Author Topic: Any Heliocentrists on CI? (Read 7869 times)

Charity · « **Reply #105 on:** December 12, 2021, 06:57:53 PM »

Quote from: cassini on December 12, 2021, 01:51:20 PM

‘Day 1: In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said: Be light made. And light was made. And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. And he called the light Day and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.
Day 4: And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars. And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth, to rule the day and the night and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

Now it is known that St Augustine also had a problem with light created before the sun so would not go along with six literal days of creation. Augustine proposed that all was created complete immediately but presented in Genesis by way of a six-days to emphasise order in His creation.

Before we can go on to the two lights of day 4, let us consider Augustine's proposal. Having first created heaven and Earth in darkness, the Book of Genesis tells us God then created ‘light.’ He then divided this light from the darkness causing what mankind experience as day and night on Earth. Today, science knows what light is, describing it as within a certain portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Accordingly, when God first created light, he in effect must have created electromagnetism to provide light throughout ‘heaven and Earth.’ So it was possible for God to create light on the first day.

It was on the 4th day that God created the sun and moon, the sun also to generate light for day on Earth, and the moon to reflect the sun's light on the Earth. The problem as you put it is no problem. Reasd Day 4 above again and it fits the reality for both sun and moon shine light to Earth.

St Basil, in his Hexaemeron, explains why God created light before the sun:

‘However, the sun and the moon did not yet exist, in order that those who live in ignorance of God may not consider the sun as the origin and father of light, or as the maker of all that grows out of the earth. That is why there was a fourth day, and then God said: “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven.”’ (Hm. VI:2)

Mary of Agreda wrote: Moses says that it was void, which he does not say of the heavens, for God had created the angels at the instant indicated by the word of Moses: “God said: Let there be light, and light was made.” He speaks here not only of material light, but also of the intellectual or angelic lights…

Having first created heaven and Earth in darkness, the Book of Genesis tells us God then created ‘light.’ He then divided this light from the darkness causing what mankind experience as day and night on Earth. Today, science knows what light is, describing it as within a certain portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Accordingly, when God first created light, he in effect must have created electromagnetism to provide light throughout ‘heaven and Earth.’

Finally, Domenico Cassini, by 1680, discovered the stars, sun and planets orbit the Earth by way of cassinian ovals. Later it was discovered that Cassinian ovals are also used for modelling electro-magnetic activity in the case of wires of equal current and direction or like-point charges. In other words Cassini, by way of his oval find (not kepler's ellipses), showed uis all the orbits in the universe are electromagnetic orbits. It later was discovered that Cassini's ovals are related to Phi which in turn is also found in a number of natural spirals are produced such as found in spiral galaxies, the human ear, snails, shellfish, leaf-shapes, flower petals, daisies, cauliflowers, broccoli, sunflowers, pineapple fruitlets, pine cones, curved waves, buds on trees, starfish. The measurement from the navel to the floor and the top of the head to the navel is the golden ratio. Animal bodies exhibit similar tendencies, including dolphins (the eye, fins and tail all fall at Golden Sections), starfish, sand dollars, sea urchins, ants, and honey bees etc.

Thanks Cassini for your years of dedicated service in shedding so much light on the truths of God's creation, especially in the area of cosmology. From what I can see it appears that your information is in strict accord with that provided by Robert Sungenis in his magnificent little illustrated book, The First Four Days of Creation. Both his work and your work clearly show, among so many other things, of how the Big Bang is absolutely irreconcilable with a time immemorial traditional Catholic reading of God's 100% inerrant Sacred Scripture.

Catholics who may still be sitting on the fence as regards geocentrism vs. heliocentrism may hopefully be knocked off the fence in the right direction after viewing this debate between Robert Sungenis and his long time heliocentrist rival David Palm: :

For those who enjoy debates and benefit from them, this one has Sungenis going into "enemy territory" as he takes on Rob Skiba at the Flat Earth International Conference in Denver, Colorado:

Marion · « **Reply #106 on:** December 13, 2021, 08:27:05 AM »

Quote

The Flat-Earth Conspiracy
ByEric Dubay
Published 9.11.2014
Paperback
USD 25.00

Youtube searches for "flat earth":

trends.google.com

cassini · « **Reply #107 on:** December 13, 2021, 10:16:12 AM »

Thanks for that comment Charity. remember what the Bible tells us

For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest,

nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad. (Luke: 8:17)

The story of how the Big Bang theory came about is also one that readers of CIF should also know. It is no surprise that a Catholic priest was involved in a secvular version of the supernaturasl Creation:

In 1922, the Russian Alexander Friedmann (1888-1925) ‘made the simplifying assumption that the universe had to be uniformly filled with a thin soup of matter.’ He ‘found a mistake in Albert Einstein’s 1917 paper on cosmology and established that general relativity predicted the universe is unstable and the slightest perturbation would cause it to expand or contract.’ Immediately others wanted in on the new theoretical cosmology, including the Jesuit Monsignor Abbé Georges Lemaître (1894-1966) who ‘was the first to use Friedmann-type solutions to formulate a ‘scientific’ model for the beginning of the universe that he called the Primordial Atom or Cosmic Egg.’ All that was needed now was for someone to come up with some evidence for Fr Lemaître’s idea of a natural ‘miraculous’ exploding cosmic-atom. Such a ‘proof’ would ensure immortality of name and achievement similar to all the Earthmovers that preceded them.

That occurred when the American astronomer Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) in 1929, using a newly built 100-inch telescope, viewed faraway galaxies for the first time. Examining the spectral-light emitted by these stars he found a lengthening of the red end with ‘nearly all of them,’ the further away the more they expand. On this basis, Hubble held that the stars and galaxies were flying outwards in every direction at enormous speed as seen from Earth, which, if extrapolated - put into reverse - suggested an initial beginning from a central point. But this presented a problem for them. If all the stars as seen from Earth had red shifts interpreted as moving away from Earth, then the Earth had to be at the centre of the universe. But this was a conclusion they didn’t want, so another ad hoc had to be invented. If, as Einstein proposed, all cosmic bodies existed on the surface of an expanding balloon type universe, then Hubble’s theory need not point to the Earth at its centre.

Now many studies undertaken since have produced conflicting versions of Hubble’s interpretation of red-shifts. ( See for example Robert V. Gentry’s Creation’s Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates, 2004.) Missed by all of course was the fact that a geocentric universe would also produce the very same expanding universe equally well, if it is expanding that is. In 1543 hadn’t Copernicus first pointed out in his De revolutionibus that an effect of a geocentric world would be a starry Carousel-swing type of expansion of stars outwards?

‘But why didn’t Ptolemy feel anxiety about the world instead; whose movements must necessarily be of greater velocity, the greater the heavens are than the Earth? Or have the heavens become so immense, because an unspeakably vehement motion has pulled them away from the centre, and because the heavens would fall if they came to rest anywhere else.’ --- On the Revolutions, Book 1, par 8.

Why then didn’t Fr Lemaître and science consider that red-shifts in stars could also show evidence for ongoing geocentrism? That was the conclusion the champion of their cosmology Copernicus came to. Isn’t true-science supposed to consider all options when investigating any such observation? Yes it is, but such a consideration would be ‘perverse’ as Dawkins put it, wouldn’t it?

cassini · « **Reply #108 on:** December 13, 2021, 11:32:09 AM »

Quote from: cassini on December 12, 2021, 12:55:31 PM

To our knowledge, no matter how many say the Bible wasn’t written to teach us anything more than ‘how to get to heaven,’ no science, no anthropology, archaeology or anything has ever shown mundane references in the Bible to be untrustworthy in any sphere, whether in its age of the world, its geocentrism, the ‘vapours’ of the sun, the shape of the Earth (Is.40:18-22), its floodwater-caused geology, its water cycle (Eccles.1:7), its fixity of kinds, diversity of species, assessments of nutrition, methods of generation, its sanitation laws (Deut. 23:12-14), its rules for quarantining (Lev.13:1-5) and other references.
I will get to light next.

Surprisingly no one has replied to this list of Biblical revelations. Before I go on let me say I am not a flat-Earther. I have no problem at all with those who are flat-Earthers. I have friends and even my daughter is inclined to believe its true. I am also convinced that their motives are religious, similar to those who defend geocentrism. Proof for either would certainly dismiss that Big bang secular story dreamed up to eliminate God from the minds of men. My only fear is that there are those atheists etc, even Catholics, who use flat-earthism to dismiss geocentrism which makes it more difficult to correct the history of the Galileo case with regard to the centuries old illusion that the Church of Geocentrism was wrong in both faith and science.

So, why am I, a defender in Biblical geocentrism, not a convinced flat-Earther? The evidence for a flat Earth seems to cover all objections to it. Its as though the shape of the Earth is similar to the relativity found in the question of geocentrism or heliocentrism. Except for one thing. Proof for the shape of the Earth, unlike its place in the universe, is possible. History records that the ancients saw that eclipses of the sun and moon are caused by a circular Earth. This would mean that flat-Earthers would have to admit a flat earth is a circular one and that somehow it can cause these happenings. No doubt investigaters into flat-Earthism have solved this question. Which leaves me with my problem. If a picture of the Earth was taken from a certain height it would confirm its shape, just as we can see the shape of the Moon and planets. I do believe such sightings have been done. We have satellites up there, even spaceships that have gotten stuff to the moon, Mars and other cosmic bodies. There are many images showing a curved Earth.

But to be a flat-earther one has to dismiss all such sightings as frauds conjured up by NASA and any other crowd who send things up there that could record a curved Earth. That is not the scientific method, and if flat-Earthism depends on such a fraud, then I cannot accept FE as a truth of faith and science simply on accusations of a world-wide conspiracy.

Then there is the science of godesy. When Isaac Newton proposed the Earth was shaped with an equitorial bulge that evolved and explains the annual movements of the Earth, Domenico Cassini began to use this science to check if Newton was correct. It seems this science, by marking out the position of stars from parts of the Earth can work out its curve. Cassini found the Earth was shaped line an egg. This science must be discarded to be convinced of a flat-Earth. That i am not willing to do either.

Finally the scientific quotes above from the Bible. " the shape of the Earth (Is.40:18-22)"

Now I have just googled in this passage Douay Rheims. and here is what it says:

[21] Do you not know? hath it not been heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have you not understood the foundations of the earth? [22] It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in. [23] He that bringeth the searchers of secrets to nothing, that hath made the judges of the earth as vanity.

Yes, I know, Flat-Earthers have got a reason why the above doesn't really mean the Earth is a globe. But again here is more conflict to get passt to believe in a flat Earth. Unlike the heliocentris fraud, where one can prove it was never a proven fact of science, a flat-Earth involves so much conflict and rejections that it does not have any scientific certainty.

Finally, Because I am a geocentrist based on faith, I have no problem with any flat-Earther who does believe in it based on enough evidence to convince them and because it could only be true by way of God's creation. Please excuse any typo errors as they happen.

cassini · « **Reply #109 on:** December 13, 2021, 11:50:41 AM »

Quote from: Charity on December 12, 2021, 06:57:53 PM

Thanks Cassini for your years of dedicated service in shedding so much light on the truths of God's creation, especially in the area of cosmology. From what I can see it appears that your information is in strict accord with that provided by Robert Sungenis in his magnificent little illustrated book, The First Four Days of Creation.

Again thanks for that Charity. Would you believe I never read any of Sungenis's books or watched his debates. I was involved in this investigation long before Sungenis, ten years before we heard of him. When he made the subject public I was delighted but I wanted to continue my investigation on my own. That way the truth was more likely to be found. If what we both found was a similar truth of history, that would be a better confirmation of the history than two mixing together. What I was disappointed with was that I thought Sungenis's books and videos would set Catholics alight. It didn't, so that is why I wrote the following;

"Now one would think that to establish the fact that the Catholic Church of the seventeenth century was not doctrinally or scientifically mistaken, would bring dancing on the streets of the Vatican and elsewhere. What a victory it would be for the Church in so many spheres after three centuries of ridicule following the Galileo case if it were made known throughout the world that in fact the Church had protected the integrity of natural science by her 1616 and 1633 adherence to Biblical revelation. Alas, that message has already been rejected by a majority of Catholics; both shepherds and sheep. For over two hundred years now, churchmen have rejected Biblical geocentrism and shared in their ‘embarrassment’ and ‘guilt’ arising from the fact that their predecessors defended a ‘supposedly mistaken’ geocentric revelation as a natural fact also. It is obvious that to acknowledge the fact that the churchmen of 1820 unlawfully ignored a Biblical heresy based on false human reason and science would be a far greater scandal to admit to than a mistaken geocentrism in 1616 and 1633, so they have continued accepting the false accusation that the Church erred in its defence of Biblical geocentrism. This attitude of humility has been carefully cultivated by the Earthmovers in the Church, and continues even now, first and foremost, as a matter of intellectual pride, of preserving and retaining a ‘scientific’ image, trying to defend the new credibility and human respect built up in the wake of that perceived loss of face after the infamous Galileo affair. Not for them the traditional supernatural account of the Creation and all that was taught for centuries by the great Fathers they love to quote out of context when it suits them. Today the Bible must be ‘scientifically correct,’ in line with ‘solidly grounded theories’ and ‘acquired truths’ - as Pope John Paul II called them in 1992 - before it has any credibility in their eyes. They achieve this ‘comfort zone’ by the most blatant abuse of the facts using the authority given to them, they can say, by God Himself, relying on the customary obedience expected of their subordinates. ‘It’s all for the good of the Church’ we hear them say, when it is they, not the Church, that need obscurantism and the peer pressure consensus to remain credible. Such people do not really care about the Catholic Church in this matter more than they prize their personal intellectual pride in ‘scientific’ reasoning and respectability found in their Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the modern world."

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Any Heliocentrists on CI? (Read 7869 times)

Charity

Re: Any Heliocentrists on CI?

Marion

Re: Any Heliocentrists on CI?

cassini

Re: Any Heliocentrists on CI?

cassini

Re: Any Heliocentrists on CI?

cassini

Re: Any Heliocentrists on CI?