Under the Sun

I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit. That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered. (Ecclesiastes 1:14-15) KJV

Here’s a thought, in the Geocentrospheric system it can literally be said that life on Earth takes place under the Sun. It’s empirical. The Bible frequently states that Earth is below and heaven is above. By contrast, in the theoretical heliocentric model, if the Earth orbits the Sun then, technically speaking, the Earth is above the Sun.

Above and Beneath, Up and Down

And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: (Acts 2:19) KJV

Given the up/down reference frame specified in the Bible, the Sun is always above the Earth. Here’s some logic, from the Bible, which refutes the flat earth insanity:

Spherical Earth Logic

If the Sun rises and sets, AND returns to the position where it rose, AND the Sun is always above the Earth,

Then the Earth is spherical.

Here’s the thing: in the heliocentric system the Sun isn’t above the Earth. If, as the theory states, the Sun is the largest source of gravity in the solar system, then the Sun is below, the Earth is above. This is a direct contradiction of the scriptures.

As irrelevant as this may seem it has relevance to today’s discussion. Our frame of reference is the Earth. We view the cosmos from the Earth and send space vehicles out from the Earth. The cosmos orbits around us and the space vehicles complete their missions all while we are here on the Earth. From our earthly perspective space missions and the cosmos are inherently and empirically Geocentrospheric.

As such, it’s impossible to disprove the Geocentrospheric model. Heliocentricity, however, isn’t observed. No one is on the Sun observing the motion of the cosmos, but this is the imaginary frame of reference of popular science (SciPop). However, no matter how many people choose to imagine the cosmos from a heliocentric frame of reference, it doesn’t make it real.

Relativity Killed Physics

And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? (Isaiah 8:19) KJV

The heliocentric frame of reference has been implanted into the modern mind, but so has the way we think about matter and energy. What we think, and how we think, has been evolving for many years but Albert Einstein gave it the SciPop frame of reference. We believe that mass is not so much a thing as it’s a property of energy. The mass of an object is the sum of all its energy. As such, two bodies with the same physical properties may have different mass if one of them is moving: the kinetic energy of its motion has to be added to its total mass.

As convenient as this is as a way to relate mass and energy, it’s an inductive rationalization of circumstantial evidence. Supposedly, gravity is a property of mass and mass is the sum of all of the energy of a body. This is the foundation on which the field of theoretical physics has been built. So, what happens if gravity isn’t a property of mass, but instead is independent of it, and there’s no causal relationship?

If matter can exist in the total absence of gravity, because gravity is a created thing, what’s the significance of this for relativity? How does this affect our understanding of what matter is if gravity isn’t an intrinsic property of it? If gravitational attraction is a property which is imparted to matter as the result of a field emitted from a created instance (singularity), how does this affect our understanding of mass and energy? Among other things it means that relativity is a load of dingo’s kidneys.

The problem with accepting the relativistic frame of reference is that we develop ideas and models that appear to explain our observations and these become the parameters by which we experiment, and think, when we try to learn more about our observations. However, since our starting point is incorrect, we end up with inductive, reductive circular reasoning where experiments can only give us a result that confirms the premise which we used to design the experiment. In computer jargon it’s called garbage in = garbage out.

This is how Einstein put it in his original 1905 paper where he first proposed E=MC2.

If the theory agrees with the facts, then radiation transmits inertia between emitting and absorbing bodies. – Albert Einstein, Bern, September 1905

“If the theory agrees with the facts?” Seriously? Why would you have a theory that doesn’t agree with the facts? What would be the point? This abstract state of mind is what you end up with when you don’t have any facts, but rather, strategic data points in an induced, false, narrative which you call facts.

In relativity there are no facts, because the observations are interpreted within a frame of reference defined by relativity. It’s inductive, reductive circular reasoning. We may make empirical measurements of matter and energy changing states, or light refraction from crystals, but if this has taken place after accepting an understanding of these things which derives from relativity, we haven’t learned anything about relativity. We assumed it to start with.

Just something to think about.

“If the theory agrees with the facts.” Albert Einstein (1905). What facts? Given that the so-called facts are an inductive rationalization which is derived from accepting the original theory?

Thought for the Day

Matty’s Paradigm is a Thing It began in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old. (Matthew 13:52) KJV

Like this: Like Loading...