Author: Pro Truth
13655View
11m 16sLenght
151Rating

Just ask yourself, which came first, the Earth, or the Heavens (Sky and Cosmos)? We all know what the secular scientists would have us believe. They say the Big Bang happed, then our Milky Way, then our Sun, then the Earth. But, how does the bible go again? Oh yeah, the Earth and Heaven, then the Heavens (the two Firmaments). In the Beginning there was the Earth, and the Heaven of the Heavens. The rest was developed later in the creation week. Science has been confused for about 400 years, but the issue is clearly observable now and verified from multiple sources of experimentation. Have a look at this article from Cornell University's arXive.org before you slush this important notion off: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4134v1 Here is an older article talking about this stuff: http://arxiv.org/vc/astro-ph/papers/0703/0703325v1.pdf Here is the abstract of that article if you want a preview here and now: Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky? Ashok K. Singal (Submitted on 17 May 2013) Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies, which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic\cite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropies\cite {17}. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sources\cite{21,22,3}. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions. The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth's rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon. Here is the direct link to the pdf file: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4134v1 Here is a program I made that illustrates the type of geocentric model that I subscribe to. A model that has the Earth at the centre, with the Moon and the Sun going around it, but all the other planets orbit around the Sun. It is the tychonian geocentric system named after Tycho Brahe in the late 16th century. http://1080plus.com/Geocentric.2D For those that don't know, the guy speaking in the video is Robert Sungenis. He does talks about how modern science is proving that Galileo was wrong after all. He is fairly smart man overall in my opinion. He has also made a movie questioning the Copernican principle called The Principle. I haven't seen it, but it looks good from what I get from interviews and their website. http://ThePrincipleMovie.com For those that are reading this and don't know this, The Copernican principle assumes that neither the Sun nor the Earth are in a central, specially favoured position in the universe. Watch this at my 1080plus website: http://1080plus.com/KrJNbVIEFKs.video