that, for some mysterious reason of their own, Kepler, Galileo and Newton, would all three support Heliocentrism.
As a result, their fame based on their own achievements, would rub off on Heliocentrist credibility.
And this was not warranted, because Kepler's elliptical orbits, Galileo's observations of Jupiter's moons and Newton's laws of gravity, fit equally well with the Tychonic as the Copernican system!
This point is really very vital to understand the history of the Heliocentric deception.
Stellar Parallax…..or?
Then in 1838 something remarkable happened: Friedrich Bessel for the first time observed star movement. Shortly thereafter a number of stars were observed moving on the firmament relatively to other stars.
This in itself was an interesting achievement, a testament to improving telescopes.
However, Bessel and his contemperaries quickly jumped to the conclusion that this must be the stellar parallax that they had been looking for ever since Copernicus, no less than three centuries.
But this was most likely a premature conclusion. After all: parallax is the seeming movement of closer by stars relatively to further away ones as the result of the Earth orbitting the Sun.
The fact is that the star movements that Bessel and colleagues observed, might have been caused by other reasons.
However, by the authority of their great predecessors, astronomers and physicists were heavily invested in Heliocentrism, even though the Tychonic system was, by all available evidence, still the preferable system.
As a result, Bessel's observations were quickly jumped upon as having finally settled the issue and everybody rested assured Heliocentrism was a fact.
This led to some horrible disasters later on, most notably the Michelson-Morley catastrophy, culminating in the mystique of 'relativity' and a wasted century for astronomy. We'll come back to that later.
Meanwhile, 'stellar parallax' was considered a given and ever since mainly a proud member of science's hall of fame.
However, since these days astronomers have been faithfully logging the movements on the firmament of hundreds of thousands of stars.
And now comes the great kicker: it transpires that about half of the logged stars show 'parallax' (or at any rate, movement). But about half of each move in opposite directions!
This is called positive and negative stellar parallax.
However: if we are indeed witnessing stellar parallax as a result of the Earth's orbit around the sun, all parallax should be in the same direction!
As a result we must conclude that the movement of the stars that we have been measuring ever since Bessel does NOT validate Copernican Heliocentrism, but IS consistent with Brahe's System.
Furthermore, we cannot call these stars' movements parallax at all. Because if these movements were caused by moves in the firmament, a result of the stars spinning around the Earth, or vice versa, all movement should still be in the same direction.
We must conclude that the movement that we are seeing is caused by other factors, and cannot be called stellar parallax at all.
And this also means that all our calculations of the distance of the stars are rubbish too.
And this brings us full circle, because it was Copernicus himself who began the insane blowing up of the Universe, based on nothing but speculation.
We have been had. On a scale that is truly hard to fathom.
The scientific community is guilty of covering up an immense scandal: that hundreds of thousands of confirmed star movements refute stellar parallax and therefore Copernican Heliocentrism. Nobody dares touch this stuff, while it sits there sticking out like a very sore thumb indeed.
This is far from the only example of a huge cover up. The fact is that our entire 'science' based world view is a fraud of truly monumental proportions.
Here is another example before we close off. While Earthbound observation of the Sun can probably never conclusively show whether the Sun circles the Earth or vice versa, NASA should theoretically be able to do just that. Presumably, they are scouting the solar system as we speak and it should be a piece of cake to have one of their satellites monitor the Sun's orbit (or the Earth's). They would only need a few months worth of data to prove the point.
Why, do you reckon, has this not happened?
The implications of the shattering of such a paradigm are momentous and we leave the reader to ponder both them and the here presented evidence…
April 1, 2015 Anthony Migchels
← Feminism is dying
Copernicus And His Kabbalistic Methods →
22 thoughts on "Heliocentrism Is Dead. There Is No Stellar Parallax!"
Jef says:
Spell it out for me Anthony!! …I mean it please!
joekano76 says:
April 1st spells it out Jeff!
Oh nooooooooooo!! 😉
Anthony Migchels says:
haha Joekano 🙂
But I'm deadly serious!
It turns out that 'modern physics' is about as reliable as 'modern medicine'.
And is this place flat and supported on the backs of elephants? Was it built by nephilim in order that unicorns could roam free? I've changed my mind on a vast number of things over the last decade or so, but this is a trip I'll be sitting out. Keep up your excellent work on economics, I've learnt much from your articles.
I've tried to spell it out as simply as possible in the post Jef.
However, I'll be building the case in the times ahead. It's all rather huge and I need a little time to exhibit the whole case.
Mary Kloman says:
I look forward to your future posts! I'm especially interested in more about positive and negative stellar parallax. Does that have anything to do with what's called aberration?
thetruthnotdoctrine says:
Anthony, something we can agree upon at last. Satellites are launched based upon fixed earth mathematical equations:
"In a letter written to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) making the following inquiry: "Is the present movement of GOES [Geostationary Satellite] planned and executed on the basis of a fixed earth or a rotating earth?" The answer returned by the department head of GOES/POLAR Navigation, was very simple: "Fixed Earth."
The original letter was addressed to Charles E. Liddick of the United States Department of Commerce, Office of Satellite Operations, Washington, DC 20233 on November 17, 1989. Mr. Liddick transferred the inquiry to Lee Ranne, from GOES/POLAR Navigation, Office of Satellite Operations at the NOAA offices in the department of National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service, who then wrote to, the questioner, Marshall Hall, on November 22, 1989, with a copy to Mr. Liddick. Original letters are cited in Marshall Hall's The Earth is Not Moving, Cornelia, Georgia, Fair Education Foundation, 1994, p. 261
If you haven't already done so do a Youtube search for Malcolm Bowden – very informative and helpful videos.
And of course there is this:
Joshua 10:13 (KJV) And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in The Book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
The sun stood still and the moon stayed not the earth stopped spinning and stopped orbiting the sun.
Indeed thetruthnotdoctrine, the Bowden vids on Youtube are excellent and highly pertinent.
PePa says:
That doesn't show anything, it just refers to the coordinate system being used. It does not indicate at all that the earth is not rotating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECEF
Well clearly it does, unless you're saying someone pops up into space after the launch and gives the satellite a shove to get it orbiting anti-clockwise at .46 Km per second at the equator. LOL
The question asked was moving earth or fixed earth? And the reply was fixed earth. Now what is it about those two words that you do not understand and are you saying that the equations based upon a fixed earth launch would be the same as those for a moving earth?
I suggest that you research Malcolm Bowden and Mach's Principle.
Are you quoting a Malcolm Bowden YouTube video regarding the letter written to NOAA? If you are, what is the title of that video? Or, please provide a link to it. If you're not, can you give us some information about your source?
No, I am not quoting Malcolm Bowden. I obtained a copy of the letter from, of all things, an Islamic web page.
Thank you. If you have it, I would appreciate a link to it. (I'm curious.)
This is the page but I cannot find the article with the letter'.
http://mando2u2003.blogspot.co.uk/
Pingback: Copernicus And His Kabbalistic Methods | Making Sense of the Senseless...... ~
John Warren says:
I wouldn't say there's *no* stellar parallax. What if there really is positive and negative parallax? I guess you'd have to ask, compared to what? Maybe there's a bulk of stars that you could use for reference, and then the ones that have positive parallax are closer than this reference bunch, and the ones that have negative parallax are farther away than this reference bunch. Just thinking out loud…
heine wind says:
You are just telling us a 'bad' time story. In which you are jumping from the one highly premature conclusion to the other. Without any real logical sequence of thought. You are using pseudo-logics my friend. Apparently you find the idea – the geocentric model – so sensational that you are calling out for the definite conclusion before even hammering down one convincing statement that led you to this disruptive idea. Within which there is no cosmology thinkable let alone hermetic. Science, like religion, is a mixture of truth and lies. Not all a lie.
Taking your advice, I watched some Malcolm Bowden stuff. The Catholic Church can in no way – scientifically, spiritually, nor socially or in a humanistic sense – be defended for their wrong doings against humanity during the ages of her existence. The creed of Malcolm Bowden during his four minute introduction in this video, shows he has no scientific nor a metaphysical understanding of the cosmos. He cultivates nothing more than a superstitious mind. He is free to do so. But alternative or independent researchers and publicists should take their tasks seriously in the light of continuous terror performed on earth. So we need to combine and synthesize our scientific and metaphysical capacities, optimizing it by granting some space for fantasy and imagination, maybe. But also by severely leaving out superstition… And by severely leaving out any reverence to the Roman Church, for all good reasons.
'The Great Importance of Geocentricity': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkEfj5DBnpc
torch says:
Parallax doesn't depend on a stars distance from earth, it depends on the difference in distance of multiple stars from earth.one star a billion miles away with another one 10 billion miles will have parallax. Little or no parallax means the stars are all about the same distance away.
Simon Shack says:
Dear Anthony, my warmest compliments for an excellent article. As it is, my only 'problem' with it is when you say that "the movement that we are seeing is caused by other factors, and cannot be called stellar parallax at all." Not so: stellar parallax does exist and is observed. It can be positive, negative or zero. As of the official ESA catalogues, those three categories are distributed as follows: 25% NEGATIVE – 29% POSITIVE – and 46% ZERO (i.e. virtually no detectable parallax at all). The Big problem is that, under the Copernican model's proposed geometry, NEGATIVE stellar parallax is simply impossible / i.e. cannot physically occur or exist. On the other hand, under my TYCHOS model (which I released in March of 2018), all the above three categories of stellar parallaxes are to be fully expected. I hope it's ok with you that I've mirrored your above post on my discussion forum:
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2406024#p2406024
Simon Shack
Claudius Pereira says:
One mans' meat is another mans' poison. Likewise one mans' facts is another mans' myth. So who is right and who is wrong. Your education and world views will determine what you think and believe. But real science should be above these views and look ONLY at the facts as they present themselves. Try that people – and see what really comes up !
I was an avid amateur astronomer for 30 years , but had to RETHINK everything I had learnt and assumed. The reality is very different to the text books !NASA is part of the textbooks. Look and search and research and question for yourself. Assume nothing .Only allow facts which are verifiable to guide you. You will be more than amazed !
Your thoughts are well appreciated! Cancel reply
Far Right 'Populism'
Money Power
The Not-So-Gay Lobby
The Second World War
The US Empire
Universal Suffrage
Two Women And The Lie And Truth Of Feminism
Do Homosexuals Die 20 Years Early?
Ursula Haverbeck And Revisionism
The Stupidity Of The Gospel Of Thomas? Really?
Copernicus And His Kabbalistic Methods
Claudius Pereira on Heliocentrism Is Dead. There I…
Thomas Malthus 2.0 on Why Do People Have Difficulty…
simon shack on Copernicus And His Kabbalistic…
Anthony Colavitti on The Stupidity Of The Gospel Of…
Two Women And The Li… on Ann Coulter And The Female…
Why Do People Have Difficulty Seeing The Jewish Question?