---Scroll Down---                         Last updated: May 6, AD 2008                       ---Scroll Down---    

*Left image:  Earth is stationary due to perfectly balanced Interactive Electromagnetic Forces.

*Right image: The sun spirals north-south from the Tropic of Cancer to the Tropic of Capricorn and vice versa annually.                                

Geocentrism (stationary Earth, moving sun) is the Most Exciting, the Fastest Growing and Most Significant Truth Movement on the Internet!
 

The Geocentrism Cosmogony will Thrive Because it is True. It's Adherents are Multiplying, and are the Most Intelligent of Men and Women!                     ---Scroll Down---  

            
Start of preface: 
The factless theory of heliocentricity ( stationary sun, moving Earth ) is the Foundation, the Kingpin and the most Satanically Venerated of all False-Science State ( "Government" ) Funding Scams! 

"Since a stationary Earth is THE foundational creation fact in the Bible, it is also the taproot of Bible credibility! Along with the creation of all biological life and mankind which followed, God's creation of an immovable, stationary Earth constitutes the basis - the taproot - for His "tree of knowledge" with its trunk ( the creation of mankind ) and all its limbs and branches. Satan knows that if he can kill this taproot - this foundational knowledge - with pseudo-science this would cause the whole "tree of knowledge" to wither and die in time. That's why he started there first!"    Marshall Hall

"Discarding Newton's seemingly innocuous inverse-square formula for gravity would have enormous consequences for the entire Earth, because with it goes the 'Big Bang' absurdity and the whole of secular cosmology ( which the idea of organic evolution requires in order to sanctify the notion that anything is possible given enough time ). With no publicly-perceived scientific credibility to bolster it anymore, the prevailing Western religion of naturalistic atheistic humanism must then likewise collapse."  Neville T. Jones, PhD

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moving-Earth DECEPTION! - Pages:  [ Home,  Allen Daves,  Marshall Hall,

Neville Jones, Latest, Q&A, Quotes, 2, 3, 4, Foucault Pendulum, Gravity,

Negative Parallax, Satellite, State Scientism, Critics,  Books-etc,

                                                                                                         OTHER DECEPTIONS!  ]         

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proof of Geocentric Correctness and Heliocentric Incorrectness:

 
                             Meaning of words used in this webpage compilation/portal:
  
--In Classical Greek language, Geo means Earth and Helio means sun.
  
--Geocentrism = nonrotating Earth, nonorbiting Earth, no "axial tilt" of Earth, sun spiral-orbits Earth; stars orbit Earth, Earth is center of universe. Universe is small, young, created by God.
Derived from Bible Christianity; Research mostly voluntarily financed by Family paycheck. 
  
--Heliocentrism = rotating Earth, orbiting Earth, Earth has "axial tilt", Earth orbits sun; stars stationary to Earth, Earth is not center of universe. Universe is large, old, evolved by itself.
Derived from Kabbala Pharisaism; Research mostly coercively financed by State taxpayer. 
  
--Geocentrism is scientific, logical and true. Heliocentrism is unscientific, illogical and false.
--Planet means "wanderer". The Earth is NOT a planet.
            
See also these other excellent, original and scholarly websites about Geocentrism ( but each not related and completely independent from the others, and not in total agreement in all aspects or interpretations of Geocentrism or Bible doctrines and themes ): 
1. Marshall Hall's www.fixedearth.com ( book order HERE )
2. Neville Jones, PhD and son Steven's www.geocentricuniverse.com ( digital download /cd-rom order HERE )
3. Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett's "Galileo Was Wrong" ( book/cd-rom order HERE ) 
4. Gerardus D. Bouw's www.geocentricity.com ( Free PDF book HERE )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Mainstream Science Lies - Current Threat Level is High ( Orange ).                                                                   The Threat Level in the "Space Exploration" Sector is High ( Orange ).
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Geocentrism two-pager to distribute in your city:  HERE
 
Translate to other languages: HERE

End of preface -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Start here:

The Earth is NOT Moving!
 
Facts:  ( by Marshall Hall ):
       
- There is NO proof that the Earth rotates on an "axis" daily and orbits the sun annually. None.
- All calculations for eclipses, the space program, navigation, satellite movements - anything that demands precision and accuracy - are based on a non-moving Earth. Boiled down, heliocentric math is the same as Geocentric math.
- No experiment has shown the Earth to be moving ( much less at 30 times rifle bullet speed in solar orbit and at 250 times RBS around a galaxy. One would think such speeds would flap one's collar a little even if the "science" establishment says no! )
- Multiple experiments have shown the Earth to be stationary.
- Revisionist history reveals the roles that Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Sagan et al have played in foisting this LIE on mankind.
- The logic against a moving Earth is overpowering.
- WORLD-CLASS astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle said take your pick between the two models.
- Copernicanism paved the way for Darwinism ( which then spawned Marxism, Freudism, Einsteinism and Saganism. )
- Star speeds are not a problem when the thickness of the universe is seen to be what it really is, that is, LESS than half a light day thick ( eight billion mile radius ). 
- NASA's space program is labelled "Origins Research" and costs taxpayers mega-bucks. Computerized telescopes are programmed to send back "synthesized images". The "image warper" permits "geometric transformations" while "origins technology... configures the multiple small mirrors..."  in these telescopes. Talk about a con job!
- The Bible says The Earth is NOT Moving and cannot be moved. What'll it be folks? False science as the source of absolute truth... or God's Word?       
 
Book Order HERE  
                  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction to Geocentrism - by Neville T. Jones, PhD 
 
Geocentric means World-centred. In particular, a geocentric universe is one in which the centres of the World and of the ( finite ) universe coincide. Observational data, together with our instincts or senses, indicate to us that the universe is in reality geocentric. In addition, all physical experiments designed to demonstrate some alleged motion of the World have consistently produced a null result. Only theoretical ideas support a different interpretation of our surroundings than this. Cosmology is the area of physics which deals with the workings and structure of the universe as a whole. Ancient cosmologies were invariably geocentric, the main four of which being those due to Apollonius of Perga ( c.262 - c.190 BC ), Hipparchus of Nicaea ( c.190 - c.125 BC ), Claudius Ptolemy ( Latinized form of Klaudios Ptolemaios, c.90 - c.168 ) and Tyge ( Latinized as Tycho ) Brahe ( 1546-1601 ). These are often dismissed as unsound or clumsy, and certainly the deferents, epicycles and equant constructions of the Ptolemaic model, for example, cannot be defended from physical foundations. The situation with modern ideas, however, is no better in either respect, meaning that the fundamental workings of the heavens are just as relevant to us as ever they were in the past.
We feel no motion of the World on which we all live. Furthermore, no experiment in all physics has ever demonstrated that the World moves around the Sun, or that it rotates on an axis. From the standpoint of our senses, therefore, it seems simply common sense to attribute the motion of the Sun, Moon, planets and stars to those objects themselves, rather than to some multi-component, contorted movement of the World. Certainly, to a good approximation, the stars appear to go around us as if they are each attached to the inner surface of a huge celestial sphere, which is itself rotating above our heads from east to west on a celestial north-south polar axis.
 
                                              Figure 1: The celestial sphere.
 

In some geocentric models of the universe, the Sun goes around the World every day, following a path in the sky called the ecliptic. The seasons are simply explained by the Sun traversing the ecliptic over a period of twelve months, such that the declination of the Sun ( effectively a measure of its height above the celestial equator ) will vary slightly from one day to the next. Contemplation of Fig. 1 will illustrate the mechanism by which the Sun reaches its highest position in the sky on the summer solstice, its lowest position on the winter solstice and that it crosses the equator at the points referred to as the vernal and autumnal equinoxes.
We are currently taught the notion that everything around us sprang into existence, of its own accord, between twelve and twenty billion years ago via an explosion of everything out of nothing. However, the considered opinion of the primary authors of this website is that such a proposal is an untenable fairy-tale  ( Digital Download/CD-ROM order HERE ). 
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four Minute Music Break:  HERE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
   EVERYONE has a God/god/g'd ;  
 • themselves ( humanism ),
 • impersonal evolutionary forces,
 • The State,
 • Satan,
 • Jim Jones,
  or
 • The Creator God of  the Christian Holy Bible.

  EVERYONE is religious - a religion is a set of beliefs about
 • morals
 • the origin of the universe.

The RELIGIONS of Atheism, Evolutionism, Guruism, Humanism, Satanism and ESPECIALLY Statism ( "governmentism" ) have caused more deaths than anything else. True Bible Christianity has caused ZERO deaths - EVER! 
 
Christian Truths counteract PROPAGANDA from those latter six
RELIGIONS, among others, that many people ( who incorrectly say they are not religious ) now follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theoretical Science EXPOSED as RELIGIOUS and NOT Secular!!
The g'd of theoretical science is the Pharisee Religion's g'd.  Anyone can read of each and every concept that makes up an evolution-based "creation scenario" that has become today's textbook cosmology and find them in ancient Rabbinic writings in the Zohar/Kabbala.  It's a religion; it has a g'd. There is nothing "secular" about the "theoretical science" the world believes is really secular with no religious affiliation. HERE - scroll down to section 4 ) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                         Revolt Against Heliocentricity Now Brewing! 
 
"The heliocentricity model is one of the five essentials of the Big Bang Evolutionary Paradigm ( 1. a fifteen billion year old universe, 2. heliocentricity,
3. relativity, 4. big bangism, 5. an expanding universe ). All of those essentials form an "alternate creation scenario" promoted by anti-Christ, anti-Bible Pharisaic Kabbalists. If one concludes that Geocentrism is 'unique' science based "solely on a supernatural/theological position" then what can one conclude about the 'unique' science based "solely on a supernatural/theological position" of another religion which contradicts the Bible on every major doctrine ( and, of course, hates Jesus and has Him boiling in crap in hell )? Instead of starting with the Geo/helio controversy--the truth of which is indispensable to both theological positions,
perhaps we should start with the Religions and their Holy Books and the God/g'd which is behind these theological positions?
When that is done - using only facts and excluding assumptions based upon other assumptions...along with the willfully deceptive "secular" science claim...and certifiably fraudulent use of virtual reality technology - one is faced squarely with deciding which religion and which God/g'd one trusts. And, oh yes, it is useful to note the admitted theological position of the Pharisee Kabbalists is that Satan is their g'd. The heliocentricity keystone of the Kabbalist Kosmos is pure illusion in defiance of all observational evidence."  Marshall Hall
 
"I believe the following question--in one form or another--goes to the heart of all that is called cosmology: 'Whether it is true or false that without the heliocentricity model there would be no Big Bang Model?' Moreover, I believe anyone can understand that undeviatingly factual answers to that question will identify and flush out all of the error and leave five centuries of baseless theoretical science naked and recognized for what it is, viz., a monumental deception pulled off by the Pharisee Religion working out of their anti-Bible, anti-Christ Zohar/Kabbala playbook...and, oh yes, Satan-empowered."  Marshall Hall
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question/Statement:
"To beg the question:
to pass over or ignore a question by assuming it to be established or settled; to assume as proven the very thing one is trying to prove. Example - to pass over or ignore the question of 'Is the Earth moving?' by assuming it to be established or settled; to assume that the Earth is moving when trying to disprove that the Earth is NOT moving."
Answer:  by Allen Daves  
1: "Excellent. Since there is no observation or experience that the Earth is moving without assuming that the Earth is indeed moving ( begging the question ) therefore the only logical course to begin from is a model of the Earth absent of any movement and then attempt to prove or demonstrate movement, if any. Of course all the experiments, without begging the question, would lead one to the conclusion that the Earth is in fact not in motion. It is only via the assumption of its movement, which was never demonstrated to begin with, that one can even begin to explain away the observations and experience that are consistent with the only logical positions to start from, namely that the Earth is without any demonstrable motion. Therefore to assume that the Earth does in fact move is to build upon a foundation of sand and to suggest that it is or must be moving because it could be in some theoretical or imaginary framework, and then to call it science, is not only a circular fallacy but is, well.... quite silly!"  
2: The whole concept of larger objects going around smaller objects begs the question without knowledge of what and where the center of mass for all the objects in question ( the universe ) is in the first place. You must start with what you have not with what you imagine. To start with a model with no motion of the Earth is not a proof  for or against Earth motion nor does it assume anything. It is the only logical position from which to begin the experimental and theoretical process necessary to ascertain any proof for or against.  The model itself is not proof, it is only a premise or foundation for the discovery process. As stated many times one must logically begin with what you have not with what you do not have, and since proof for motion is the question, any model that assumes motion or interprets the data in terms of motion that is used to support or build upon a case for motion is a circular fallacy. Whereas taking observations and conducting experiments with no assumptions of motion is simply beginning with what you have. What you have does not include any argument or justification for incorporating that idea into ones interpretations of observations. To look out and see other objects in the heavens move does not tell you what is absolute motion, or what or whether or not you would and could feel/detect those motions if you were there ... and since you are not there ... think about that for a while.        
3a: We woke up in a world where things appear to move around us. We had and have no sensation of movement itself. That is where this whole question of the Earth's movement must and did begin ... "everything moving around me." From that point a process of observation and experience then proceeds to ascertain what is and what is not moving. Well, those experiments which were conducted to make that distinction did show that the Earth is indeed NOT moving. The observations of mass centered on the Earth also promote the Earth's centrality of that position as well. You cannot interpret those observations and experiments in light of a heliocentric framework because that is what those experiments and observations are all about. This is your circular fallacy... those who developed and conducted those experiments and observations were not assuming an Earth-centered universe ... ( they were invoking a circular fallacy when they developed and performed them ). An Earth not in motion is exactly what those experiments showed, and the only thing that those observations demonstrate, without invoking circular fallacies about the Earth's movement first. It amazes me that you cannot see just how ridiculous your argument is and the fact that the only way to even begin to interpret data as consistent with the heliocentric theory is to assume that heliocentricity is preferred. There has been no experiment conducted on Earth with regard to gravity or any other theory that demonstrates anything other than what the initial observations and experiments show. They do not show things moving around you without invoking the heliocentric circular fallacy first.
3b: Heliocentricity is not logically plausible based on what is available without assuming that what you do not have is real. Your position makes no sense without assuming that heliocentricity is preferred first ... which is what everything that led up to and including today's model of heliocentricity was developed to prove in the first place. The problem is that nothing ever did prove heliocentricity without assuming that heliocentricity was the preferred conclusion to begin with, which is what it is trying to prove! Why is it so hard for you guys to grasp your arguments utter ridiculousness? Until you have observations and experience for Earth's movement your position is as plausible as aliens and abductions... thus we should build our lives around the "fact" that they are the most reasonable and plausible explanation for all unknown phenomena!? Your arguments and examples are in fact examples, not of heliocentricity's plausibility, but rather foolishness of the highest order. Demonstrate or concede but don't use Geocentrism's evidence for heliocentricity by begging the question that heliocentricity is preferred ... because until you have that evidence for heliocentricity all the evidence supports Geocentrism without assuming anything. Starting with the very first observation ever made namely the sky is moving around you but you have no sensation of movement. All subsequent observations and experiments have been consistent with no movement of the Earth and not one has shown itself to be for heliocentricity without assuming heliocentricity is preferred first, which is the question you beg and the circular fallacy you without fail, must invoke!
4a: If you are going to appeal to observation and experiment as the solid foundation of "reasoning the issue out" then you can't appeal to theory when observation and experiment do not support that position. Theories about the aether are irrelevant. What is observed and experimentally verified, as so far as it has been conducted in every case attempted, is that relative motion can be easily distinguished from absolute motion via the effects that motion has on light in every case ever observed or performed. There is no other logical conclusion based on observation and experiment that can be logically concluded without imagining and/or assuming some other construct first, without having observational or experimental support for such a thing. You keep invoking circular fallacies and attempting to justify them via your theories and "it could" but when someone points out that it could just as well mean something else you appeal to "observations". Which is it? If you bother to think about it for any length of time you will see that in either case, theory or observation, Geocentrism is the only position that has all the possible and logically sound arguments based on what is available/observed in the past and present. Whereas heliocentricity is built on what is not observed or experienced. As for illusions, that position only makes any sense whatsoever if you have a justification for "it's an illusion" otherwise this conversation itself could just be an illusion! To say that, "it could", therefore that is the most reasonable explanation is ridiculous as well as circular. The universe does not behave disorderly unless you assume that first - that is a fundamental difference between heliocentricity and Geocentrism. When we look out we can see some smaller objects orbiting larger objects but we do not see all smaller objects orbiting some larger objects. All assertions to that fact do assume that to be the case. But the sun circles me, I do not see me circling the sun without assuming that is what is really going on first. As for experiments and observations here on Earth we can distinguish between motion and non-motion regardless of how many "frames" we attempt to create via optical gyroscopes. There is no experiment that demonstrates that there is such a thing as a local reference frame that can be isolated from any other reference frame. So what experiments you are attempting to put forward and what laws of gravity and motion you keep trying to appeal to, do not exist to prove your conclusion without assuming your conclusion is true first. The whole heliocentric position is built on a house of cards and what's worse - none of them rate any higher than a Joker.
4b: The disagreements that do exist between the various Geocentric scientists have absolutely no bearing on the fact that the only experience available to man -observational or experimental - are only consistent with Geocentrism and are not consistent with heliocentricity without assuming ( begging the question ) that the universe is heliocentric first ... that the universe is something other than what can be demonstrated from observation and experiment, if that's the case then they should have no problem with us Jesus folks, otherwise there is no observation or experiment demonstrating heliocentricity without assuming it is true first ( begging the question ). The heliocentrists position is not only logically untenable but has, by its own refusal to accept observation and experiment when it conflicts with its predetermined conclusion about the Earth's motion, has in effect created a "science" that can never prove anything - "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" of anything. If imagination is the justification for heliocentricity then it is not "science". If observation and experiment are to be the benchmarks then there is no room for the heliocentric theory except in one's imagination!
5: I have and am pointing out that GC/GS ( Geocentric/Geostationary )
is the only logically deduced conclusion that one can make that can be demonstrated, because you cannot reach any other conclusion without imagining what cannot or has not been observed or experienced.
Yes "theoretically" the sun or the Earth could be moving but only one of those theories/reasons ( why things look they way they do ) can be demonstrated as a logically deduced conclusion whereas the other cannot without invoking pure imagination first. If you go outside, look up and see something traverse from your left to your right ( could be a bird or could be a plane ) your first impulse is not, "Hey I am moving", without observation and experiment ( O&E ) that tells you that...that would be foolish. Now, what tells you the sun is not doing the moving without imagining it first? Yes it could be. But you cannot show a logically deductive path for such a conclusion even if it were true. Therefore you cannot claim that the theory that you are moving is the most plausible explanation for what you observe any more so than with a bird or a plane.
What you seem to miss is that a theory and a logical deduction do not follow each other automatically. Feel free to theorize whatever you like but true science claims logical theories as the best ones -and rightly so. They just don't always employ the logical ones. As with you they sometimes prefer imagination over logical deduction. Fine, but don't call it reasonable or the most plausible; there is no logic in that reason nor can you even show it any more plausible without begging the questions, or else you can suppose there are aliens that live in my attic as the theory and reason for all my troubles...      Allen Daves
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three minute Music break HERE ( not an endorsement of "The State" )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
How many WARS have been fought in the name of The Pharisee Religion      
is something to think about when people ask, "How many WARS have been fought in the name of science?" They need to understand without equivocation down the line somewhere that what they think is SECULAR science is derived concept for concept from the Pharisee Religion's "holy books" Zohar/Kabbala. Those concepts include: billions of years of evolutionism; heliocentricity; relativity; a "big bang"; an expanding universe...with "superstrings" and "parallel universes" nudging their way into the textbooks.  In fairness, these secrets have only been forced out of the closet for about 15 years, and that release has gotten no main-stream media attention or "peer" literature exposure. Just the same, it is now readily available and no one calling himself/herself a scientist in the physics, astronomy, bio-chemistry and related disciplines can have any credibility by going ahead with their support of any or all of the above concepts without letting it be known that they are aware of their source and are aware that the source is religious and NOT secular.  Finally, if they choose to stick to that source's concepts regardless of whether or not the source is secular ( as the world has been led to believe ), then they need to present their arguments openly as being derived from the anti-Christ Pharisee Religion's alternate "creation scenario" as set out by Rabbis in its "holy books".  This path, of course, is open to all who will take it.  Hopefully, honest scientists will simply realize that they - along with the rest of the world - have been duped and turn their skills to the furtherance of truly secular science...beginning, I hope, with the factless heliocentricity keystone that is holding up the whole Pharisaic Big Bang Evolutionary Paradigm.     Marshall Hall
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Cosmology for $1,000.00
 
Clue: It is a false-science, religious, anti-Biblical deception held together by unproven assumptions to explain phenomena that are readily explainable without the assumptions.
 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Sixty-seven ( 67 ) Scriptural References Which Tell Us That It
Is The Sun And Not The Earth That Moves:
 
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sun follows a clockwise ( East to West ) spiral orbit around a stationary Earth. Complete orbit time is 24 hours:
 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

The moon also follows a clockwise ( East to West ) spiral orbit around a stationary Earth. Complete orbit time 24 hours 50 minutes. The moon follows the sun's spiral orbit but instead of taking one year it takes only ONE MONTH to complete its north-south spiral.   Niall Kilkenny
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six Minute Music Break:  HERE.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrise and Sunset Calendars: HERE.
 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------