Past guest Robert Newman dropped me a skype message:
By Popular Request – Another Short Article on ‘Galileo, Copernicus, the ‘Solar System’ and Science Fiction’
(ripple of applause and some boos)
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The ancient Sumerians, Babylonians, ancient Egyptians, early Hebrews and most Greeks believed in a flat earth. So did the writers of the bible. But we often claim we know better today, right ? Nicolaus Corpernicus (1473-1543), for example, is widely believed to have ‘discovered’ the earth was in fact, spherical, and, according to Wikipedia’s own article on him: he “was the first astronomer to formulate a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology, which displaced the earth from the centre of the universe.” The fact that Copernicus was not an astronomer at all is of course ignored by the writer of the Wikipedia article just as it’s ignored by almost everyone else. The myth of his ‘discovery’ continues. It never stops. In fact, Astronomy was only a hobby of his. (His real expertise lay in languages, law and medicine, and it could be argued it was as a Catholic Jesuit, and a Freemason to boot, that his heliocentric ideas were promoted and sustained by those networks). But nobody mentions that too. After all, it was Francis Bacon, in an unfinished article from that same period entitled ‘The New Atlantis’, who wrote about the infiltration of the Freemasons into all things scientific and religious, and acknowledged that “subversive members of the order controlled all of medicine, science and astronomy/astrology.” Those are Bacon’s exact words. (How about that as a fact if you really, really want facts ? ) But it was Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), with his invention of the telescope, who is historically, the person who’s heliocentric theory supposedly ‘proved’ Corpernicus’ sun-centred theory, thus gaining universal recognition for the round earth model – the same belief which still dominates the greater majority of supposedly scientific teaching today. In obedience to this fiction, this dogma the majority of modern scientific textbooks continue as to state boldy that Galileo ‘proved the Corpernican theory’. What is the actual truth of this dogma ? Well, how about this. It’s a remarkable fact (never contradicted by any actual evidence) that neither Galileo nor Copernicus proved anything of the sort ! Nowhere in any of their writings did they do so or try to prove so. If that’s wrong let’s hear evidence from their writings from those who dogmatically teach such nonsense. Neither Galileo nor Copernicus provided a shred of evidence for a sun centred universe. Nor of the supposed rotation of the earth. Nor of the globe shaped earth. How about THOSE facts ?
But don’t take my word for it. Here’s a 20th century physicist Bernard Cohen in ‘Birth of a New Physics’ (1960) who certainly didn’t agree with them also and correctly pointed out – “There is no planetary observation by which we on earth can prove the earth is moving on an orbit around the sun.” And what about the once famous Friedrich Wilhelmina Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859), who attempted to gather the known facts into a uniform conception of nature in his multi-volume work, ‘Kosmos‘, this fully a century earlier, and spoke with honesty when he stated: “I have already known for a long time we have no proof at all for the system of Corpernicus … But I dare not be the first one to attack it.” How about that plain fact ? Still believing what you have been told ?
Humboldt, was not unknown in his time. In fact he has the unique honour of being the person that has had more plants, animals, minerals and places named after him than any other human being – alive or dead. And he was very famous. So why don’t you know Humbolt said the system of Galileo and Copernicus has no supporting evidence at all ? No answer, right ? In fact Humboldt’s textbook ‘Kosmos’ was translated into more than a dozen languages. There was scarcely a single subject, that concerned the natural world, which was left out. ‘Kosmos’ was unlike any other work before it, and very few books have been produced since his which can surpass it. It has actually graced the libraries of many thinkers, philosophers, artists and poets, and it’s influence, even today, is difficult to overestimate and is understandably, unique. But nobody cares he correctly rejected Galileo and Copernicus. Why ? It’s simply because people believe what they are told by the fakers of modern science, so-called. Is it just possible, therefore, that much of what is taught and believed on this subject of Galileo and Copernicus in respect of the earth and the solar system is fiction, nonsense and downright lies ?