Chapter 11 – Summary and Conclusions

The Earth neither revolves nor rotates, in complete compliance with the Holy Scriptures.

The Earth is a solid spherical body, not flat. Its dimensions are roughly 8,000 miles across and 25,000 miles in circumference.

The Earth is the central body of the Terran System, our home star system.

The Earth is a star (a celestial body orbited by planets and a distant stellatum).

The Earth is a special kind of star, one which is cold and dark, emitting no light of its own. One could refer to the Earth as a black sun or black star, to distinguish it from the light-emitting stars, of which the Sun is the only real example in the entire Universe. It is fitting that our homeworld, the Earth, should be a black sun, as man has rejected God, the Light of Goodness and Truth. As a result, the Earth is cloaked in darkness, both physically and spiritually.

The Moon is the Earth’s planet.

The Sun is also a planet of the Earth, but a self-luminous one. Therefore, the Terran System consists of the Earth (star), the Moon (planet), and the Sun (both planet and stellatum). Any star system is composed of these three parts (star, planet, stellatum), and must have at least one of each in order to be considered a true star system.

The Sun is also a star, the central body of the Solar System.

The Sun orbits the Earth daily (its orbital period is 24 hours).

The Sun rotates on its axis daily, as well. This synchronous rotation, in which an orbiting satellite always keeps one side of itself facing its primary, by rotating in the same amount of time required to complete one orbit, is very common among the moons of the Solar System’s planets. However, the Sun rotates an additional 12 degrees per day, beyond the usual 360 degrees, a circumstance which allows us to view its entire surface from Earth after about one month’s time. This is in beautiful counterpoint to the motion of the Moon, which appears to move 12 degrees eastward with each passing day.

The Sun is the Solar System’s star, and seven major planets orbit around it. Extending outward from the Sun, these planets are: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Also in orbit around the Sun are countless smaller bodies: asteroids, comets, and dwarf planets, such as Pluto, Eris, and Sedna, these last three orbiting the Sun in the vast outer reaches of the Solar System.

There are only two star systems in the entire Universe: the Terran System and the Solar System. The Solar System orbits the Earth daily, since the Sun drags its entire planetary system around with it each day as it orbits the Earth.

The planets and other objects orbit the Sun with the orbital periods that we learned in school. However, since the Sun orbits the Earth daily, so do the planets. It is the Sun’s daily orbital motion around the Earth which has given rise to the widely-held idea that the Earth spins on its rotational axis.

The stellatum, the solid shell of star-studded matter that surrounds the Universe, has a radius of 930 billion miles (10,000 AU or Astronomical Units). The stellatum spins at the speed of light, providing gravity for the planets and their moons through the intermediary of the ether wind, the ethereal fluid which fills all of space, and which is set into motion by the rotation of the stellatum. The ether wind theory of gravity has been described at length in this book. In brief, the spinning stellatum generates an ether wind whose speed, right at the inner surface of the stellatum, is equal to the rotational speed of the stellatum itself (which is the speed of light). This spatial wind diminishes linearly with distance from the stellatum, becoming zero at the core of the Sun. The planets are pushed along in their orbits by the ether wind, although the ether wind speed at each planet is diminished by a factor equal to the ratio of the volume of each planetary orbit to the volume of the Sun’s orbit around the Earth. If this were not the case, then each planet would have an orbital period of one year, which is clearly not observed, but does manifest in the annual “dance of the planets” across the sky each year. The planets are also drawn in towards the Sun by a secondary ether wind caused by the literal consumption and destruction of space itself at the Sun’s core (the spatial consumption effect). Since all celestial bodies are anchored in the syrupy fluid of space, when that fluidic space is drawn in by the Sun, the various celestial bodies are drawn in, too, creating the illusion of gravitational attraction. It’s like dragging a long strip of carpet towards you; any objects sitting on top of the carpet move towards you, as well. All of the space in the Universe is continually processed in this way by the core of the Sun, heating the solar core furiously. It may well be that nuclear fusion is merely a side effect of the compression of space by the Sun, rather than the ultimate source of the Sun’s heat, as MSS believes. Consumed space is probably shunted back to the stellatum in some mysterious way, making the Universe a giant spatial pump, endlessly recycling the fluidic medium of space! The strictly local interplay (no action at a distance!) between the two orthogonally directed ether winds keeps the planets in their stable, circular orbits in real time. The moons of the planets are held in their orbits by the exact same mechanism, though on a much smaller scale, of course, and with the added feature of an ether wind dilution factor equal to the cube root of the ratio of the moon’s orbital volume to the volume of the parent planet, to model the fact that the plane of a moon’s orbit can be tilted any which way to its planet’s equator.

Kepler’s harmonic law (orbital period in years^2 = distance from primary in AU^3) can now be seen in the light of ether wind gravitational theory, and the exponents which his law uses are now seen to have a simple, almost trivial, explanation. For a planet, the period must be squared, since planetary orbits are essentially two-dimensional (length and width, but no depth). As a result, all of the planets orbit the Sun in basically the same two-dimensional plane (the so-called ecliptic plane in MSS astronomy). And their distances must be cubed, since orbital volumes are paramount in determining the ether wind speed reduction factor, and volume is a three-dimensional concept. It is remarkable, indeed, that a geocentric theory of gravity is helpful in explaining the features of an equation applied exclusively to the heliocentric model of the Solar System!

The stellatum, the Sun, the Moon, and the Earth are all maintained in their proper positions and speeds by the continual actions of God. The Earth lacks the gravity to maintain the Sun and the Moon in orbit around itself, and the Sun lacks the gravity to maintain the stellatum in orbit around itself. This should not be viewed as a failure of the ether wind theory of gravity, since the big bang theory, MSS’s version of how all things ultimately came to be, has no explanation whatsoever. At least Christianity can “blame it on God”, so to speak.The orbital motion of the Sun around the Earth at the astonishing speed of 24,000,000 miles per hours acts as a stellatum for the Sun-Earth-Moon mini-system (the Terran star system, our home system). As with the big stellatum that surrounds the Universe (or the Solar System, the two are synonymous), a circular ether wind is set up which diminishes linearly with distance, becoming zero at the core of the Earth. Some of this wind is also drawn in by the Earth’s core, creating the downward sensation of gravity that we feel every day. Therefore, not only does the Sun provide us with life-giving heat and light, but gravity, as well. The artificial satellites that man has placed into orbit around the Earth are maintained there by the interplay between his rocket technology and the spatial consumption effect of the Earth’s core. In effect, man has duplicated, on a small scale, the same processes that keep the planets in orbit around the Sun.

The stellatum is a Dyson sphere that completely surrounds the Sun. It is an opaque shell of matter, perhaps ten feet thick, possibly constructed of blackened iron, created by God to provide gravity and light for the Terran and Solar Systems.

The stellatum is centered on the Sun, and its walls block all passage of light, radiation, and matter. Heaven, the mysterious region where God dwells, and the final abode of all human souls that have accepted Jesus’ gift of eternal life through His sacrificial and substitutionary death on the cross, is probably on the other side of the walls. Of course, God has no trouble seeing into the stellatum.

The stellatum’s walls are located 10,000 AU from the Sun. As a result, all stars, galaxies, star clusters, and nebulae are merely electronically-created images on the inner surface of the stellatum. In other words, the stellatum is a vast digital video display screen whose purpose is to provide light and gravity for the two star systems contained within it.

Although the stars and other deep sky objects are completely illusory, the celestial bodies within the Terran and Solar Systems are quite real and substantial, and manned landings could be made on those bodies whose environmental conditions would allow such a thing, such as the Moon and Mars, and the giant moons of Jupiter and Saturn.

Of course, only two star systems reside within the Universe: the Terran System and the Solar System. All other distant star systems, however real and remarkable they may seem to MSS astronomers, are just fanciful images God has placed on the inner surface of the stellatum to provide lighting and timekeeping effects. The two star systems are linked by the Sun, which acts as the stellatum for the Terran System and the Sun for the Solar System.

The manned landings on the Moon were examples of interplanetary travel, since they occurred within the confines of our own star system, the Terran System. Journeys to the planets of the Sun would then be interstellar travel, since those planets are members of the Sun’s system, the next star system beyond the Terran System. Consequently, a manned landing on Mars would be an incredible achievement of true interstellar travel. In all likelihood, God will not allow such an event to transpire, for sinful man would then have succeeded, in effect, in building a tower that reaches up to the Heavens, which he tried and failed to do in the Book of Genesis, thanks to the intervention of the Holy God in human history.

The Moon seems to keep the same face towards the Earth at all times. Once again, this is simply synchronous rotation at work, and the Moon spins once in 24 hours, the same amount of time it takes to circle the Earth. Unlike, the Sun, however, the Moon has no additional spin period superimposed on its primary rotation. Consequently, the far side of the Moon is never visible from the Earth. This is not the case with the Sun, whose monthly rotation can be observed from the Earth.

The Sun’s orbital speed may seem ridiculously high at 24,000,000 miles per hour. Actually, though, this speed is only about 4% of the speed of light. Such a speed is within the realm of possibility, being considerably less than the speed of light, and is not at all out of line for a naturally-occurring celestial body. Even MSS must admit this, as it regularly demands total acceptance of the notion that the distant galaxies are racing away from each other at a substantial fraction of the speed of light.

Since we’re on the subject of outlandish orbital speeds, you might be thinking that the Apollo astronauts would never be able to reach the Moon if it orbited the Earth daily at more than 60,000 miles per hour. This is patently false. Even though one’s spaceship cannot possibly travel through space as fast as the planets and their moons can, Mission Control can aim the spaceship at a point in space where the Moon will be in the future. Once caught in the Moon’s downwardly directed ether wind gravitational gale, the spaceship will then effectively travel with the Moon. Simple.

It’s likely that the Earth has no axial tilt at all, and instead the Sun spirals up and down by 23.5 degrees over the course of the year as it orbits the Earth daily. This motion would give us our seasons, and would be indistinguishable from the current MSS scenario where the Earth spins on a tilted rotational axis in 24 hours. Note that 23.5 degrees, rounded to two significant figures, is just 24 degrees. Isn’t it odd that the Sun should bob above and below its orbital plane about the Earth by this many degrees, when the length of the day is 24 hours, and the Sun’s orbital speed is 24,000,000 miles per hour? I guess it’s all just a coincidence. Or is God blowing the whistle on Himself through the occurrence of unlikely patterns? We have seen many such examples in this book. It is as though God is telling us all to wake up and make a decision for Him, before our short lives end, along with the opportunity to make any more decisions regarding our eternal resting place.

The star Polaris is located directly above the Earth’s geographical North Pole, some 10,000 AU above the frozen wastelands of the Arctic. MSS would have us believe that Polaris is a gargantuan supergiant sun that dwarfs our own, hundreds of light-years away, but we now know, thanks to this book, that Polaris is merely a two-dimensional luminous circular patch on the inner surface of the stellatum, a mere 14,000 miles across, less than twice the diameter of the Earth, that diameter shrunken to a pinprick of feeble 2^nd magntitude light by the star’s 930,000,000,000-mile distance. Polaris has been positioned by God to act as a navigational aid for man, since the angular distance of Polaris above the horizon is equal to one’s own latitude north of the equator. Such a circumstance could only occur on a spherical Earth, the light rays from Polaris having been rendered parallel with each other by the star’s distance from us. If you draw a simple diagram of this situation, you will quickly see that only on a round Earth, where each person sees their own horizon as a flat disk at a tangent to the curvature of the world, could Polaris’s angular altitude above the ground keep pace with the local latitude. Why didn’t God place another star at the south celestial pole, to act as a navigational aide for the southern hemisphere? I believe that the answer is simple: He didn’t want to make His existence too obvious, for God delights in clouding the vision of those who think themselves wise:

1 Corinthians 1:27 King James Version (KJV)

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

But, He put crosses in the sky in each celestial hemisphere anyway (Cygnus, the Swan [the Northern Cross] in the northern hemisphere and Crux, the Cross [the Southern Cross] in the southern hemisphere), so it hardly matters. Besides, the Southern Cross is composed of bright stars that point right at the south celestial pole! Apparently, God just doesn’t have the heart to keep Himself from us, for He knows that we would all perish were it not for Him.

Just as Polaris hovers above the North Pole, the Sun prefers to loiter above the Earth’s equator. At the two equinoxes, for example, the Sun passes directly overhead at local noon for points directly on the equator. But how would the Sun look for people at locations to the north and south? Thanks to the timeanddate website, such questions are easily answered. The city of Quito, Ecuador is on the equator, and on the date of the equinoxes for the year 2018, the Sun did, indeed, reach an altitude of 90 degrees above the horizon. Like the starlight of Polaris, the Sun’s rays are rendered parallel by distance (93,000,000 miles), and form an angle with the ground at any location equal to 90 degrees minus one’s own latitude. Again, a simple diagram will help enormously in seeing the relationships involved here. Las Vegas, where I live, has a latitude of 36.2 degrees north. Subtracting that from 90 degrees gives 53.8 degrees. Sure enough, that’s the same value for the altitude of the Sun in Las Vegas on the timeanddate website for each equinox date. Moving on to the two solstices, note that the difference between 90 degrees and the Sun’s altitude on the dates in question is just 23.5 degrees, exactly the value of the Earth’s axial tilt in MSS. So, there are two possibilities here. Either the Earth spins daily on a rotational axis tilted by 23.5 degrees from the vertical, or the Sun orbits the Earth daily, and spirals above and below its orbital plane by that same amount over the course of a year. This phenomenon, one of different explanations for the same observations, is a major theme of this book. Is there any way to tell which explanation is correct? Yes, there is, but let us continue on before revealing all just yet.

If the Sun is directly overhead on the equinoxes at the equator, then it sits right on the horizon at the North and South Poles. This is just simple geometry on a curved surface illuminated with parallel light rays. Again, draw a simple diagram and see for yourself. The horizon at the Poles is parallel with the incoming light rays. Hence, the Sun is observed to be near or at the horizon line. Since the incoming light rays from the Sun skim over the Earth’s surface, very little heat is produced through absorption. As a result, the polar regions are subject to freezing cold temperatures, an effect which is amplified further by the oblique illumination angle, causing the available light to spread out over a larger area, and by the dense layer of air through which the Sun must shine. A similar, but completely reversed, effect makes the equatorial regions swelteringly hot.

Much has been written about the way the Earth’s rotational axis has pointed at different stars, not just Polaris, over timescales of tens and even hundreds of thousands of years. As such claims cannot be verified by observation or documentation, they will not be considered further in this book. The same goes for periods of extreme climate in the distant past (ice ages on the one hand, and warm, rising seas on the other). What went on millions or billions of years ago cannot possibly be verified in any convincing way, and is therefore of no concern to us in this book, where the goal is the search for truth about the world in which we actually live.

It is instructive to realize that the Solar System is the Universe, and vice versa. The walls of the stellatum, 10,000 AU from the Sun, are the boundary markers of what we could call “normal reality”. Beyond these walls is the afterlife, Heaven, where God dwells. Within these walls is the outer space of the Solar System. On the walls are the luminous images of the stars and the galaxies, the nebulae and the star clusters. However, all of it is “fake”, in the sense that God manufactured it all, for reasons of His own. Even are own bodies are essentially organic mannequins animated by a possessing spirit (the soul), and kept alive through the ceaseless actions of countless molecular robots (enzymes, antibodies, white corpuscles, etc.). Even molecules, atoms, atomic nuclei, and subatomic particles are all merely examples of God’s total mastery of nanotechnology of the highest order. Fakery is the order of the day, because nothing is natural, no matter how much we may want to believe that we are the product of billions of years of natural processes. In fact, there are no natural processes, only supernatural ones, since a supernatural God has designed it all, and will eventually have the last word. That being the case, why not choose Him now, and avoid His garbage dump in the flaming darkness at the center of the Earth, yet another of God’s designed environments?

One frequently hears science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke’s famous quote, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” When dealing with advanced superbeings and megascale engineering and technology on the scale that God can bring to bear, we can now go that quote one better and say, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from the ordinary workings of nature.”

MSS seriously discusses multiple universes, parallel universes, alternate timelines, the many world interpretation of quantum mechanics, etc. This is all fantasy, dressed up in science fiction terminology to provide an air of respectability with which to draw in the gullible and the uninformed. We can now see that there are only three places for human beings (or their souls) to be: the Universe/Solar system within the stellatum, Heaven beyond the stellatum, or Hell, at the Earth’s fiery core. I suppose that you could call these three places parallel universes, but really, Heaven is the only true reality. The stellatum of the stars surrounds the Universe, a minor bubble of expanded space floating in Heaven, while Hell is the focal point (within the Earth, within the stellatum of the Sun, within the stellatum of the stars) of all of the ether wind that the mighty Sun is capable of generating. It is sobering to think that the spatial consumption effect which keeps our very feet on the ground also heats Hell to unimaginable temperatures. In the same vein, Heaven is not very far away at all, less than a trillion miles off, a conclusion which many people have reached previously while pursuing completely different lines of reasoning than those presented here. A departed (and saved) soul could reach Heaven in the twinkling of an eye, without any difficulty whatsoever:

1 Corinthians 15:52 King James Version (KJV)

In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

Luke 23:43 King James Version (KJV)

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise.

The number of planets orbiting the Sun is seven. It is likely that this number was chosen by God to match the seven churches in the Book of Revelation, Chapters 2 and 3:

Will more large planets be discovered far from the Sun? In my opinion, this is unlikely, since the one-to-one correspondence with the churches in the Book of Revelation would be broken. Still, the asteroid belt is constrained within the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, and the far-flung dwarf planets that orbit in the icy gloom beyond Pluto are regarded by some MSS astronomers as just another asteroid belt, albeit one much farther from the Sun than we have any experience with. If this assessment is the true state of affairs, then Neptune could be playing the role of Mars in this new asteroid belt. Obviously, another planet, even farther from the Sun, would be needed to corral the existing herd of dwarf planets into something resembling a belt. The Bible even makes somewhat of a case for the existence of this new planet, as yet undiscovered. In the Book of Revelation, several celestial bodies seem to impact the Earth in the future. The descriptions given seem to be those of asteroid or comet impacts:

Revelation 8:7 King James Version (KJV)

The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the Earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.

Revelation 8:8-9 King James Version (KJV)

And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood;

And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed.

Revelation 8:10-11 King James Version (KJV)

And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from Heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters;

And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.

Revelation 9:1-2 King James Version (KJV)

And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the Earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.

And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the Sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.

A mysterious and dark outer planet, far from the light of the Sun, might just be capable of gravitationally dislodging smaller bodies from their otherwise stable orbits, sending them hurtling Earthward to create chaos and havoc for the unsuspecting inhabitants. Ominously, MSS astronomers are talking more and more openly about Planet Nine, the name given to the Solar System’s hypothetical  new planet beyond Neptune, which seems to be required for explaining the peculiar orbital characteristics of some of the newly discovered dwarf planets, such as Sedna. Food for thought.

While stellar aberration could be telling us that all of the stars are orbiting their own Earths, thereby accounting for the circling motion that they all exhibit, this idea is easily refuted when we remember that all stars are much dimmer than the Sun. All of these “Earths” would be frozen wastelands, encased in an eternal deep-freeze of ice and snow. Why would God fill the sky with dead Earths? It’s more likely that stellar aberration is showing us the Sun’s daily orbit around the Earth, God’s handiwork painted in the sky for all to see. Of course, everyone will have to decide what they will believe with respect to the many and varied issues presented in this book.

We can’t trust anything we see in the night sky that seems to reside in interstellar or intergalactic space. It’s all just light under the total control of God. He could modify that light in any way that He chooses. We merely assume that what we are seeing is the product of understandable natural processes, and try to make sense of it. But what if it’s not understandable? What if the spectral lines that we detect with our instruments are not being produced by the known chemical elements but instead by God’s high-tech alternative light sources that cover the inside surface of the stellatum? What if the night sky was never intended for us to understand except as a source of illumination and as an aide to timekeeping, just like the Bible says?

Genesis 1:14-15 King James Version (KJV)

And God said, Let there be lights in the Firmament of the Heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Genesis 1:14-15 King James Version (KJV)

And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the Earth: and it was so.

In that case, you would probably end up with “scientific” theories that make no sense, which is the very situation that we find ourselves in today. It could very well be, and probably is the case, that our theories of the big bang, dark matter, dark energy, flat galaxy rotation curves, and the multiverse point not to new science beyond the Standard Model but instead to a creative God whose artificial environment is simply the perfect place for us to live in. It’s as simple as that. Secular man is overthinking literally everything.

The Sun drags the stellatum around with it as it (the Sun) orbits the Earth daily. Therefore, it is the orbiting motion of the Sun around the Earth that is the source of the stars’ motion (rising in the east, moving across the sky from east to west, and setting in the west). At the same time, the stellatum is spinning at the speed of light, and takes one full year to make one complete rotation, thus producing the changing parade of constellations that we see throughout the year. MSS produces the exact same effects with a rotating Earth revolving around a stationary Sun viewed against a background of stationary stars an infinite distance away. What will you believe?

If the ether wind theory of gravity is correct, then the stars must be fake, since every star would need its own stellatum to create gravity for itself and its attendant stars and planets. Such a state of affairs would automatically block the light of the stars from reaching us, since each and every star would be encased in its own opaque shell. Since we can see the stars, none of them has a stellatum, and they are therefore not physical objects. Of course, you can say that I am wrong, that Newtonian gravity is correct, that General Relativity is correct, that the Universe goes on forever, and that the stars are real objects that man could visit someday in a spaceship, but then you have to have gravity without an explanation. In other words, gravity is this unknowable and undetectable and unexplainable “radiation” that all matter emits, and which has the effect of attracting all other matter in the vicinity. Does that sound reasonable to you? Or, is it more likely that the spinning stellatum, set in motion by God Himself, sets up an ether wind in turn, which the Earth, the Sun, the planets, and the moons voraciously consume at their respective cores, thus creating an apparently gravitational attraction through spatial suction? Each person will have to decide for themselves. While you are deciding, keep in mind that the M-M experiment did not detect the Earth’s orbital motion around the Sun, and that the M-G-P experiment did detect the apparent rotation of the Earth on its axis. The simplest explanation for both observations is that the Earth is stationary in space (if no orbital motion exists, then obviously no orbital motion will be detected), and that the ether wind generated by the Sun’s orbital motion blows past the Earth’s non-moving surface, creating the illusion of planetary rotation. Simple. Or, you can be like everybody else and say that Einstein knows all, and that his Special Theory of Relativity conceals the Earth’s orbital motion around the Sun from us, while, for some strange reason, and at the same time, also reveals the Earth’s rotational motion on its axis without any difficulty whatever. Again, the choice is yours.

I have an extremely modest telescope: a Newtonian reflector with a 4.125-inch mirror. With it, I can see, even through the extremely light-polluted skies of Las Vegas, the most distant companion stars of various binary star systems. Let us consider four such systems: Achird (Eta Cassiopeiae), Almach (Gamma Andromedae), Albireo (Beta Cygni), and Mintaka (Delta Orionis). MSS says that these star systems are 20, 350, 430, and 1,200 light-years away, respectively. However, I have no difficulty seeing the component stars of each system. I can see the companion star of the Mintaka system just as easily as the companion star of the Achird system. Should I be able to do this? After all, Mintaka is 60 times more distant than Achird. Shouldn’t the vast distance to Mintaka make separating its two stars impossible, especially with my low-end, low-power, department store telescope? What seems to be happening is that the outermost companion stars are conveniently spaced so that we on Earth can see them. Therefore, more distant stars must have companions that orbit much farther away from their primary star than is the case with binary star systems located much closer to home. In other words, there is a relationship between binary star orbital spacing and overall distance from Earth. This means that the Earth is in a privileged position, and that the binary stars are putting on a show for the sake of the inhabitants of the Earth. Intelligent design, anyone? Obviously, such a state of affairs should not be the case, especially in MSS, where there is nothing special about the Earth, the Solar System, the Galaxy, and the Universe, and the human race is nothing but a cosmic joke or accident. This worldview even has a MSS name: the cosmological principle, meaning that every space is exactly the same as every other space throughout the Universe. And yet, here we have evidence that the stars have been ordered in the vicinity of the Earth in such a way as to keep the angular spacing between primary stars and their orbiting companions roughly constant as the distance from the Earth increases. We can even check this idea to see if it has any basis in actual fact. Let’s assume that the Mintaka system can be used as a sort of standard for all binary stars. It has been said that the companion star of the Mintaka system must orbit something like a quarter of a light-year away from its primary (in order for us to be able to distinguish the two stars from each other at their distance from Earth), and that the Mintaka system as a whole is something like 1,200 light-years from Earth. We now have a constant of proportionality: 1,200 light years of distance from Earth per ¼ light-year of separation between binary stars. Now, consider our own Solar System. Pluto, at one time thought to be the Solar System’s most distant planet, now a dwarf planet, orbits the Sun at roughly 40 AU. Eris, one of the many recently discovered dwarf planets, orbits way out at 100 AU when at its most distant from the Sun. We could say that a distance in between these two extremes – 60 AU, say – represents the closest that two stars could orbit each other and still remain stable stars. Otherwise, the mutual heat, light, gravity, and magnetic forces of the two stars would probably tear them both apart. Converting 60 AU to light-years, and multiplying by our proportionality constant, we get about 4.5 light-years, meaning that there should be a closely-spaced binary star about 4.5 light years from Earth. Is there such a star system? Of course! It’s just the famous Alpha Centauri system, the closest star system to Earth (according to MSS), composed of two Sun-like stars in close proximity (23.4 AU average separation), all orbited by a dim red dwarf much farther away. So, the Mintaka system predicts that a star system very much like the Alpha Centauri system should be our nearest stellar neighbor, even though, by MSS’s own admission, there can be absolutely no connection between the two star systems, since no space is more or less special than any other space! So, by using MSS Copernican/ heliocentric astronomical data, we get a result which is compatible with the Tychonian/geocentric model, since binary stars with the same angular spacing between them, but with different distances from Earth, are equivalent to a shell of stars (the stellatum), all at the same distance from Earth, some of which are binary!

We can investigate this strange phenomenon further, in which stars are apparently arranged around the Earth in a certain, exacting way, by examining MSS astronomy tables of the luminosity of the stars. If the luminosity of various stars is expressed in terms of the number of Suns that that star’s light is equivalent to, divided by the distance of that star from Earth, squared, so as to model the inverse square diminishing of light with distance, then we always get a number between zero and one Suns per light-year squared. Now, this is a very peculiar result, indeed. It is as though the data are telling us that each star is pretty much like every other star. According to MSS, there is no reason why this should be the case, since one space is pretty much like another. Some spaces contain brilliant stars near location X, just as well as dim stars. Our space should be the same, if the cosmological principle is in full effect, and MSS says that it is. And yet, we find that the space in the vicinity of the Earth, and this is according to MSS, only contains dim, small, cool, quiet, well-behaved stars, while the violent, explosive, massive, unstable, nova- and supernova-prone, bright stars are exclusively far away. Rho Cassiopeiae, for example, is said to be more than 500,000 times brighter than the Sun, and a whopping 12,000 light-years away. Meanwhile, Alpha Centauri A has just about the same brightness as the Sun, and is less than five light-years away. Don’t you see? In MSS, the stars have been arranged so as to keep the apparent brightness just about constant. Isn’t this just a little bit odd, given the vaunted cosmological principle? Who did all of this stellar arranging? It’s all just a cosmic coincidence, I suppose? Isn’t it more likely that the stars are all the same distance from Earth, and all about the same brightness? And isn’t it likely that none of them are a threat to Earth because they are essentially God’s Christmas tree lights on the inner surface of the stellatum? If you decide in MSS’s favor on this point, then you have to explain 1) why all of the stars are balanced on a knife edge, so to speak, in terms of Suns/light-year^2, and 2) why they are all so perfectly arranged from least threatening to life as we know it to most threatening, with the least threatening stars closest to us. It seems to me that the data are telling us, screaming at us, really, that the stars are just benign lights at the edge of space, less than a trillion miles off, one pretty much like another, with only subtle differences in brightness and color to distinguish them. The Bible reflects this point of view:

Genesis 1:16 King James Version (KJV)

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: He made the stars also.

So you see, it is man who makes a “big deal” out of the stars, not God. This should be our attitude, as well. Rather than dwelling on what’s happening out among MSS’s sci-fi galaxies and stars, and wondering how your life will be impacted by the radiation from the next supernova (some people have actually built fully-stocked underground supernova shelters!), we should instead be thinking about where we will spend eternity, and what we can do to change that destination.

The galaxies, like the stars, also present conundrums to the inquiring mind. The Andromeda Galaxy, or M31, as it is sometimes called, is, like certain binary stars, easily observed with my little telescope. Right away, problems emerge. First of all, MSS says that the Andromeda Galaxy is some 2 million light-years away. Is it even reasonable that anyone could see anything that far away? Probably not, but MSS maintains that it is possible, so we will shelve our disbelief for the time being.

Next, the total light output of this galaxy is said to be equal to that of a star with an apparent magnitude of +3.4. Put another way, if all of the light of the Andromeda Galaxy were focused into a single point, it would look as bright as a single star with the given magnitude. Achird, a star we’ve discussed previously, has just this magnitude, and so the Andromeda Galaxy would look very much like Achird does in the sky if it could somehow be compressed into a star-like point. Achird is only 20 light-years from Earth, by MSS reckoning, while the Andromeda Galaxy is 100,000 times more distant. Squaring 100,000 gives 10 billion, meaning that Achird, if moved to the location of the Andromeda Galaxy, would shine with an apparent magnitude of +28.4, a whopping 10 billion times dimmer than our Achird, only 20 light-years away. By way of comparison, the dwarf planet, Pluto, has an apparent magnitude of +14. Since magnitudes get smaller the brighter the object, you can see that Achird would be effectively invisible at the distance of the Andromeda Galaxy. Nevertheless, MSS says that the 100 billion stars of the Andromeda Galaxy shine together in a most cooperative fashion, making it possible for us to see this distant denizen of intergalactic space. Let’s investigate how this would work. If one Achird has an apparent magnitude of +28.4, then 100 billion Achirds should be 100 billion times brighter, which works out to be an apparent magnitude of +0.9, which, unfortunately for MSS, is ten times brighter than the Andromeda Galaxy actually is. Can anything be done to save the situation?

 Well, we could say that 80% of the 100 billion stars in the Andromeda Galaxy are dim, cool red dwarf stars, that 10% of the stars are bright, like the Sun, and that the remainder of the Galaxy consists of cold gas and dust, perhaps 5% of each. Since red dwarfs, gas, and dust don’t emit much light, that would explain why we only see the Galaxy’s bright stars, and why the spectrum of the Andromeda Galaxy resembles that of the Sun. Note that, in this model, 90% of the mass of the Andromeda Galaxy is effectively invisible. It is tempting to refer to this non-radiating matter as “dark matter”, and interesting to note that MSS astronomers do actually say that galaxies are made up mostly of dark matter, to the tune of 90 to 95% of the total mass. So, when we see a galaxy through a telescope, we are only seeing about 10% of its stars – the bright, Sun-like, Achird-like ones. Because we have found a way to save the MSS model of galaxies, does that mean that galaxies really are as the model says? Not necessarily.

For one thing, stellar aberration affects galaxies just as much as stars, suggesting that galaxies are no more distant than stars (930 billion miles). They are probably “stuck” to the stellatum just like the stars are. The stars, star clusters, nebulae, and galaxies (in fact, anything that appears to be located beyond the Terran and Solar Systems) are essentially God’s glow-in-the-dark stickers affixed by Him to the walls of the stellatum! Of course, the electronic ledgerdemain used to create these “self-adhesive decals” is far beyond anything man could ever hope to accomplish, but the similarity between the night sky and a child’s nursery, where Mom and Dad have lovingly covered the ceiling of the baby’s room with phosphorescent plastic stars, moons, planets, and comets, is a very strong one.

Another issue with galaxies is the way that they are “ordered” as MSS distance from Earth increases, just like the stars. In other words, extremely bright galaxies, in which violent physical processes are occurring (quasars powered by supermassive black holes), are always exclusively far away from Earth, as much as billions of light-years away. As with the stars, this is in direct violation of MSS’s beloved cosmological principle, since different regions of space are required to have different characteristics, and be populated by different kinds of objects. Or, you can believe in the geocentric Tychonian system espoused by this book, and realize that the stars and galaxies are merely luminous patches on a relatively nearby dark surface, that the Sun heats that surface to about 3 degrees above absolute zero, so that it glows uniformly in microwaves, that the night sky is dark because God, the Cosmic Artist Extraordinaire, has painted the stellatum black, and that the vaunted redshift is merely an expression of God’s desire to model an infinite universe, just as model railroader builds a scenic background that simulates the surface of the Earth. In fact, the redshift, whether of a star, a galaxy, or of the CMBR itself, could simply be evidence for God engaging in his favorite hobby. As with human model railroaders, who provide great attention to detail on some parts of their layout, but not on others, so God shows some galaxies as featureless blobs of light, while others have exquisite spiral arms rimmed in dark dust lanes and punctuated by sparks of brilliant blue stars. Ultimately, the only explanation for these choices is that it pleased the artist to make them. We can concoct scientific theories all we want, but in the end, the night sky is more like a great painting or sculpture, and science is really out of its element when it comes to explaining the resulting beauty. Therefore, in my opinion, we should not try. After all, if the night sky is as we have said, a hollow shell of pixels, some illuminated, some not, surrounding Sun and Earth, a cosmic Lite-Brite toy created by God for His enjoyment and for ours, then the exotic concoctions of MSS – white dwarfs, neutron stars, black holes, cosmic strings, parallel universes, and others of their ilk – all blow gently away like so much cosmic dust, and we are left with a reasonable, comprehensible Universe of just two star systems in close proximity. The idea of the expanding universe is really just a human theory anyway, invented to explain what the redshift might mean. It is by no means proof of that assertion, however much NOVA, PBS, and Neil deGrasse Tyson say otherwise.

Can individual stars even be seen across intergalactic distances? If a single star would be totally invisible at that vast distance, then wouldn’t a hundred billion of them also escape detection? And even if great agglomerations of stars were visible as a cohesive unit, wouldn’t we only see their collective light, causing distant galaxies to appear as amorphous glows? The fact that MSS astronomers detect exquisitely detailed dust belts around distant galaxies (see, for example, the Hubble Space Telescope photos of the Sombrero Galaxy, aka M104) suggests that they must be much closer to us than they appear. Otherwise, these vast, dusty clouds would have to be of incomprehensible extent just to be visible at the advertised distances, and would soon collapse under their own unimaginable mass into black holes that would devour the Universe. If the Universe really is 14 billion years old, as MSS maintains, then this “gravitational black hole apocalypse” has had sufficient time to occur many times over. The galaxies themselves are plagued by this same problem, as they have to become increasingly bright just to maintain their visibility as the megaparsecs mount up. Their stars must either become more numerous, or each star must become more massive and more brilliant, or both. In the end, the galaxies must grow in mass as distance increases. Ultimately, all roads lead to a dark, inverse Universe, an underverse, if you will, to steal a term from the wonderful Chronicles of Riddick sci-fi movie, in which the stars, and the galaxies made from them, become so massive that they collapse into black holes, consuming everything, including each other, and nonexistence reigns supreme. Obviously, we don’t see this happening, and therefore the story told by MSS about our Universe cannot possibly be correct. Now, at this point, you are probably saying that I am being extreme, or needlessly alarmist, or that I don’t understand modern science, or that I need to go back to school and learn some real (meaning secular, meaning Godless) physics and astronomy, and try writing this book again. It is to these people that I now proudly present the Beta Phoenicis debacle.

Beta Phoenicis is not well known by most people, but it is a fairly bright third magnitude yellowish star in the southern part of the sky, visible to anyone in the winter months of the Northern Hemisphere if you’re not too far north of the equator. Now, you need to realize that parallax is portrayed by MSS as a can’t-miss, highly mature scientific technique that always gets the right answer, in this case, the distance to the stars. The problem is that the parallax for Beta Phoenicis is highly changeable. One measurement is 16 milliarc seconds, but with an associated error larger than the actual measurement! Another measurement is only 0.12 milliarc seconds, meaning that the star is extremely distant. In order to have the brightness that it actually has, Beta Phoenicis would have to be one of the brightest stars in the Milky Way Galaxy if that tiny parallax is correct. Finally, MSS astronomers have given up and assigned to the star a parallax corresponding to a “reasonable” distance of 200 light-years. This last distance measurement is based on an older, ground-based observation, which should be far less reliable than the new, satellite-based parallaxes, since the latter type are supposedly not influenced by the murk and turbulence of the Earth’s tumultuous atmosphere. And yet, it is the old-fashioned measurement that has been chosen as the preferred one. Do you see the issues here? First, the sizes of these parallax angles are extremely small – thousandths of a single arc second. And remember, one arc second is itself 1/3,600th of a degree. Therefore, 1 milliarcsecond is nearly 1/4,000,000th of a degree! How can anyone have confidence in such tiny angular measurements? Then, when the so-called modern techniques yield parallax angles of widely varying magnitude, the outdated ground-based telescope measurements are resorted to, instead. Given all of this uncertainty, how can any MSS parallax measurements ever be trusted? And if the distances to the stars are in doubt, how can any part of modern MSS astronomy ever be trusted, since the stellar distance scale is the foundation of the whole enterprise? It is for these reasons that I have rejected parallax outright in this book, and have focused instead on stellar aberration, which is immensely larger (tens of arc seconds) and, therefore, easier to measure with some degree of confidence (pardon the pun!).

We mustn’t forget to consider all of the possible outcomes of the M-M and M-G-P experiments. As far as I am aware, I have never seen all of the possibilities, nor their implications, all discussed in one place in any publication. The simplest possibility is that no motion of any kind was detected in either experiment. This would indicate our privileged position within the cosmos, which is fine, but leaves no explanation for gravity. In this case, we could write an equation to show how gravity behaves (Newtonian gravity, General Relativity, etc.), but would be left with no explanation as to how it works. Another issue with the “zero motion” outcome is that the day/night cycle is left unexplained. Fortunately, neither experiment returned this particular combination of results.

Next, the apparent orbital motion of the Earth could have been detected, but not its rotational motion. This would indicate that the Earth orbits the Sun, like the other planets, but, again, provides no explanation for the day/night cycle. This outcome did not occur, either.

A third possibility is that both experiments detected motion. This would indicate what the heliocentric and Copernican people have been saying all along – that the Earth both revolves around the Sun and rotates on its axis. Fortunately for us, and unfortunately for them, this outcome did not occur. This outcome would have been consistent with the Godless, limitless space paradigm of which MSS is so fond.

Finally, there is the outcome that actually occurred, in which apparent planetary rotation was detected, but not orbital revolution. This was the best of all possible worlds for having confidence in the Bible, in the Tychonian system, in geocentrism, and in the ether wind theory of gravity. M-M detected no orbital motion for the Earth simply because the Earth isn’t orbiting anything! And rotational motion seemed to be detected in the M-G-P experiment simply because the ether wind set up by the Sun’s orbital motion around the Earth blows continuously around our planet at around 1,000 miles per hour at the equator, the same speed that MSS has chosen for the Earth’s rotation! MSS counters by saying that Einstein’s Special Relativity masks any sensation of our orbital motion. It is very strange, though, that MSS is silent on the fact that Special Relativity has no ability to mask our rotational motion. Note that both motions – whether rotational or orbital – are eminently circular in nature. What works, or obscures, for one, should do the same for the other. The reader is strongly encouraged to ponder these four possible outcomes of the two greatest secular science experiments in the whole history of man before deciding against the Christian worldview.

A closer inspection of the fourth M-M/M-G-P outcome, the one of the four possibilities that actually occurred, is now in order. The rotation of the Earth was apparently detected in the M-G-P experiment, which serves MSS well in explaining the day/night cycle. However, there is more to the story. While a spinning Earth would cause the Sun to move across the sky as observed, the M-M outcome, that of no orbital motion for the Earth whatsoever, throws a giant “monkey wrench” into the gears, so to speak. The problem here is that the Sun moves across the sky daily and through the 12 constellations of the zodiac yearly, spending about one month in each “sign” or “house”. An Earth orbiting the Sun yearly would easily solve this problem. Unfortunately for MSS, the M-M experiment showed no such motion. MSS has nevertheless taken the position that the Earth really is orbiting the Sun yearly, even though the greatest experiment ever devised for detecting that motion failed utterly. In essence, MSS proponents are saying that they refuse to bow to the scientific evidence. This is very unscientific, to say the least. “Yes, M-M showed that the Earth isn’t orbiting the Sun,” MSS says, “but since we already know that it is, there is no great cause for alarm. Besides, Einstein “saved the day” with his Special Relativity, and so all is right with the world.” As you can see, it is not possible to reason with people who refuse to accept the truth. All that can be done is present the facts, and hope that at least some people will recognize that they have been lied to for their entire lives. Take Special Relativity, for example, which cannot possibly be correct, for the following reasons.

First, in his so-called train-and-platform experiment (never actually performed in real life, merely imagined, hence, a thought experiment), Einstein said that, from the point of view of an outside observer, a light flash traveling inside of a moving train car, and starting its journey at the center of the car, would reach the back of the car first, before reaching the front of the car, since the rear wall of the car is “rushing up” to meet the flash, so to speak. However, this can’t possibly be correct, for the car is travelling at constant velocity. Under these conditions, no forces are acting on the car, and conventional physics agrees with that assessment. Therefore, no forces could act on the light flash, and the flash would illuminate both the rear and the front walls of the car simultaneously, in complete agreement with the experience of an observer on the train.

Second, I have yet to see an experiment seeking to verify Einstein’s theories that didn’t utilize circular reasoning at some point in the process. The famous muon experiment, in which muons (electron-like subatomic particles), created in the upper atmosphere, mysteriously reach the surface of the Earth, even though they should have radioactively decayed long before their arrival, is a good example of this. The speed of such particles is calculated using the Special Theory of Relativity, rather than in the conventional way (distance/time). Then, that relativistic speed is plugged into the Einstein time dilation equation, and the lifetime of the particles is found to be increased over that of a motionless muon just enough for the speeding muons to reach the ground in the numbers actually observed. This sounds like an impressive victory, except for the fact that the theory you are trying to verify is being used to verify the theory! This is like measuring the length of an inch in centimeters, recording a value of 2.54 centimeters, and declaring that the metric system has been verified out to ten decimal places! Of course you are going to get the right answer under these conditions – the inch was defined to be 2.54 centimeters by international agreement long ago! Achieving close correspondence with a manmade system proves nothing; what counts is close correspondence to reality, along with a simple, mechanical explanation for the phenomenon at hand.

So you see, the astounding pronouncements by Relativity proponents really prove nothing of consequence, since the experiments must be performed as dictated by the relativistic system. For example, form the point of view of the muons traveling downward, it is the stationary muons on the ground that are moving upward. Shouldn’t these ground-based muons then last the longest, since all that matters is relative motion? Thinking like this isn’t allowed; you have to perform the experiment as the relativists say, and they say that the muons traveling downward are the moving ones. Besides, muons are examples of second generation matter according to modern particle physics. Normal matter, the kind that we are familiar with, such as electrons, protons, and neutrons, is first generation. More recently, third generation matter has been discovered (once again, God is blowing the whistle on Himself by advertising the Trinity, but virtually no is seeing it). It is as though matter occurs in three forms, depending on the energy level, sort of like the solids, liquids, and gases with which we are all acquainted, except that this new concept is on a subatomic level. The point is that Relativity theory never predicted additional generations of matter at any time. How fast would second generation matter move in a first generation matter environment? Who can say? Faster than the speed of light, perhaps? If so, then the muons may simply be traveling faster than we are prepared for, and it is that higher speed which allows them to reach ground level before decaying. Relativity theory may not be necessary for explaining the experimental results after all.

Third, Relativity experiments are frequently performed in an indirect fashion. For example, excited lithium ions are sent around a circular particle accelerator at high speed. The lifetime of the excited, electrically-charged atoms should lengthen, since time is supposed to slow down for clocks that are moving. An increase in excited state lifetime is observed, but the experiment is not performed as you might imagine. Common sense would say that you should time how long it takes the excited lithium atoms to decay as they pass a window in the accelerator tube, a window which views the particle beam as it passes, and is therefore perpendicular to the particle flow. Instead, Relativity researchers viewed their particle beam as it traveled towards or away from them. This introduces a large Doppler shift in the light emitted by the excited lithium ions, which must then be corrected for. What is left after this subtraction is the time dilation effect that the researchers were looking for in the first place. In my opinion, this technique doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence. How do we know that this correction factor is of the proper magnitude? Was it chosen so that the experiment would give the “right” results? And why wasn’t the particle beam observed directly at right angles to the particle flow, since this direction would be free of any Doppler shift and, therefore, any correction factor? The answer: the experimenters felt that it was too much of a “pain” to construct a window whose pane is exactly at right angles to the passing beam. Really, in the 21^st Century, we’ve lost the ability to measure angles properly and achieve complete perpendicularity? Not likely. Of course, if you are under tremendous pressure from your superiors to “score another victory for Relativity”, then perhaps a correction-laden approach would be ideal, since correction factors can always be adjusted at will to yield whatever results are desired. Food for thought.

Fourth, Relativity experimenters pick and choose the data that “proves” their theory. This was done in the Hafele-Keating experiment of 1971, in which atomic clocks were flown around the world on jets to observe the slowing of time with velocity, and in the famous gravitational bending of light rays experiment, which took place during a total solar eclipse off the coast of Africa in 1919, to name just two of many such experimental “verifications”. When all of the data from each experiment is considered, the results are inconclusive, and no trend one way or the other can be detected. This is typical of tests of Relativity in general, where the experiments tend to be plagued by high noise and low signal strength, probably because Einstein’s theories deal with high speeds (close to that of light), high gravity (far beyond that found at the surface of the Earth), and high energies (such as in the big bang theory, itself an iffy proposition at best). The speeds, gravitational fields, and energies that real experimenters can achieve are nowhere near these levels, and so Einstein’s predictions are always a tiny residual effect left over after everything else has been accounted for. Not surprisingly, this doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence, at least to my way of thinking. Special and General Relativity are both really Star Trek-type theories in need of the starship Enterprise for true verification. Since that famous vessel only exists within the realm of fantasy and science fiction, we can only say at present that the jury is still out regarding Relativity, although its outlandish claims, such as traveling to the future without aging while traveling to the stars and back again (the plot of the original Planet of the Apes movie, the one with Charleton Heston) don’t bode well for the theory, and pretty much tell you everything that you need to know about the truth or falsity of Relativity.

Now some will say that the GPS system proves Relativity every day. However, while we are told that a relativistic correction factor has been applied to the clocks in the many satellites that comprise the GPS fleet, it’s entirely possible that the exact same effect could be achieved by simply forcing the satellites to keep time according to our needs, sort of like the way that the clock on my nightstand automatically detects differences between different time zones on Earth, and displays the correct time when I take it with me on a trip, or the way that that same clock automatically changes the time when daylight savings time begins and ends. All that’s really happening is that we are building increasingly complex machines to bring greater comfort, convenience and efficiency to our lives, not learning about the fundamental workings of the Universe. There is a big difference between the two. For example, it is often stated that the speeding up of atomic clocks with increasing altitude proves that General Relativity must be correct, since the time on the clock matches up with the theory perfectly. But it is equally possible that the extremely sensitive atomic clock is merely responding to the decreased gravity of the Earth (reduced ether wind speed in the downward direction) as distance from the ground increases, and that neither time nor space is changing at all. It’s like placing an old-fashioned mechanical watch in a strong magnetic field – the watch hands slow or stop altogether. Has time slowed or stopped, or merely the hands of the watch? Obviously, the latter possibility is the truth, but each person will have to decide for themselves, a statement which will be repeated often throughout this book.

Why does God redshift the spectral lines of the galaxies, in such a way that the smaller a galaxy looks in the sky, the greater the redshift? We can’t really say for certain, since we can’t know the mind of God. However, we can say that man was created in God’s image. God said that in his Word, so we can trust that statement:

Genesis 1:26-28 King James Version (KJV)

And God said, Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the Earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the Earth.

So God created man in his Own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the Earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the Earth.

Now, keeping this verse in mind, consider that human beings love to put fanciful backgrounds behind their fish tanks. For example, one fish tank might have a fantastical scene featuring the submerged ruins of ancient Atlantis, while another has an old sunken ship off in the distance, complete with corroding cannon and treasure chests spilling their contents of golden doubloons! Why we do we engage in this strange activity? The fish don’t certainly don’t care. The reason seems to be that it simply pleases us to decorate our fish tanks in this way. We probably get this tendency from God Himself, since we are created in His image, and He has “shown us the way”, so to speak, by decorating the ultimate fish tank (the Universe) with the ultimate background (the night sky). Do we change the background because the fish are having heated debates about what they see in the background? Of course not. So it is with God and the starry, starry night. It pleases Him to place a background that creates the illusion of a limitless space behind our finite reality. In the same way, we place beautiful landscape paintings in our living rooms. It just pleases us to put a false window into a larger, wider world within our everyday world. Do we chastise ourselves for deceiving ourselves with fake scenes? Of course not. We simply enjoy the view, just like God does, and at no time is there any malicious intent on the part of anyone involved.

We have seen that the flat Earth model doesn’t work because the apparent angular diameter of the Sun would be different for each and every location on Earth. This doesn’t coincide with what is actually observed: a Sun whose angular size is constant and the same for everyone, regardless of your location on Earth. Consequently, the flat Earth model was summarily rejected.

The Ptolemaic system doesn’t work because three important heavenly bodies – the Moon, Venus, and Mercury – would have to be crowded into the narrow band of space between the Earth and the Sun, which is only 93,000,000 miles in width. In order to accomplish this, the objects mentioned would have to be relatively small in size in order to fit within the available space and, at the same time, also exhibit the observed angular diameters. The planet Venus, for example, would have to be a relatively minor body, which is at odds with its extensive atmosphere. We can construct a simple table to better illustrate this point:

In order for Venus to have the physical properties that the Ptolemaic system requires of it, that planet would need to resemble the first three planets in our table. As you can see, this creates a serious problem in that a tiny planet close to the Sun is required to have a giant atmospheric envelope, a relationship which is not observed in reality. Therefore, the Ptolemaic system was rejected as a viable Solar System/Universe model.

The Copernican system was rejected because of its many gravitational inconsistencies. Here are some examples of this:

1. The closest star to the Earth according to MSS, Proxima Centauri, is said to have a density greater than that of osmium, the densest material known. However, MSS also maintains that stars are composed primarily of hydrogen and helium, which are two of the least dense elements known. MSS explains this apparent mismatch away by invoking gravitational compression to achieve the required density. However, red dwarf stars like Proxima Centauri are always said by MSS to be much smaller, dimmer, cooler, and less massive than the Sun. Where is all of the required gravity coming from, then? After all, in MSS, mass is the only source of gravity, and red dwarfs lack both. In this book, the stars are simply luminous images on the inner surface of the stellatum, thus eliminating the need for ultra-dense stars on our astronomical doorstep.
2. The Sun gravitationally attracts the Moon over twice as strongly as the Earth. Why is the Moon still in orbit around the Earth, then? God keeps it there, of course. Unfortunately for MSS, invoking God to explain the wonders of the natural world is not allowed.
3. Several well-known isolated stars in the night sky attract each other in a gravitational sense more strongly than stars which are said to actually orbit one another. Wouldn’t these so-called bound stellar systems literally fall apart after billions of years of MSS time? However, if the stars are simply luminous images on the inner surface of the stellatum, then the issue of gravitational forces between them does not arise, since the stars are not physical objects to begin with.
4. A number of stars, said by MSS to be in orbit around one another, nevertheless do not exhibit any orbital motion. How can this be, as MSS requires motion and gravity to work hand in hand to create stable orbits, and boasts that it can now detect the tiniest shifts in position (parallax, images of stellar disks, photographs of extrasolar planets, and, finally, gravitational waves from colliding black holes billions of light years away)? This “frozen stars” behavior is totally contrary to the Newtonian gravity of MSS, but makes perfect sense if the stars are merely lights on the inner surface of the stellatum. The electronic images that are the stars move or remain still, orbit or not, all as God wills. These effects are easily accomplished since the stellatum is an enormous digital video display screen with an essentially infinite number of pixels covering its vast inner surface, and God has complete control over which pixels are illuminated and which are not. The Bible mentions that the stars will fall from the sky and be extinguished at the end of time and the judgment of the world:

Matthew 24:29-31 King James Version (KJV)

Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the Sun be darkened, and the Moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from Heaven, and the powers of the Heavens shall be shaken:

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in Heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the Earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of Heaven with power and great glory.

And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of Heaven to the other.

If the stellatum is merely a highly sophisticated TV screen, then you can see that this feat is easily accomplished by God by simply causing the images of the stars to streak across the sky and wink out upon reaching the horizon! In MSS, the stars could never fall to Earth, since even the smallest star would destroy the entire Earth in a single blow. This is how MSS stifles innovative thought – it says that only its own worldview is allowed (settled science, in other words), thereby removing from consideration extremely simple and clever alternative possibilities that, in the end, have a much greater chance of being true. Food for thought.

Many other examples of problems with the Copernican system are possible, such as the unlikely ordering of the stars and galaxies as their MSS distance from Earth increases, such that the brightest, most active, most violent, and most life-threatening objects – be they stars or galaxies – are always the farthest away, despite the cosmological principle always lurking in the background. The point is that the Copernican system holds together only by allowing certain questions to be asked of it. In other words, one must not look at the system too closely, so that its failings won’t become too apparent. Obviously, this is very poor science and, as a result, we have rejected the Copernican system in this book.

The Tychonian system was chosen as the correct model of the Solar System/Universe since it is the only one that corresponds to both the KJV Bible and actual scientific observations. The Tychonian system does have inconsistencies, such as the fact that the Earth’s spatial consumption effect is insufficient to keep the Sun and the Moon in orbit around it. However, in those cases, we can simply resort to an Almighty God, and say that He is maintaining the inconsistent system that we actually observe, since He created it in the first place. Note that this approach is quite different from the Copernican system, which has no answers to its own internal inconsistencies, and deals with them by simply not allowing the asking of certain uncomfortable questions.

Basically, we are proposing a Biblical, astronomical worldview in which much can be explained scientifically using the ether wind concept. A few additional items (the position and rotational velocity of the stellatum, the position and orbital velocity of the Sun, the position and orbital velocity of the Moon, and the position and lack of orbital velocity of the Earth) can only be explained by invoking God, but this does not seem like much a drawback, since God has already said in His Word that His creation would point back to Himself:

Romans 1:20 King James Version (KJV)

For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

It stands to reason, therefore, that mankind would discover some things about his world that cannot be explained except through the existence of a Deity. We submit that those things are none other than the ones we just mentioned above.

What will you believe? The risks are great, yes, regardless of your choice. If the Christians are right, then Hell awaits most people after death. If the secular world is right, then the Christians are wasting their lives trying to emulate a Man that never existed, except in the pages of a certain book of fairy tales, and oblivion ultimately awaits us all. The choice, of course, is yours.

However, there is one small, inescapable fact that tips the balance, I believe, in the direction of the Christian worldview: the M-M experiment never detected the motion that it so desperately sought. The final conclusions are few and obvious – the Bible is right, man is wrong, and only Jesus can save you from the penalty of your sins.