This guy is not only a blasphemous pig, mocking the Sacred Scriptures (thus revealing his true agenda ... perhaps he's a practicing sơdơmite?) but he's an imbecile. He's showing mathematical angles between earth and the sun. Is this moron not aware that all position and "maths" (that he keeps touting) is relative between the two objects. Planetarium software is known to use geocentric math ... because in a lot of ways it's much simpler. Their only argument from "maths" is the assertion that it looks simpler or more elegant. But the whole notion that the earth is simply rotating in a nice elliptical pattern around a stationary sun is utter "Bollocks" ... to use this moron's favorite term.
So this low-grade moron distorts the geocentric movement by speeding up the rotation of the universe around the earth to a ridiculous speed (as opposed to taking place in 24 hours) to make it look stupid (each cycle that he makes whip around the earth 5 times per second actually takes 24 hours). Then he contrasts that with the "simple elegance" of the elliptical motions. But that shows him to be a moron, for that simple motion is absolute BOLLOCKS.
Quoting from this video: "The old heliocentric model of our solar system ... planets rotating around the sun ... is not only boring, but also incorrect."
Let him take out his protractor and measure that one. And then I saw an article from NASA saying that, given the movement of the solar system within the galaxy, and then the galaxy through the universe, it's even much more complicated than that. But given all the mass in the universe, it's absolutely unclear which forces are acting on what other forces, and which are the stronger ones.
So much for the "simplicity" of the elliptical pattern so that students can be brainwashed into making models of the solar system with styrofoam balls attached to a bigger ball with sticks. That is the level of this moron's thinking, and his hatred for Sacred Scripture are what turn him into a moron.
So this great genius starts with a strawman by picking on some poor guy making a youtube video ... taking on the "heavy hitters" as it were.
Of all the posts on this most interesting thread, the above has to be the best. At this stage, I am losing sight as to who are the geocentrists and who are the heliocentrists.
If it were not for the Galileo case, far fewer would be interested in the subject, especially among Catholics. There are two sides to this 'debate,' best described here by Cardinal Bellarmine in 1615.
'Nor may it be answered that this [geocentrism] is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the prophets and apostles.’
Here then we see this is a battle between the Word of God and the beliefs of human reasoning.
Now when a saint like Bellarmine, credited as one of the greatest theologians of all Church history, compares belief in a geocentric revelation in Scripture to the virgin birth of Christ, that is how serious this subject is.
Today, probably 99% of debate is centred on human reasoning, and 1% on belief based on biblical revelation. Since 1741, popes and churchmen lost faith in the Revelation and in 1820 abandoned that aspect of the matter and even dismissed the papal decree of 1616, one defended by Pope Urban VIII in 1633.
We now know that human science agrees relativity prevails in the universe and human science cannot prove nor falsify either order. This means that churchmen since 1820, especially the
elect, who abandoned the literal geocentrism in Scripture, one held by all the Fathers (which the Councils of Trent and Vatican I said cannot be denied) believing on it been proven wrong by science, were responsible for causing a reformation in the Church. This reformation of Scripture led the Church into Modernism as history recalls, wherein 'Biblical scholars,' around 1850 began to 'modernise' Scripture and its understanding from a once supernatural understanding to a secular one based on human reasoning. Pope Benedict XVI said in his resigning speech to Catholic priests that Vatican II was called to acknowledge the mistake of the Catholic Church in the Galileo case. Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes no. 36 condemned all those who defended the geocentrism of Scripture as leading many into conflict between faith and science.
So, when popes themselves abandoned the geocentrism revealed literally in Scripture, all those few Biblical geocentrists that remained had to argue on the basis of what they call science. Nowadays, that same science admits it cannot prove H or G. Yet, as we saw on this thread, there are those who still argue for heliocentrism based on science..
Now if what we were debating was true science, then maybe we could decide the matter on evidence, for the more evidence there is for one theory is far more likely the fact than the other. Alas the heliocentrists have invented science that they try to use when in fact it is theory and assumption. Newton's universal gravitation theory is taken today as a scientific fact which it is not. That blasphemous video Ladislause referred to uses it like it was a scientific fact as well as 'the bulge of the Earth.' Now I have investigated the history of the Earth's 'bulge' and found Domenico Cassini did his own measurements and found no bulge butfound it has a slight egg-shape to the Earth. Newton's theory also depends on Kepler's elipse, but Cassini also found this too was only a compromise as orbits are Cassinian ovals that are related to Phi and electromagnetism.
As the history of science progressed, it all came down to one last test, the M&M experiment, a test that went on for 50 years. It failed to find evidence for an orbiting Earth, but evidence for as possible inertial rotation around the Earth that could be caused by a rotating Earth or rotating universe as physicists have agreed. But heliocentrism needed the goose and the gander to be true, whereas geocentrism only needed the gander. And that is why Einstein tried to dismiss the geocentric gander by way of his STR, a theory falsified by stellar aberration.