You're getting warmer, roscoe.  We'll have you writing:  S revolves around E in no time  

Don’t push him too hard 🌝

I'm extremely sympathetic with Flat Earth theory and have read a lot of evidence that seems to lean in that direction, and a lot of evidence that NASA has been lying to us, the locking down of the Antarctic, lack of any real pictures of the earth (and moon) from space when they have the technology (they use CGI by their own admission).

Yessir.

I don't want to derail this thread, but I have to throw in that I'm extremely sympathetic with Flat Earth theory and have read a lot of evidence that seems to lean in that direction, and a lot of evidence that NASA has been lying to us, the locking down of the Antarctic, lack of any real pictures of the earth (and moon) from space when they have the technology (they use CGI by their own admission).  I could go on for a long time about evidence that I've never seen explained by globe earth theorists.  In that case, the issue with the entire Universe revolving around the earth once every 24 hours goes away.  Nevertheless, that is not preposterous at all.  Assuming a globe earth, imagine that an ant is on the surface of the earth.  How fast is that ant going relative to it own unit of measure.  It rotates around thousands of miles in one 24-hour period and doesn't feel it.  Scientists claim that the galaxies and solar systems are moving through space at breakneck speed but don't feel the G-forces.  So if we don't feel any movement of the earth when we're spinning at 1,000 MPH, and then flying through space at like 70,000 MPH ... with all that we can have butterflies fluttering around unmolested ... then why is it a problem for the entire universe to rotate around the earthy once every 24 hours?

I knew enough geology, astronomy, cosmology to pass my undergraduate year classes.  With these severe limitations in mind, I do think the flat earth idea is fascinating, but also consider there could be infinite dimensions to physical reality, which means everybody in this life is an idiot.  Rocket scientists know as much as Joe the plumber.

I don't want to derail this thread, but I have to throw in that I'm extremely sympathetic with Flat Earth theory and have read a lot of evidence that seems to lean in that direction, and a lot of evidence that NASA has been lying to us, the locking down of the Antarctic, lack of any real pictures of the earth (and moon) from space when they have the technology (they use CGI by their own admission).  I could go on for a long time about evidence that I've never seen explained by globe earth theorists.  In that case, the issue with the entire Universe revolving around the earth once every 24 hours goes away.  Nevertheless, that is not preposterous at all.  Assuming a globe earth, imagine that an ant is on the surface of the earth.  How fast is that ant going relative to it own unit of measure.  It rotates around thousands of miles in one 24-hour period and doesn't feel it.  Scientists claim that the galaxies and solar systems are moving through space at breakneck speed but don't feel the G-forces.  So if we don't feel any movement of the earth when we're spinning at 1,000 MPH, and then flying through space at like 70,000 MPH ... with all that we can have butterflies fluttering around unmolested ... then why is it a problem for the entire universe to rotate around the earthy once every 24 hours?

Your not derailing the thread Ladislaus, it is part of the wider debate. The first thing one has to consider in this geocentric debate is that God created the universe to do what it does. Thus any argument from 'science' that says this cannot be that way because of speed or something else is not impossible to God. I wonder are there any atheists who are geocentrists? I bet not.

Now the flat-Earth theory depends on too many conspiracy theories. The main one of course is that there are no real photos of a curved Earth, or of a global Earth as seen from space. For 50 years, men in many different countries, not just NASA, have sent rockets up into the sky, placed things on the moon and Mars, put satellites up there so that we can send instant messages from all around the world to CIF in an instant, but there is a world-wide conspiracy not to let anyone see the Earth is flat. In other words, not one whistle-blower in the world ever told the truth and became famous for it. That is a little far-fetched.

Yes I know their flat Earth is so positioned so as to make it look like a globe that causes the moon to go from bright to not bright over a month or so in a global way, and eclipses of the sun and moon also look like the Earth is a globe. They have even come up with a reason why half on a flat Earth only see northern stars, while others only see a southern sky of stars. But all these things are better understood on a global Earth like every other body visible in the sky. I always saw Flat-earthers as undermining a geocentric one as revealed by God.

As for the effects of speed on the Earth, well there is one big one, the Coriolis effect.

They say this effect is caused by the Earth's rotation, but geocentrists say it is caused by the rotation of the universe around the Earth. Now this effect, credited to a 1,000 mph rotation, can cause the above, Why doesn't an orbiting Earth at 67,000mph cause a much greater effect? 

What does the the Coriolis effect have to do with the speed at the surface due to rotation?
To help you out: what is the Coriolis effect on someone standing on the surface of the earth?

But consider this also. The Coriolas effect is EASTWARD, that is, WITH the turn of the Earth. Now something rotating should leave its effect behind it, not ahead of it yes? In geocentrism, the universe turns WESTWARDS that shouls leave an effect behind it as the Coriolis Effect shows. 

Is this meant to be an argument for geocentrism or against the mainstream view?
Does it mean a westward Coriolis effect would be an argument against the geocentric system?

A substantial amount of the rebuttal video involves the narrator saying CHL doesn't know about a modern geocentric model (apparently called neo-Tychonic).
 But that's simply wrong. The CHL video does in fact talk about the neo-Tychonic model starting at about the 11:45 mark (where Apollo had the video start). Before 11:45, the CHL video is going over other geocentric models and the reasons/observations they were abandoned. In discussing each of these other geocentric models, CHL says they didn't work for some reason X. And the rebuttal claims CHL doesn't know about the neo-Tychonic model that allegedly handles X.

As I stated earlier the rebuttal video is only in response to the first video posted by CHL (2012), which I linked in reply # 32 . The video posted by Apollo is number 10 in CHL's series (posted in 2014) to which Sungenis never made a response that I know of. The paper, by Sungenis, that I attached to two of my posts deals with CHL 1-7 and was published in 2013. As far as I am aware Sungenis never bothered to write further in response to CHL (which, after listening to CHL's blasphemy, I don't blame Sungenis a bit!)

Q What is your take on this?

My take is that it seems you are trying to apply a rebuttal to CHL video 1 against a different video, CHL 10. See reply #32 (BTW I am accusing you of a mistake, not bad will for doing so)

Conversely, heliocentrism has the problem of
    explaining why the Earth’s rotation does not decay but is always 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.7 seconds.
Is this actually claiming in mainstream science the rotation of the earth doesn't vary?

No, it is not denying variation, it is asking why, in a heliocentric model, Earth's rotational speed does not continually decrease. In other words what started and what keeps the Earth spinning? 1000 years ago was a day longer? Will a day be shorter 1000 from hence?
Are we to find an explanation like this more plausible?

https://www.universetoday.com/14491/why-does-the-earth-rotate/

"Over the course of a few hundred million years, all of the material in the Solar System gathered together into planets, asteroids, moons and comets. Then the powerful radiation and solar winds from the young Sun cleared out everything that was left over.
Without any unbalanced forces acting on them, the inertia of the Sun and the planets have kept them spinning for billions of years.
And they’ll continue to do so until they collide with some object, billions or even trillions of years in the future."

But if the earth is not rotating or moving, these effects would need to be variations in the movement of the universe around the earth.

Why is that a problem? Incredible masses and distances are part of either model. "Wobble" would seem to be a reasonable explanation.

What I referenced above, "Over the course of a few hundred million years...", is why I bother to study things like geocentrism. Just like evolution, helio-centrism seeks to detach us from God, His creation, and His special love for man.

Sagan exemplifies the view Helio-centrism would have us take:

"Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people."

What does the the Coriolis effect have to do with the speed at the surface due to rotation?
To help you out: what is the Coriolis effect on someone standing on the surface of the earth?

Is this meant to be an argument for geocentrism or against the mainstream view?
Does it mean a westward Coriolis effect would be an argument against the geocentric system?

https://scijinks.gov/coriolis/

The answer to your first question Stanley is on the website. Science has a way of making all effects comply with the heliocentric order.  

If inertia causes this FORCE, is it caused by the Earth's rotating inertia or the inertia caused by a rotating universe, that is the question.

But now let us use simple logic. Something rotating should leave any effect trailing behind it. Throw a ball from a train and the ball will go behind it, not in front of it as the video has it doing. Throw a ball from a moving car today, as you can do, and see where it goes. So which theory has the ball moving behind it? The geocentric theory moving East to West does, the heliocentric one moving west to east does not.

It is an argument against the claim it is a heliocentric rotation causes ocean currents to veer eastward. A geocentric inertia makes better sense to me anyway.

There is no westward Coriolis force.

The Earth is like a rotating door, all parts of it get to the same place at the same time. So, how can one use a different speed on any part of the door as having an effect on the inner parts of the same door? Maybe Aristotle or Aquinas might be able to tell us.

https://scijinks.gov/coriolis/
The answer to your first question Stanley is on the website. Science has a way of making all effects comply with the heliocentric order. 

That website appears geared to children. Like most explanations to children, it's not exactly wrong, but the explanation is limited and imprecise.

The answer is the Coriolis effect on earth has nothing to do with the speed of the surface of the earth.
Someone standing still on the earth's surface undergoes no Coriolis effect.

There is no westward Coriolis force.

But if there were, would that be a problem for geocentrists? Yes or no?