# Earth-is-stationary Proofs

"Are there *any* Earth-is-stationary proofs?", you might be asking.

Yes! -There are quite a few undeniable proofs that the Earth is stationary - that it does not rotate about its axis daily.

Why is that important?

“The most important element in heliocentric model is the Earth’s rotation about its polar axis”, says Dr. Shaban in his book, **The Verses of Deus** (page 77). The reason for that is obvious: If the Earth does not rotate 360 degrees in 24 hours, but if it does revolve around the sun, then one side would always be in daylight, while the other half would experience continual night. It would be similar to what we see of the moon, as it revolves around Earth.

Forget for a moment that *no one has ever offered a logical explanation WHY the Earth would rotate on its axis!* --and keep rotating for thousands of years. By the time you research the matter of Earth-goes-around-sun versus sun-goes-around-Earth, you will not need an answer to that, since only the second of these two options can be true = reality.

Let’s begin by listing some of the Earth-is-stationary proofs. (These are not necessarily given in any particular order of importance. In part, the order is to assist understanding, from one principle to the next.)

## Short List of Earth-is-stationary Proofs

This list is by no means comprehensive, but it gives you some understanding of what can be searched out and verified as reality – truth that the earth is stationary and does not rotate about its polar axis.

1) If the Earth rotated about its polar axis, it would have to be moving fastest at the equator and slower at each mile closer to the north and south poles. Theoretically, the tiny point at each pole would not be moving at all. (We will explain this proof below, after listing a few additional points.)

2) As Dr. Shaban says, “The rotation of the air-layer next to the rigid Earth is without cause . . . [and] is the greatest hoax ever invented by mankind.” (Quoted from *The Verses of Deus*, page 77.) That is, there is no cause for the air atmosphere near the Earth to rotate with the Earth. If the Earth was rotating fast enough to complete 360 degrees every 24 hours, the atmosphere would long ago have been hurtled away. (And see point 3.)

3) Similar to points 1 and 2, IF the atmosphere was rotating along with the Earth, it would have to be moving faster at the equator than at any other northern or southern degree of latitude (= distance from the equator). But in fact, the atmosphere does not move – it has the same force (atmospheric pressure) except for relatively small, and predictable, variations based on altitude and temperature.

4) If the Earth was rotating as we are told (i.e., from west to east in direction), an airplane would have to travel *much faster* to fly from Los Angeles to Miami than from Miami to Los Angeles. And the required speed to fly west-to-east at cities close to the equator would be much greater than speed needed to go from, say, Toronto to Moscow (since the Earth’s speed of rotation closer to the North Pole would be less than farther to the south).

## A Rotating Earth would be much different from ours

Okay. Are you ready for Earth-is-stationary point 1?

**The earth is stationary. A rotating Earth would have to be moving fastest at the equator and slowest near the north and south poles.** *But there is no difference in speed at any point on the Earth’s surface, whether north of, south of, or at the equator. Therefore, the earth is stationary - not rotating about its polar axis.*

The Earth is shaped rather like a sphere – a giant basketball. (It is not exactly spherical, but it is close enough that the difference in diameter or circumference at the equator and around the poles has no practical effect on the proof presented. In fact, the diameter at the equator is just over 12,756 kilometers, compared to nearly 12,714 kilometers for the polar diameter. The difference between the two is only about one-third of one percent. And, as a side point, since it will not be explained on this site at this time, the fact is that if the Earth was rotating, the polar diameter would be larger than the equatorial diameter.)

As an approximate sphere, the Earth has about the same diameter “any way you slice it” – as long as you “cut” through the center. That is, each slice thus has the same, maximum outer circle, called a circumference. (If the slice was thin and you laid it down on a table, you would be looking at a circle.)

For centuries, as a matter of convenience, mankind has designated artificial circles (each being a circumference) at various places running through the poles but east or west of each other at any point between poles and equator. These are defined as pinpointing degrees of longitude. Originally set up at Greenwich in England, by definition there are 180 degrees of east longitude and also 180 degrees of west longitude, for a total of 360 degrees. Since it was said (though never proved) that the earth rotated about its axis once in 24 hours, time zones were artificially placed approximately along each 15 degrees of longitude (since 15 times 24 equals 360). So we see that degrees of longitude can be used to state where something is in terms of east and west, and to tell time.

What about defining a geographic position in terms of north or south of the equator?

That is done by similar artificial, or defined, lines running parallel to the equator, called degrees of latitude.

There are significant differences between lines (circles around the earth) depicting latitude and lines (or, circles) depicting longitude:

• Every line of longitude is a full circumference of the earth and thus of the same length – that is, if you drew a line between any two points opposite each other on that line, it would go through the center of the Earth.

• Every line (circle) of latitude, except the one at the equator, is *shorter* than the one at the equator. Only the equator is a full circumference of the Earth. This also means that only at the equator is it possible to draw a line between points on the circle of latitude and have it go through the center of the Earth. (The following diagram shows this clearly – this explanation is just to help impress the difference between lines and degrees of longitude and degrees of latitude.)

• There are (by definition) only 90 degrees of northern latitude and 90 degrees of southern latitude, for a total of 180 (as opposed to a total of 360 degrees of longitude).

Some of what all this means is an easily shown conclusion: If the Earth was rotating about its polar axis and we knew how fast it was going at the equator, it would be moving *slower* at any other degree of latitude – and at a proportionally slower speed the farther north or south of the equator one went.

### Lines of Latitude: Note decreasing size (Circumference) as move from Equator to Poles

For the Earth to rotate once in 24 hours, it would need to be moving at 1,669.8 kilometers per hour (km/hr) at the equator. (Note: 1,669.8 km times 24 = 40,075 km, which is the circumference of the earth at the equator. Perhaps you are used to that figure in miles, which is approximately 24,902 miles.)

In the diagram above, you see that the equator is in the middle of the globe, halfway between north and south (the poles). Compared to the latitude lines shown (above and below it) the equator obviously has the greatest diameter. Since circumference (i.e., the circle that goes all the way around the Earth) is given by the formula C=πd, the diameter of the earth at the equator is approximately 24,902 divided by 3.1416, or about 7,927 miles. –That would be the relative length of the center horizontal line in the diagram. Any of the other horizontal lines (i.e., the other latitude lines shown) is shorter – and the shortest are near the poles.

On page 70 of *The Verses of Deus*, Dr, Shaban includes the following table (used by permission):

Therefore, we have seen an Earth-is-stationary proof. If the Earth was rotating about its axis, someone in Quito, Ecuador would be traveling twice as fast from west to east as someone in Oslo, Norway – at any moment, and at every moment. Meanwhile, someone looking at the proverbial North Pole, would hardly be moving at all!
But is that reality?

It takes just as long to travel 100 miles by air due east of Oslo, Norway (traveling at a set air speed) as it does to travel 100 miles by air due west, at the same air speed and altitude, if it is a calm day without wind. And, what is more, that is the same length of time it takes to travel 100 miles due east or due west of Quito, Ecuador on a wind-free day, given the same altitude and air speed!

How is that possible?

The earth is not rotating at all.

And consider the following:

We are told that he earth is moving very fast but that we do not feel the motion. If that was true, it would mean that the air is moving at the same speed as the part of the Earth that it is next to. Thus, the air at Quito, Ecuador is moving twice as fast as the air at Oslo, Norway.

But if the air at Quito is moving twice as fast as the air at Oslo, that would create the following “problems” that are not supported by reality:

An airplane that took off from Oslo on a clear day, heading west, would be going into a headwind of about 834.9 km/hr (= about 519 mph). Thus, it would need to travel at least the speed of a fast passenger jetliner to make even a few miles of headway. But if it took off heading east, it would hardly need to be using its jets to travel an expected distance for the time it was airborne.

Now, the above examples assume that the airliner was aided or hindered by the constant speed of the atmosphere around it.
Does that have to be the case if the earth was rotating?

No, it does not have to be. It could be that the Earth is rotating, but the air (atmosphere) is not. –But that would mean that the air had been left behind as the earth rotated. (Actually, that would be the most logical conclusion of what would happen if the Earth rotated, but since we know the atmosphere is still here, that cannot be the case.)

Okay, let’s consider an atmosphere rotating along with the Earth under it:

Just as is the case at the two poles, the center of the Earth is moving very slowly if the Earth is rotating. Since it is half the diameter (= radius) of the Earth from the center to the surface, that distance is about 3,963 miles. Thus, an altitude of 10,000 feet only adds a little less than two more miles to that, if we are considering the distance from the center to a specific circumference above Earth.

We all know that a climber on a mountain that is 20,000 feet above sea level has considerably less oxygen to breathe than is available at Miami or some other spot at sea level. Yet, he or she is less than four miles above sea level. At some point (well less than ten miles above sea level?), a person would die from lack of oxygen.

All of this shows that there is more oxygen near sea level (i.e., at the surface of the Earth) than higher. The higher into the atmosphere one travels, the lower the amount of oxygen there will be, because the air is thinner: There are fewer molecules per cubic meter. That is true even though the *percentage* of oxygen is about the same (roughly 21 percent) at each level or altitude.

The atmosphere at sea level thus exerts more pressure than it does at higher altitudes. By definition, the atmospheric pressure at sea level is called one atmosphere (atm) and is 760 millimeters of mercury (760mmHg) – which is the same as 29.92 inches of mercury (in a barometer). That is an average of 14.7 pounds per square inch of downward pressure because of the weight of the air above. (In weather forecasting, actual barometric pressure is commonly given in millibars, a metric unit. One atm is equal to 1013.5 millibars.)

Those are facts. Other facts include what happens to a gaseous mixture, such as air, or the atmosphere, when it is away from the center of a rotating system. Dr. Shaban points out that:

“The rotational velocity of the air atmosphere, V, is given by:
V=2πr/T Where r is equal to R + h, R is the radius of the rigid Earth, h is the altitude height (from the surface) and T is equal to 24 hours. In any rotational system, the larger is the radius r, the greater is the angular velocity V, the greater is the angular momentum (m V r), and the greater is the amount of inertia (m times r-squared), where m is the mass.” (pages 74 and 75)

He goes on to point out that 2π/T is a constant when Earth rotation is considered, since T = 24 hours.

Thus, “Each atmosphere layer should have a different angular velocity; the angular velocity becomes greater at higher altitude . . .”. He reminds us that the “rotational velocity at the surface of rigid Earth is 1670 km/hr.” But if one goes to an altitude of 500 km (which is getting toward the limit of the atmosphere and the boundary with space – but is not quite that far up), the “rotational velocity at this height is 1800 km/hr (500 m/s), which is the same as the peripheral speed of gas centrifuge.” (pages 77 and 78)

In other words, to be traveling along with the Earth as it rotates around its axis (if it did!), atmosphere at 500 kilometers would be moving at 500 meters per second (about 1,118 mph). Near sea level, the atmosphere would be traveling at 1670 km/hr, or about 1,037 mph. That is about 81 mph greater. So at 500 km (about 311 miles above sea level) the pressure of the atmosphere (gas) would be greater than at sea level. –It has to be, for, as Dr. Shaban points out, the principle of the centrifuge and the centrifugal pump is the same as would be for a rotating Earth: The greatest pressure is at the farthest point from the center of the rotating body or part.

Since we know that actual atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude instead, the Earth cannot be rotating and have the atmosphere we know.

Finally, for this page, the gaseous atmosphere, if rotating with the earth, would exhibit properties for which the centrifuge is made: Heavier elements and molecules would be driven outward. That means there would be relatively more oxygen than hydrogen at high altitudes, and more hydrogen than oxygen (by percentages) near sea level. That is because oxygen is heavier than hydrogen. And the result does not agree with reality (that says the percentage of oxygen stays the same with altitude - just the amount decreases). And that would mean that life as we know it on earth would not have survived.

But life has survived. So the Earth-is-stationary point is proven! The Earth *does not* rotate on its polar axis. This stands proven and absolutely destroys the possibility that heliocentricity could be true. -Because if the earth is stationary (in terms of having no rotation) but it did revolve around the sun, one side of the earth would be very hot and the other constantly frozen from lack of sunlight.

Go from Earth-is-stationary to stellar aberration

Return to geocentricity

Return to Genesis-Creation-Proof.com