Appendix V — The anomalies of the heliocentric model

This chapter addresses various anomalies in the current heliocentric model, suggesting they may be resolved by reconsidering the assumption that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Many of the arguments presented draw from Simon Shack’s work. For more in-depth information, please refer to the Tychos book (opens in a new tab). While I have rephrased or expanded on some points, full credit for the ideas goes to him.

Another excellent source for the anomalies mentioned below is this book Mathematical Aspects of Paradoxes in Cosmology - Can Mathematics Explain the Contemporary Cosmological Crisis? (opens in a new tab).

The book basically lists 20 problems of the heliocentric model:

1. The problem of the existence of dark matter.
2. The problem of the existence of dark energy.
3. The problem of isotropy of the universe.
4. The problem of homogeneity of the universe.
5. The flatness problem.
6. The problem of the existence of the cosmological constant.
7. The problem of the accelerated expansion of the universe and the energy non conservation problem.
8. The problem with observed values of the cosmological parameter σ8.
9. The problem that the standard cosmological model admits a division by zero and that cosmological parameters have a strange behaviour in time.
10. The problem with inconsistency of different values of the Hubble-Lemaître constant obtained by different methods .
11. The problem of hierarchical structures.
12. The problem of the existence of stars that are older than the universe according to the standard cosmological model.
13. The problem of setting up accurate initial conditions.
14. The problem of the existence of an infinite universe.
15. The inflation problem.
16. The problem of the existence of giant black holes in the early universe.
17. The horizon problem.
18. The problem of the large angular momentum and velocities of all spiral galaxies.
19. The problem of a 120-order-of-magnitude discrepancy between the density of fluctuations in a vacuum, which should have gravitational effects, and theoretically derived density of dark energy.
20. The Big Bang problem itself.

” Some of these problems are overlapping, but their number is growing. Most mainstream cosmologists do not mind that these problems exist and still defend the standard cosmological model. Their frequently used argument: “We have nothing better” does not hold up”

Let’s have a closer look at some of the anomalies.

1. The extreme distances, sizes and luminosities of the stars

   One of the most remarkable observations in the heliocentric model are the extraordinary dimensions, distances and therefore luminosities the stars would have in relation to our solar system. For more background have a look at this lecture video (opens in a new tab).

   Let's consider for instance the distance and luminosity for one of our brighter stars in our sky, Deneb (a.k.a. Alpha Cygni): Deneb is said to be 203 times larger than our Sun - and it is 2,615 LY away from our us – which is 165,375,417 AU! or 165 MILLION times further away than our Sun - or if you prefer, 24 739 800 000 000 000 km.

   "Deneb is the brightest star in Cygnus and the 19th brightest star in the night sky” ... “A blue-white supergiant. Deneb rivals Rigel as the most luminous first-magnitude star. However, its distance, and hence luminosity, is poorly known; its luminosity is somewhere between 55,000 and 196,000 times that of the Sun“ Wikipedia (opens in a new tab)

   A star that shines 55,000 - 196,000 X brighter than our Sun and the dazzling distances are of course quite remarkable numbers to put it lightly. Besides the bandwidth of all these estimation, also the actual numbers themselves nowhere fit in the dimensions of our own solar system.

   Just to give an idea about the enormous sizes of other stars, look at this video.

   In the geo-heliocentric models of the universe, the 300 million km every 6 months assumption is no longer the base of the measurements for the star distances. Therefore the closest stars lie just beyond the planets meaning the size of the VISIBLE universe becomes realistic again. Just like a torch light shining at 10 meter, differs from a torch light shining at 1 km, at one moment in time the light is no longer visible. This also implies additionally the age of the universe is wrong.

2. The distances of the visible universe

   In the heliocentric model the distance to the stars is measured against our orbit around the Sun. This is differently measured than the distance to the planets in our solar system, which are for most part done with lasers. For more background, i.e. have a look over here How are distances to the stars and galaxies calculated (opens in a new tab) or over here parallax (opens in a new tab)

   In the geo-heliocentric models of the universe, the 300 million km every 6 months assumption is no longer the base of the measurements for the star distances. Therefore the closest stars lie just beyond the planets meaning the size of the VISIBLE universe becomes realistic again. Just like a torch light shining at 10 meter, differs from a torch light shining at 1 km, at one moment in time the light is no longer visible. This also implies additionally the age of the universe is wrong.

3. Why we can see so many stars with our naked eyes

   Heliocentric astronomers tell us that the closest star system (the Proxima Centauri A and B duo and their "parents", the Alpha Cen A and Alpha Cen B binary pair) is some 4.3 light years away, while the farthest stars we can see with our naked eyes are said to be up to 6,000 light years away (or more)! These extraordinary claims become considerably less implausible in the geo-heliocentric model which posits that the stars are about ~23,454 times closer than currently believed. This is because star distances are estimated under the assumption that Earth moves by 299.2 million km every six months. In the geo-heliocentric model, however, the Earth barely moves barely in six months’ time so the measurement is only defined by the diameter of Earth (299.2 mkm / 12,756km = ~23,454 times less than currently assumed).

   

   

   NOTE: Earth’s small movement will level out over all measurements (+/-) so what is left is really only the diameter of Earth. Additionally this is also the explanation why they find 25% positive parallax, 50% non-measured parallax and 25% negative parallax. See for further explanation this chapter in the Tychos book (opens in a new tab)

4. The oldest star found in the Milky Way is around 13.6 billion years old

   The oldest stars in our universe (opens in a new tab) are all part of the Milky Way. The oldest being HD 140283 a.k.a Methuselah star (opens in a new tab) is only 190 light years away from us.

   This article about the Ancient Stars that Somehow Survived Close to the Center of the Milky Way (opens in a new tab) sums it up:

   "How can such ancient stars still be around? Presumably, most of the very oldest ones in the Universe have long since exploded as supernovae or met some other end.“

   I would add to that: How can such an old star only be 190 light years away from us?

   "Since it is in our close neighbourhood (only 190 light years away from us), it is very probable that there are even older stars in the entire universe. This age would possibly conflict with the calculated age 13.82 billion years of the universe as determined from the Friedmann equation by the Planck satellite data“

   In the geo-heliocentric models of the universe, the 300 million km every 6 months assumption is no longer the base of the measurements for the star distances. Therefore the closest stars lie just beyond the planets meaning the size of the VISIBLE universe becomes realistic again. Just like a torch light shining at 10 meter, differs from a torch light shining at 1 km, at one moment in time the light is no longer visible. This also implies additionally the age of the universe is wrong.

5. Our Sun is alone

   Practically all the stars we can see in the sky with our naked eyes have a binary companion, so WHY doesn't our Sun also have a companion?

   "In a heliocentric view, the idea of stellar systems containing two or more associated stars seemed a priori excluded; all stars in the universe are suns like our own, all being equal in size and resting at the center of other possible star systems. Given these premises, there cannot be a system with more than one star." "The Early Search for Stellar Parallax: Galileo, Castelli and Ramponi" - by Harald Siebert (2005) (opens in a new tab)

   Today, this early Copernican axiom has been, of course, categorically contradicted - as the vast majority of our visible stars have turned out to be double (or multiple) systems in which, more often than not, two central 'stars' revolve around their common barycenter.

   Some binary systems (opens in a new tab) have recently been observed to revolve around each other in only a few minutes!

   Our Sun, in stark contrast, is currently believed to complete just ONE of its orbits in about 250 MILLION years!

   We are thus asked to believe that the Sun has no "local orbit" of its own - much unlike practically ALL of the stars in our skies; this would, of course, imply that our Sun is a unique 'exception to the rule' - and a quite formidable 'cosmic and statistical anomaly'...

   “In fact, 85% of the stars in the Milky Way galaxy are not single stars, like the Sun, but multiple star systems, binaries or triplets.” Source: "Binary Stars" by Jim Schombert - for University of Oregon (2018).

   So we know today that the vast majority of the visible stars share an orbit with a binary companion. With a new model in which the Sun moves around the HELION POINT which in his turn orbits CENTER in the opposite direction of the Earth orbiting CENTER, it is no longer alone on its imaginary orbital path of 250 million years.

6. Why do planets retrograde periodically the way they do?

   These apparent ‘backward motions’ (as observed from Earth) are part and parcel of the actual physical paths traced by the various celestial bodies of our Solar System. Current explanations (opens in a new tab) for our planet's retrograde motions are directly contradicted by the most basic laws of perspective: if the retrograde motions were caused by speed differentials (between Earth and the planets), then the width and duration of a given planet's retrograde motions should INCREASE (in relation to the background stars) as it transits closer to Earth and DECREASE as it transits further from Earth. Instead, the exact opposite is observed.

   The Tychos book has explained this anomaly with below picture. Study it and the only conclusion can be, the heliocentric model is impossible:

7. Why Venus appears to rotate around its axis in a clockwise direction

   In reality, Venus rotates counter-clockwise, just like all the other components of our Solar System. The illusion of its apparent clockwise rotation is upheld by the erroneous notion that Earth rotates around Venus - and not vice versa - in the course of Venus' 1.6-year (or 584.4-day) synodic period.

8. The reason for the “precession of the equinoxes” and why our North Stars change over time

   The precession of the equinoxes (or "General Precession") is the observed, annual ‘retrograde’/ eastward drift of the stars (i.e. our entire firmament), as has been observed and documented ever since antiquity. As has been thoroughly demonstrated by a number of recent studies, the Earth does not slowly wobble in the opposite direction of its axial rotation. Hence, the Copernican theory is left, incredibly enough, without an explanation for the observed and all-important General Precession.

   In the geo-heliocentric model, what is commonly known as the 'Precession of the Equinoxes' is simply caused by the Earth’s slow, clockwise motion around its 23,520 year circular Earth Axial Precession Orbit (EAPO).

9. Why the solar day is longer than the sidereal day - and the solar year is shorter than the sidereal year

   These two undeniable and well-known facts still lack satisfactory explanations under the Copernican theory’s geometric layout.

   The geo-heliocentric model presented in this book provides simple explanations for these apparently contradictory observations: The Sidereal Day – which is earth rotation - is linked to the solar day and solar year due to the coin rotation paradox. The True Sidereal Day is linked to the sidereal year.

10. Why our Moon lines up with the same star every 27.3 days

    If the Earth-Moon system truly hurtled at ~107,225 km/h around the Sun (as of current theory), it would cover a 70 million-km orbital section every 27.3 days. Yet, the Moon is observed to re-conjunct with any given star every 27.3 days! In the geo-heliocentric model, this is no mystery since the Earth-Moon system only moves at a slow pace every 27.3 days.

11. Why our Moon appears to accelerate in relation to the Earth

    This is no more than an illusory conclusion that astronomers are drawing due to their erroneous heliocentric perspective. In the geo-heliocentric model, this apparent acceleration is a fully expected corollary of the Earth-Moon system's motion around the Earth Axial Precession Orbit (EAPO).

12. Why the rate of the precession-of-the-equinoxes seems to accelerate?

    There is no clear explanation for this phenomenon in the heliocentric model.

    In the model described in this book the rate of precession of the equinoxes accelerates because of Earth’s path around CENTER combined with the counter movement of the HELION POINT around CENTER.

13. Why Earth’s rotation is believed to decelerate

    There is no clear explanation for this phenomenon in the heliocentric model.

    In the model described in this book the rate of precession of the equinoxes accelerates because of Earth’s path around CENTER combined with the counter movement of the HELION POINT around CENTER. The Sun is orbiting the HELION POINT and because the HELION POINT movement is decelerating, the Earth rotation is slowing down.

    The movement of the longitude of perihelion is inversely proportional to the length of day / earth rotation.

14. Why our largest meteor showers recur at regular annual intervals

    According to current theory, our most famous meteor showers are caused by our planet regularly - i.e. every year at specific dates and locations - smashing into scattered dust-trails left over by various comets, in spite of the fact that no comets are known to return on a yearly basis!

    The geo-heliocentric model submits a more rational and demonstrable cause for the annual recurrences of our largest meteor showers. We more or less stay in the locations and not rush through space anymore.

15. The explanation for “the anomalous precession of Mercury’s perihelion”

    Mercury’s precession rate (opens in a new tab) deviates from the precession predicted from the Newtonian effects. The observed precession is around 43″ per century longer then calculated with Newton laws according to wikipedia. This website (opens in a new tab) comes to a number of 44.063 arcseconds.

    This hotly-debated "anomaly" was resolved as one of the definitive proofs of Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity.

    Albert Einstein (opens in a new tab) is considered as one of the greatest and most influential scientists of all time. He is the inventor of famous theories like General relativity (opens in a new tab) and Special relativity (opens in a new tab). To write down he was wrong about the foundation of our universe sounds at first sight ridiculous, but the definitive proof of these famous theories is still to be delivered.

    The model described in this book shows that there is no such anomaly. The extra ~43″-per-century precession of Mercury’s perihelion, is due to the movement of Earth around it’s Earth Axial Precession orbit (EAPO). This scientific paper (opens in a new tab) reviewed Albert Einstein’s method and also further explains the missing precession rate of 43″ per century coincides with 96 km per year. This is more or less aligned with the actual movement of Earth around CENTER.

    Also in the book “Mathematical Aspects of Paradoxes in Cosmology” the writers Michal Křížek and Lawrence Somer have summed up everything that is wrong with the Theory and the Mercury perihelion proof presented. There is a link to the book at the top of this chapter.

    "The estimated difference of Mercury’s perihelion shift obtained from astronomical observations and numerical solution of the problem of N bodies is therefore ill-conditioned. According to [312], formula (4.2) represents a weak experimental and theoretical confirmation of General Relativity”

    See also this paper which shows the formula of Mercury’s missing perihelion precession calculations are wrong Einstein’s Spacetime Curvature claim Belied By one second Loophole of his own Perihelion Precession Equation (opens in a new tab), or see this paper (opens in a new tab).

    "On one hand, Einstein's, two equations that serve as mathematical evidence of spacetime curvature artefact - yield in fact only one-second-based calculation sampling of the perihelion precession. And there are no further equations nor argumentations from Einstein as to why or how spacetime curvature just needs only one-second-based sampling for the calculation of the perihelion precession. And on the other hand, The observed angle of perihelion shift should not be a time-based sampling value -whether one second or any amount thereof - but should be instead a full orbit-based value, because the perihelion precession occurs only once per orbital revolution.”

    I have added both formula’s to calculate the missing perihelion precession in the Google sheets for you to check as well.

    Additionally you could just model Mercury’s orbit according to Kepler’s 3rd law have it aligned to all known Sun occult dates. The longitude of perihelion of Mercury observed and the actual perihelion values are different. Mercury is actually – just like Earth and just like Venus - aligned to the same perihelion axis as Earth.

    In the model described in this book the rate of precession of the equinoxes accelerates because of Earth’s path around CENTER combined with the counter movement of the HELION POINT around CENTER.

    • Earth moves along its path of the Earth Precession Orbit (EAPO) around CENTER with a pace of 109.1141619 km/year.
    • The HELION POINT is moving in opposite direction with a pace of 129.5625631 km at a distance ~5.15 times further from the CENTER.
    • Resulting in a net movement of the HELION POINT – which shows as the movement of the Longitude of perihelion of Earth.
    • Resulting in the visible movement of the perihelion of Mercury with 44.6 arcseconds. This value will fluctuate in time.

    

    Could this be the cause of the anomalous advance of the perihelion of Mercury?

16. The existence of negative and zero parallax

    Since Copernican astronomers believe that our planet orbits around the Sun around a 300 million-km-wide circle (the diameter of our movement around the Sun), they will take two measurements - of any given nearby star - separated by a 6-month period. This, because according to their reasoning, the Earth will then have moved from one side of its orbit to the other and thus, must have displaced itself by its maximum elongation in relation to the stars. As they compare the two observations of that star, they will calculate its parallax trigonometrically - using a baseline of 300 Mkm.

    In the recent past, the two major, official stellar parallax catalogues - named "Hipparcos" and "Tycho" - published by ESA (the European Space Agency) contained the parallax values for only a few million stars. ESA additionally now proudly proclaims that their newly "Gaia" enterprise has determined the parallaxes / celestial positions & distances for a billion stars.

    Gaia found that roughly 25% of the stellar parallaxes are "negative", 29% are "positive" - and 46% are "assumed zero" (i.e. almost HALF of the stars listed exhibit NO observable parallax at all !).

    Under the Copernican model, negative stellar parallaxes simply cannot exist. If Earth were revolving around the Sun, all of the observed stellar parallaxes would have to be positive. 

    The curious and apparently inexplicable so-called 'negative' stellar parallax exhibited by a good 25% of our stars (as well as the baffling amount of stars - nearly 50% - registering zero parallax) are shown to be natural corollaries of the geo-heliocentric model's geometry. In other words, the “mysterious” existence of three types of observed stellar parallaxes is to be fully expected in the geo-heliocentric model (i.e. roughly 25% positive, 25% negative, and 50% zero).

17. The Sun's "Angular Momentum problem"

    Under the heliocentric theory it is calculated that the Sun would account for only 0.3 percent of the total angular momentum of our entire Solar System - since it would employ as many as 240 million years to complete just ONE of its orbital revolutions.

    This is a major riddle (and a glaring violation of Newtonian physics) that has eluded, to this day, any satisfactory explanation.

    In the geo-heliocentric model, on the other hand, the Sun revolves around its 'local orbit' in ca. 365¼ days completing a full cycle in 101,920 years on its Sun Inclination Precession Orbit (SIPO). This will would bring the Sun right in line with its expected angular momentum.

18. Why we can't feel or measure the Earth's orbital speed

    The heliocentric model requires Earth to be orbiting the Sun at almost 87X the speed of sound (~Mach 86.8 or ~107,225 km/h) while at the same time our Sun is moving towards the constellation Leo at an incredible speed of ∼650 km/s (2,340,000 km/h or about 0.22% of the speed of light).

    These unbelievable speeds and according distances travelled are needed for the model but in spite of countless sophisticated experiments performed over the last few centuries, have never been measured. It has no scientific nor experimental foundation whatsoever.

    In the geo-heliocentric model, of course, the Earth's orbital velocity is that slow so you cannot "feel" it in any physical way.

19. The 'failure' of the Michelson-Morley experiments

    The Most famous experiment for measuring the Earth’s movement has been the “Michelson=Morley experiment”. See for more detail Michelson-Morley (opens in a new tab)

    Since the setup should have given some result, but they hardly could not find any Earth movement (and sometimes even negative).

    As a consequence the scientist Albert Einstein developed the theory of special relativity. Basically the implication is you age differently if you travel at another speed relative to someone who doesn’t. The most quoted experiment is the air flight with atomic clocks. Hafele-Keating experiment (opens in a new tab). If you check the talk-section you also gain some insight, people really want the GPS references in it. There are however still people thinking and not just blindly following whatever is presented to them. There is a nice discussion on the validity Hefele-Keating-experiment (opens in a new tab). It disproves the theory of special relativity theory. The experiment cannot have different results for east- and west oriented flights. Therefore the theory is wrong.

    Another implication which is nice to follow is the Twin paradox (opens in a new tab). There are more strange consequences which you need to seek for yourself. It is simply impossible or to say the least: spooky.

    We are told that the numerous interferometer experiments which attempted to detect the supposed hypersonic motion of Earth all miserably failed and obtained "null results" (thus confirming Einstein's theories). However, at a closer scrutiny, the (NON-null) velocities recorded by most of these experiments (particularly those of Dayton Miller) can be shown to support Earth's very slow orbital speed - as proposed by the geo-heliocentric. Moreover, Michelson is even quoted as saying that he “thought of the possibility that the solar system as a whole might have moved in the opposite direction to the Earth”. This is, of course, precisely what Earth does in the geo-heliocentric model: it slowly moves in the opposite direction of all of its 'family members' in the Solar System.

20. Why we can't feel or measure the changing Earth's orbital speed

    As mentioned above we are moving at an incredible pace but additionally we are moving along elliptical orbits so this incredible speed is not fixed either. Just like all other planets in our galaxy, we are speeding up and down in our orbit around the Sun.

    Planets move more quickly at perihelion (closest to the Sun) than at aphelion (farthest from the Sun), conserving angular momentum and obeying Kepler’s laws of motion.

    So in January with the Sun being closest to Earth we are moving faster than July when Earth being furthest away.

    "Earth is rushing along in January at almost 30.3 km per second, moving about 1 km per second faster than when Earth is farthest from the Sun in early July”

    

    So far there have not been any observations or measurements for these speed differences. I put in in capitals: NOT ANY! In the geo-heliocentric model, of course, the Earth's orbital velocity is that slow so you cannot "feel" it in any physical way bringing observations back in line with theories.

21. Why planetary orbits appear elliptical

    Kepler is famed for concluding that all planetary orbits must be elliptical and therefore have variable speeds. For instance Mercury's orbital speed varies from about 59 km/s at perihelion to 39 km/s at aphelion. This is quite a big difference but so far there has never been any elliptical speed notion measured.

    This article gives a brief history how we ended up with elliptic orbits Circular or elliptical orbits (opens in a new tab). To explain the differences, they invented the term "perturbation".

    In the geo-heliocentric model, all celestial bodies orbit around uniformly circular orbits. Some planets however can have an elliptical factor, but they really travel at constant speeds. They sometimes appear elliptical since they all revolve around a barycenter close to Earth. Kepler's 'laws of planetary motion' are based on deceptive illusions of perspective.

22. The impossibility to create a 3D representation of our heliocentric universe

    It is not possible to create a 3d representation of the heliocentric model that works completely.

    There are off course models available. Most of them only have a geocentric view. All those simulators (Stellarium: https://stellarium-web.org/ (opens in a new tab), Skylive: https://theskylive.com/3dsolarsystem (opens in a new tab)?, etc.) are based on series calculation and polynomial interpolation. That is, based on real observations, a polynomial function of 'n' terms is constructed that predicts the position of the stars as a function of time. And it usually differs quite a bit when we move many years away from the observed period. Additionally the 3D models that are there, never have stars in the background.

    The orbits of the planets are open to long-term variations. Modelling the Solar System is a case of the n-body problem of physics, which is generally unsolvable except by numerical simulation.

    See also Numerical model of the Solar System (opens in a new tab) and Stability of the Solar System (opens in a new tab)

    The model as presented in this book is modelled from a Geo-Heliocentric point of view and is calculated assuming circular orbits which are slightly off-centered, only passing the parameter of the object to be calculated. The stars are in the background and according to the observations.

    If you want to verify the positions of our planets you can use the online Stellarium simulator and compare them to the 3D dummy universe simulation.

23. The missing Dark Matter

    Dark matter is the elusive and invisible “stuff” that astrophysicists are desperately attempting to detect in our Universe and yet, so far, with no luck. They currently contend that about 85% of our universe’s mass is made of “dark" (or "missing") matter because the observed, highly scattered distributions (and erroneously-estimated orbital speeds) of our universe’s celestial bodies and galaxies appear to violate both Kepler’s and Newton’s laws (as well as the “Big Bang” theory and inflation theory).

    To put it in simple terms: The Newton’s Gravitational Laws can be used to describe the movements of the bodies in our own solar system with a great precision, IF we assign a certain mass to those bodies as detected by the instruments we have. These laws work in our own solar system, but do not work anywhere else. Our currently available instruments are unable to detect any of this matter because this kind of mass does not absorb, reflect, or emit electromagnetic radiation and is therefore untraceable.

    There are therefore two possible conclusions: 1) Dark matter doesn’t exist. Our universe is only made of visible matter since there are no clues at all for any other type of matter. 2) Dark matter exist, but our currently available instruments are too limited to track it

    If you accept option one, the scientific community needs to revaluate the model because the heliocentric model might be wrong.

    If you accept option two, it does not only entail we acknowledge we don’t have the knowledge currently to understand the universe (which also means you do not yet know the heliocentric model is correct), it also means there is a substance that is very weird and does not fit in our current model of the world as can be seen and experienced on Earth. See for further read on this substance Wikipedia (opens in a new tab)

24. The missing Dark energy

    Dark energy is an unknown form of energy that affects the universe on the largest scales that is needed to describe in formula’s how the stars and planets behave in the universe with Kepler’s and Newton’s laws as designed in the heliocentric model.

    So besides the Dark matter we need to add Dark energy to keep the possibility to describe the world according to the formula’s. They currently contend that about 68% of all energy needed to keep the formula’s alive consist of “dark energy”. Yet where it comes from, where it is, how it works, we can’t detect.

    

    I will not elaborate on this one, since the arguments are mentioned at Dark matter. See Wikipedia (opens in a new tab)

25. The riddle of the expanding universe

    The theory for the expanding universe is also known as cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation, or just inflation, is a theory of exponential expansion of space in the early universe. It needs Dark energy as an explanation on which we already touched upon the above section.

    Additionally this theory explains why the universe is evenly distributed as can be seen by checking the following sources: Wikipedia Inflation (opens in a new tab):

    "Many physicists also believe that inflation explains why the universe appears to be the same in all directions, why the cosmic microwave background radiation is distributed evenly, why the universe is flat, and why no magnetic monopoles have been observed”

    Wikipedia Cosmic microwave background (opens in a new tab):

    "The cosmic microwave background is microwave radiation that fills all space in the observable universe. It is a remnant that provides an important source of data on the primordial universe. With a standard optical telescope, the background space between stars and galaxies is almost completely dark. However, a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope detects a faint background glow that is almost uniform and is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object.”

    

26. The add-ons needed for the big bang theory

    The greatest evidence for the big bang theory is that it is popular and the greatest evidence against any competing theory is none of them are popular. No one knows the answer where we are coming from. The Big bang is a story created by Georges Lemaître (opens in a new tab).

    There are a number of difficulties with the big bang theory. One of them is we need Dark matter/ energy to make it work. As already showed above, there is no evidence at all for this type of matter. For some other reasons, see this nice article: 20 falsifications of the Big bang theory (opens in a new tab)

27. The impossible gravitational laws

    As might be showed above, the force formula’s for Gravity work more or less within our galaxy, but not outside. Outside our solar system we need special substances.

    But another strange trait about the gravity force, it’s so small, it can’t be measured on its own but it can be measured attached to a planet. In other words, the gravity force is not a constant that can be measured.

    Gravity not proven https://web.archive.org/web/20111224045455/https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/09/02/essential-guide-to-eu-introduction/ (opens in a new tab)

28. Why the atmosphere is not drifting away

    For me personally, this is one of the most significant, simple arguments. In the heliocentric model we are said to move at incredible speeds, yet the atmosphere remains intact without drifting away. The commonly accepted answer to this is gravity.

    However, I encourage you to reflect on this—if a planet is rushing through the vastness of open space, with no enclosure or external pressure, can an atmosphere truly remain bound by a force that is barely measurable?

    For more details have a look at this nice article Why is our atmosphere not drifting (opens in a new tab)

In conclusion, the astronomical puzzles and anomalies outlined above find clear and logical answers when examined through the lens of the Geo-Heliocentric paradigm and its proposal of Earth's slow motion around the CENTER.