Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on May 15, 2013 in Q & A | 7 comments

Comments on Geocentrism Conference

Dear Todd,

Thanks for attending the GeoCathConI and providing objective feedback.  Replies to your blog comments  at
are below.

[Todd]  …the central issue to me has always been what the Bible actually teaches about the motion of the earth (or lack thereof).
[AMDG] Agreed. I supported Biblical GC before having any idea what the scientific proof would be.
[Todd]  …. I thought this was finally our opportunity to get down to some of the really hard questions about geocentrism. We didn’t really get that.
[AMDG]    Fair enough.  What are some of the really hard GC questions on your mind, Todd? I’ll try to atone for the omissions.
[Todd]  ….. This aether supposedly explains the motion of Foucault’s pendulum, which is apparently dragged by the aether of the universe as it rotates around the earth.
[AMDG] Your qualifications above infer the analysis given was insufficient or ineffective. The PP presentation is attached; the Foucault  slide is #9.  What is the conceptual problem?

[Todd]  ….  you could measure the “ether” of the universe by measuring the speed of light as it travels through water going the opposite direction.
This is an experiment he is challenging scientists (I think) to do to test for the aether.
[AMDG]  No, the Fresnel theory/Fizeau exp was an early proof of aether drag that 19th century physicists all accepted, repeated in modern times with the same results. There was no controversy over the theory or results…. until the M&MX shocked them all.  The Fresnel theory was applied to the Sagnac exp. which led to an Absolute Lab frame and a Flexible Aether – the ALFA model, using two basic axioms.
The ALFA challenge is not a specific experiment to be tested, but a request to refute the model by testing it against any experiment, i.e., the scientific method of testing hypotheses.  So far 2 internet forums have failed, preferring to sing the praises of relativity or focus my other beliefs. Only one poster stuck to science; he thought the binary star observations disproved the ALFA model.
I grant catching all this on the fly is difficult, but you should have received a handout that summarized the logic leading to ALFA. Since you missed that, a copy is attached.
[Todd]  …He concluded by explaining how there is some kind of signal in the cosmic background radiation just behind the constellation Leo. Then he informed us that although the zodiac is today associated with the occult, it’s true origin is biblical. Leo is the “Lion of Judah,” AKA Jesus Christ. Regulus (a star in Leo) is therefore signaling to us that Jesus is returning.  I’m truly at a loss for words.
[AMDG]  I’m rarely at such a loss.   Adam named the animals, but God named the stars …. many still have their Semitic names. From Virgo to Leo the Zodiac is salvation history painted in the sky for all humanity to see, whenever or wherever they walk the Earth.
What then is the scientific explanation for the aether flow from Leo – the CMB dipole source? What is the objection to my connection of Genesis and the Psalms with the CMB dipole- other than never hearing of such before?
btw: Regulus is more than just a star in Leo – it’s the heart of the Lion of Judah….
[Todd]  …. one person asked the question I was already thinking: What about the problem of rotational speed of the universe? If the universe really does revolve around the earth once a day, then “Saturn must be going at the speed of light.” Yes, I had thought of that too! …… So how in the world does that work?
[AMDG]  The aether speed appears in the ALFA model as Vae,lab.  There is no apriori knowledge of an upper limit for this V, nor is there any contradiction in saying that the aether medium can travel faster than the photons within it.
If mainstream science says that distance and speed of stars and galaxies are determined solely by Hubble’s Doppler shift – when there are certainly other causes of red shift – why can’t the observed stellar periods of a sidereal day be assigned to the motion of the aether the stars are floating in?
[Todd]  ….So superluminal speed is not a problem. Sure. That’s ad hoc.
[AMDG]   The falling pencil was an example of AAAD with no medium between to explain this illogical attraction of masses by gravity. Newton’s LoG is purely empirical, with no logical mechanism of operation. Aristotle said, “from nothing comes nothing.”
AAAD for gravity….. now that’s really ad hoc…….and hocus-pocus!
[Todd]  …it’s very tempting to launch into personal attacks and mockery, which would be undeniably popular and therefore increase my blog traffic.
[AMDG]  – a commentary on the level of modern scientific discourse, isn’t it?

[Todd]  …. so I guess maybe if they actually take my advice, at the very least, we’ll all have a better chance to communicate and understand our differences, which is perhaps the best we can hope to do.
[AMDG]  Please understand that we were under severe limits of funding (do you think $50 covers it all?) and this was the first conference (do you remember Windows 1?) .   You will see a big improvement at GeoCathConII !
[Todd]  ….Also, please include some kind of basic introduction to the factual issues in question. You launched right into a defense of geocentrism, and I was playing catch up all day on what you were talking about. For example, various speakers mentioned the Michelson-Morley experiment, but no one really explained precisely what it was, what they were trying to test, what the results were, and how the results should be interpreted.
[AMDG]  55 minutes isn’t enough time to present the MS and GC cases thoroughly.  If something had to go, guess what it was.
You can always get the relativity science anywhere, but this conference is a rare opportunity to gain rare pearls of wisdom not found elsewhere…
I did explain – apparently, not too well – what the M&MX attempted to measure, using the analogy of a boat in a river to a photon in an aether stream.  The difference in the cross-current speeds is ~ v^2/2c^2, where v is the speed of the aether.  M&M expected to find v = 30 km/s, the orbital speed that Newton predicts for Earth. They found about 15% of that speed and declared the result ‘null’, meaning not zero, but not what they expected.  This shocked the whole physics world – MS at that time was mostly aethereal. Michelson’s formal interpretation of his own experiment listed 4 choices…. none of the four were the obvious one – the Earth and aether were both at (or close to) being at rest.  SR in 1905 was Einstein’s attempt to solve the impasse by mathemagic.
Except for the last word you should find this to be a fair historical summary of the M&MX.
GC interpretation:  the Earth is at rest(Sagnac result) and the aether moves slowly around the Earth(Michelson-Gale).  The ALFA model explains these 3 exps and many more, like Fizeau.
Any more questions, Todd?  Time is no longer an issue, so let ‘er rip.

[Todd]  ….Characterizing scientists as arrogant, deceptive, or purely driven by philosophical bias doesn’t help your case at all.
[AMDG]  Point well taken.  My allusions to MS scientists refers to the academic physicists who are 90% atheist and authors of textbooks and pop science, the media demagogues who control what teachers and students see and think.
The ALFA model is significant for its simplicity.  Do we really believe that no one among the 20th century super-stars thought of this?  What they fear is the truth, just as the evols fear special creation, because it forces a life-style decision re religious faith.          …and the children of darkness ran from the light, for they loved the darkness.
[Todd]  … you need to address actual biblical arguments against geostationism.
[AMDG]  There are about 60 verses that state the Sun/Moon rise/set and 3 that say the Earth is fixed.  The number that say the Earth moves: zero.   This is the basis of Biblical geostatism.   Now, what are the actual biblical arguments against this exegesis?
[Todd]  ….Stop addressing stupid arguments against geocentrism as if they were good ones.
[AMDG]  But we can’t find any good ones …. only the s…. type!   Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Again I ask:   what are the good arguments against GC???
[Todd]  …. Bennett’s ALFA challenge doesn’t sound all that hard. It looks to this biochemist like a pretty straightforward experiment. So do it.
[AMDG]   ALFA: Not an experiment, but a model to be tested against experiments. Find one that destroys ALFA.

[Todd]  …Instead what we got were speculations. Handwaving. If you calculate this, it supports geocentrism. If you do that experiment, it supports geocentrism. Enough with the IFs.
[AMDG]  Whoa!  The scientific method’s bottom line is testing of theories by EXPERIMENT.  Rejecting or ignoring experiments conflicting with personal beliefs is unscientific and a characteristic of modern mainstream science. Is that how you do biology, Todd?
[Todd]  … And if your idea has no way to be tested (like the superluminal velocity of the infinitely dense plenum aether that can’t be detected by larger particles), then please just admit that it’s a speculation.  Stop pretending to be all science-y when you’re not.
[AMDG]  What about the AAAD – effects without cause – in Newtonian gravity?
What about the Hubble law which requires red shifts to be kinematic?
What about the evol claims of megayears based on strata depth and a few bone chips?
Or their claims of uniform geology over gigayears? (getting closer to home now?)
[Todd]  ….You will never be taken seriously as long as you approach science with a “look but don’t touch” attitude.
[AMDG]  We won’t be taken seriously until establishment science returns to the objective guidance of the scientific method and Karl Popper’s scientific logic and seeks the truth, not a personal ideology. MS scientists are driven by need for funding, power, prestige, jobs, grants, social standing, fear of embarrassment at being called out with the truth, ……    These are the priority push-buttons……  last on the list is the truth.
[Todd]  ….. Perhaps if the geocentrists take my advice seriously, they might convince a few more people.
[AMDG]  You can bring a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.
[Todd]  ….Or they might just convince themselves that the earth really does revolve around the sun.
[AMDG]  That would require a major rewrite of Revelation….. such as modernists are doing right now.

Thanks for your time.

facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinyoutubeby feather


  1. FrisbeeDecember 1, 2010 at 7:39 PM

    If Galileo was wrong and the Earth doesn’t spin, explain the Coriolis Effect

  2. Rick DeLanoDecember 2, 2010 at 12:21 PM

    Sure, Frisbee. Better yet, let’s let Albert Einstein explain it:

    “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*”–Albert Einstein, cited in “Gravitation”, Misner Thorne and Wheeler pp. 544-545.

    “One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating fromthe motion of K’ [the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K’ [the Earth], whereby K’ [the Earth] is treated as being at rest.” –Albert Einstein, quoted in Hans Thirring, “On the Effect of Distant Rotating Masses in Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation”, Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, 29, 1921

    Both of the above being instances of the more general relativistic principle:

    “The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [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 CS [coordinate systems].”

    —“The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster 1938, 1966 p.212

    Also, Max Born addresses the same point in his famous book,”Einstein’s Theory of Relativity”, Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:

    “…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. 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 Corpenicus are equally right.”

    These quotes represent an exhaustive treatment of this very question in “Galileo Was Wrong”.

    I highly recommend it.

  3. Robert BDecember 2, 2010 at 9:09 PM

    From Galileo Was Wrong: P. 287
    The rotating universe creates a ubiquitous and balanced force around the Earth …. Since the force is balanced, we do not feel it, unless we move against it …suddenly… Moreover, the rotation of the universe around the Earth creates the additional forces we understand as centrifugal, Coriolis and Euler forces. These gravitational forces are transmitted (i.e., “action-at-a-distance”) through the universal ether….Since the ether is dense and supergranular, it can transmit the forces very rapidly.
    see also Ps. 401, 403, 439

  4. Galileo Was WrongDecember 5, 2010 at 6:10 PM

    Modern science has shown that the centrifugal, Coriolis and Euler forces will be in effect whether the earth is rotating in a fixed universe or the universe is rotating around a fixed earth. The geometry and the dynamics are identical. In GWW we quote from many sources to demonstrate this truth. Here are some from Assis, Moller and Einstein himself.

    “In the 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 such that the equation of motion takes the form of equation (8.47). 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 in the form –2mgvme ´ ωUe, where vme is the velocity of the test body relative to the earth and ωUe is the angular rotation of the distant masses around the earth. The effect of this force will be to keep the plane of oscillation of the pendulum rotating together with the fixed stars.” (Andre K. T. Assis, Relational Mechanics, pp. 190-191).

    Although unbeknownst to Newton, about two hundred years later Jean Foucault would demonstrate his famous pendulum. It would rotate like clockwork totally independent of the Earth beneath it. What was the force that rotated the pendulum? It could not be attributed to “centrifugal” force because the pendulum was rotating, not expanding outwards. Hence, another cause had to be invented to account for this apparently strange phenomenon. It was dubbed the “Coriolis” force, after the man, Gaspard-Gustave Coriolis, who discovered its effect. But this force, too, was invented, and thus had to be added in by hand to Newton’s force equations, since there existed no physical body to account for its origin. Foucault didn’t know the origin either. As Assis notes:

    It is curious to note Foucault’s description of his experiment. Sometimes he speaks of the rotation of the earth relative to space and other times relative to the fixed stars (heavenly sphere). He does not distinguish these two rotations or these two concepts….For instance, he begins by stating that his experiment showing the rotation of the plane of oscillation “gives a sensible proof of the diurnal motion of the terrestrial globe.” To justify this interpretation of the experimental result he imagines a pendulum placed exactly at the North pole oscillating to and fro in a fixed plane, while the earth rotates below the pendulum. He then says: “Thus a movement of oscillation is excited in an arc of a circle whose plane is clearly determined, to which the inertia of the mass gives an invariable position in space. If then these oscillations continue for a certain time, the motion of the earth, which does not cease turning from west to east, will become sensible by contrast with the immobility of the plane of oscillation, whose trace upon the ground will appear to have a motion conformable to the apparent motion of the heavenly spheres… (Andre K.T. Assis, 1999, p. 78-79).

  5. Galileo Was WrongDecember 5, 2010 at 6:11 PM

    C. Møller writes:

    For example, if we consider a purely mechanical system consisting of a number of material particles acted upon by given forces…Newton’s fundamental equations of mechanics may be applied with good approximation….On the other hand, if we wish to describe the system in an accelerated system of reference, we must introduce, as is well known, so-called fictitious forces (centrifugal forces, Coriolis forces, etc.) which have no connexion whatever with the physical properties of the mechanical system itself….It was just for this reason that Newton introduced the concept of absolute space which should represent the system of reference where the laws of nature assume the simplest and most natural form. However…the notion of absolute space lost its physical meaning as soon as the special principle of relativity was generally accepted, for as a consequence of this principle it became impossible by any experiment to decide which system of inertia had to be regarded as the absolute system. (C. Møller, The Theory of Relativity, 1958, pp. 218-219).

    Relativity that lends the greatest support to a geocentric universe. For example, in a June 25, 1913, letter to Ernst Mach, Einstein writes the following:

    [Y]our happy investigations on the foundations of 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 pail experiment. The first consequence is on p. 6 of my paper. The following additional points emerge: (1) If one accelerates a heavy shell of matter S, then a mass enclosed by that shell experiences an accelerative force. (2) 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. (A series of four letters compiled by Friedrich Herneck in “Zum Briefwechsel Albert Einsteins mit Ernst Mach,” Forschungen und Fortschritte, 37:239-43, 1963).

  6. ecl3rdDecember 6, 2010 at 10:17 AM

    Is it accurate to state: “the thesis of the constancy of light in inertial frames wasn’t an arbitrary conjecture to meet some felt need for a stable center in one’s life. The constancy of light was a consequence of Maxwell’s equations. Einstein realized this and worked out a system (special relativity) which derived the consequences of this constancy. He later extended his analysis to non-inertial frames (general relativity).

  7. Robert BDecember 7, 2010 at 9:14 AM

    Todd Wood has replied – tersely – to the above letter at:

    “I got a long email from Bennett, who said this about his ALFA challenge:
    ‘ALFA: Not an experiment, but a model to be tested against experiments. Find one that destroys ALFA.’
    Sorry about that. My mistake.”

    That’s it? The reply to all my details that bothered Todd and my offers to address whatever wasn’t covered to his satisfaction?

    …..Todd then closes with –
    “If you geocentrists want to refute or attack me, go ahead and post it on the web somewhere. Don’t expect a response though. I’ve got better things to do with my life.”

    – Like posting a review of the GeoCatConf …… 5 times.

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>