Has anyone here researched geocentrism to any degree, especially in relation to the science of the flat earth?

If earth is spinning at a 1050 mph as NASA and prior corrupt scientists say, a helicopter could take off, wait for an hour hovering, and land 1050 miles east of his takeoff.  That never happens. Earth does not move.  Earth is not a globe. Heliocentric theory is the greatest hoax perpetrated on mankind.

Flat earth geocentism arguments.

I know heliocentrism (and then relativity) are ʝʊdɛօmasonic lies, but the Earth being a sphere was an accepted fact since antiquity and as far as I know never in doubt in Catholic philosophy.

I've read about the horizon measurements and seen how most if not all space-claimed pictures of the Earth are fakes, and that's very suspect, however also Scriptural proof about the Earth being flat is weak/inconclusive (contrary to it being at the center of Creation for instance).

Geocentrism necessarily embodies a flat earth.  The round earth belongs in the heliocentric model only.  There is no case for round earth in history, nor in science.  Round earth belongs to heliocentrism and the Kabbalah which is why NASA and the elite constantly flaunt the globe in our faces, promoting, hypnotizing people with this New World.  Why do you think they call themselves globalists?    

All geocentric theory in the past was based in scripture, which necessarily teaches a flat earth, with a dome, fixed and immovable, water above and below.  Ancient maps were always flat.  None were round.  Although the discussion of a round earth existed since Augustine's time, a Catholic monk in 550 debunked that theory in his book Christian Topography by Cosmas Indiocopleustes which held until the late 1500 and early 1600's when the test of the great Robert Bellarmine  began.  

You can read his book here:
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cosmas_00_2_intro.htm

I didn't answer your questions specifically hoping this would cover most of them.  If I was unclear or missed something, let me know.

The problem with the heliocentric theory is that it is a replacement for the scriptural version of creation.  The entire thing, round moving earth is not only completely untenable in reality and scientifically speaking, it was never held by any of the Church Fathers.  All Geocentric Fathers were necessarily flat earthers because they took the bible literally.

Globalist is a name that represents politically speaking as you said, but it is also an agenda of the "global elite": heliocentrism, round earth, big bang, global warming, evolution and worst of all, it seeks to discredit the Church's literal interpretation of scripture.

If you're a youtube kinda guy, this shows the science of the flat earth with respect to math, experiment and reality.  The host is not Catholic, but he does present the scientific aspects quite well.  This is only a bullet point view of 200 proofs earth is not a globe.  For deeper explanation, you can review his other videos for a more complete explanation of the science of flat earth.

Quote from: cassini

Quote from: aryzia

Has anyone here researched geocentrism to any degree, especially in relation to the science of the flat earth?

What do you want to know Aryzia? The geocentrism of Dante or the geocentrism of the Bible defended in 1616, or the latest attempt to argue we live on a flat earth?

Sorry, I missed quoting you but my reply is just below your post.  We do live on a flat earth as scripture attests.  

In fact it was Cosmas Indicopleustes, a 6th century Alexandrian merchant who last seriously propagated that the earth is flat.

‘He was scornful of Ptolemy and others who held that the world was spherical. Cosmas aimed to prove that pre-Christian geographers had been wrong in asserting that the earth was spherical and that it was in fact modeled on the tabernacle, the house of worship described to Moses by God during the Jєωιѕн Exodus from Egypt. However, his idea that the earth is flat has been a minority view among educated Western opinion since the 3rd century BC. His view has never been influential even in religious circles; a near-contemporary Christian, John Philoponus, disagreed with him as did many Christian philosophers of the era’ --- Wikipedia.

“All educated persons of Columbus’ day, very much including the Roman Catholic prelates, knew the earth was round. The Venerable Bede (c. 673-735) taught that the world was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (c. 720-784), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224-74). All four ended up saints. Sphere was the title of the most popular medieval textbook on astronomy, written by the English scholastic John of Sacrobosco (c. 1200-1256). It informed that not only the earth but all heavenly bodies are spherical.’  ---  Rodney Stark: Catholicism and Science, Stark, 9/2004.

It seems some individuals in the long past did claim the Bible teaches the earth is flat, while others claimed it revealed the earth is a spheroid.  ‘It is he who sitteth upon the globe of the earth…’ (Isaias 40:12)  That the earth is a globe was the conclusion of ancient reasoning. They knew the shape of the earth as seen on the moon during an eclipse is always a full sphere. That would not be the case if the earth were a flat disc. The shifting position of stars as man moved north or south also indicated the earth as a sphere and the fact that ships appear and disappear over the horizon demonstrated to them without doubt the curved nature of the earth. Geocentrism and flat-earth belief then do not go hand in hand, as many propagandists would have you believe.

COORDINATE SYSTEMS USED IN GEODESY
BASIC DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS

‘The period from Eratosthenes to Picard can be called the spherical era of geodesy (Earth measurement on a large scale).  

King Louis XIV of France approved Cassini’s last great expedition. With the aid of his son Jacques Cassini and others, he measured the arc of meridian from Paris north to Dunkirk and south to the boundary of Spain, and, in addition, he conducted various associated geodesic and astronomical operations that were reported to the Academy. The Cassinis knew that it would be virtually impossible to measure every kilometre of meridian from Pole to Pole at the time. At best, a partial measurement would confirm a probable shape of the earth. Consequently they decided to measure where it was most convenient, restricting their efforts to Europe in the northern hemisphere.
The results showed the length of a meridian degree north of Paris was 111,017 meters or 265 metres shorter than one south of Paris (111,282 meters). This suggested that if this trend occurred in the southern hemisphere, the earth has to be a prolate spheroid, not flattened at the poles as Newton proposed, but the opposite, slightly pointed, with the equatorial axis shorter than the polar axis, that is, kind of egg-shaped. In 1720, the Cassinis published their findings.

The Newtonians then did a new survey that they believed would show the Cassinis’ measurements as flawed. This time though, they would measure two points on earth where the differences would be greatest if it were an orange shape, at the Equator and at the Poles. In 1735, financed by King Louis XV, one group went to Peru under Pierre Bouguer and Charles Marie La Condamine and a year later another group went to Lapland under Maupertuis. The polar expedition - after the conditions nearly killed them - completed its mission by 1737. Measuring only one baseline, 14.3 kilometres long, they ‘found’ their bulge.
in 1959 another measurement for the earth was achieved, this time using a satellite called Vanguard. It found Newton’s ‘bulge’ was 25 feet (7.6 meters) - yes a mere 25 feet - higher south of the equator, and announced the earth was shaped like a pear, that is, it has a bulgier bulge in the southern hemisphere. Seeking a few more details of this curious revelation we find that according to this latest measurement the South Pole is flatter by 50 feet and the North Pole higher (pointed) by 50 feet, as their illustration shows here:
Now if this is true, no matter how it was reasoned out, does it or does it not confirm the Cassini measurements of 1720 that found the northern hemisphere was narrower at the hips and higher at the Pole, a measurement that was rejected on principle?

Of interest on this matter is the statue of the Child of Prague. ‘Devotion to this statue began in the year 1556 when Maria Manriquez de Lara brought the image of the infant Jesus, a family heirloom, to Czechoslovakia from Spain on her marriage to Vratislav of Pernstyn. It is housed now in the church of Our Lady of Victory in Prague and is an object of veneration in many other countries.’ Note the globe of the earth held steady in the hands of God.

Quote from: aryzia

Quote from: cassini

Quote from: aryzia

Has anyone here researched geocentrism to any degree, especially in relation to the science of the flat earth?

What do you want to know Aryzia? The geocentrism of Dante or the geocentrism of the Bible defended in 1616, or the latest attempt to argue we live on a flat earth?

Sorry, I missed quoting you but my reply is just below your post.  We do live on a flat earth as scripture attests.  

In fact it was Cosmas Indicopleustes, a 6th century Alexandrian merchant who last seriously propagated that the earth is flat.

‘He was scornful of Ptolemy and others who held that the world was spherical. Cosmas aimed to prove that pre-Christian geographers had been wrong in asserting that the earth was spherical and that it was in fact modeled on the tabernacle, the house of worship described to Moses by God during the Jєωιѕн Exodus from Egypt. However, his idea that the earth is flat has been a minority view among educated Western opinion since the 3rd century BC. His view has never been influential even in religious circles; a near-contemporary Christian, John Philoponus, disagreed with him as did many Christian philosophers of the era’ --- Wikipedia.

“All educated persons of Columbus’ day, very much including the Roman Catholic prelates, knew the earth was round. The Venerable Bede (c. 673-735) taught that the world was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (c. 720-784), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224-74). All four ended up saints. Sphere was the title of the most popular medieval textbook on astronomy, written by the English scholastic John of Sacrobosco (c. 1200-1256). It informed that not only the earth but all heavenly bodies are spherical.’  ---  Rodney Stark: Catholicism and Science, Stark, 9/2004.

It seems some individuals in the long past did claim the Bible teaches the earth is flat, while others claimed it revealed the earth is a spheroid.  ‘It is he who sitteth upon the globe of the earth…’ (Isaias 40:12)  That the earth is a globe was the conclusion of ancient reasoning. They knew the shape of the earth as seen on the moon during an eclipse is always a full sphere. That would not be the case if the earth were a flat disc. The shifting position of stars as man moved north or south also indicated the earth as a sphere and the fact that ships appear and disappear over the horizon demonstrated to them without doubt the curved nature of the earth. Geocentrism and flat-earth belief then do not go hand in hand, as many propagandists would have you believe.

COORDINATE SYSTEMS USED IN GEODESY
BASIC DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS

‘The period from Eratosthenes to Picard can be called the spherical era of geodesy (Earth measurement on a large scale).  

King Louis XIV of France approved Cassini’s last great expedition. With the aid of his son Jacques Cassini and others, he measured the arc of meridian from Paris north to Dunkirk and south to the boundary of Spain, and, in addition, he conducted various associated geodesic and astronomical operations that were reported to the Academy. The Cassinis knew that it would be virtually impossible to measure every kilometre of meridian from Pole to Pole at the time. At best, a partial measurement would confirm a probable shape of the earth. Consequently they decided to measure where it was most convenient, restricting their efforts to Europe in the northern hemisphere.
The results showed the length of a meridian degree north of Paris was 111,017 meters or 265 metres shorter than one south of Paris (111,282 meters). This suggested that if this trend occurred in the southern hemisphere, the earth has to be a prolate spheroid, not flattened at the poles as Newton proposed, but the opposite, slightly pointed, with the equatorial axis shorter than the polar axis, that is, kind of egg-shaped. In 1720, the Cassinis published their findings.

The Newtonians then did a new survey that they believed would show the Cassinis’ measurements as flawed. This time though, they would measure two points on earth where the differences would be greatest if it were an orange shape, at the Equator and at the Poles. In 1735, financed by King Louis XV, one group went to Peru under Pierre Bouguer and Charles Marie La Condamine and a year later another group went to Lapland under Maupertuis. The polar expedition - after the conditions nearly killed them - completed its mission by 1737. Measuring only one baseline, 14.3 kilometres long, they ‘found’ their bulge.
in 1959 another measurement for the earth was achieved, this time using a satellite called Vanguard. It found Newton’s ‘bulge’ was 25 feet (7.6 meters) - yes a mere 25 feet - higher south of the equator, and announced the earth was shaped like a pear, that is, it has a bulgier bulge in the southern hemisphere. Seeking a few more details of this curious revelation we find that according to this latest measurement the South Pole is flatter by 50 feet and the North Pole higher (pointed) by 50 feet, as their illustration shows here:
Now if this is true, no matter how it was reasoned out, does it or does it not confirm the Cassini measurements of 1720 that found the northern hemisphere was narrower at the hips and higher at the Pole, a measurement that was rejected on principle?

Of interest on this matter is the statue of the Child of Prague. ‘Devotion to this statue began in the year 1556 when Maria Manriquez de Lara brought the image of the infant Jesus, a family heirloom, to Czechoslovakia from Spain on her marriage to Vratislav of Pernstyn. It is housed now in the church of Our Lady of Victory in Prague and is an object of veneration in many other countries.’ Note the globe of the earth held steady in the hands of God.

The reference in scripture (Isaias 40:12) is always translated "It is he who sitteth on the circle of the earth"  not "globe" of the earth.  There is a word for circle and a word for globe and the word for globe is not used.  In Genesis, earth is described like a tent, with a dome over it with water over the dome (for rain) and water under the earth in the great deep.  Also under the earth is a great pit, which is hell.  A pit is not a central location on a ball, but a pit under the plane of earth.  The earth is described as a footstool.  What footstool is a ball?  And what ball has four corners?

Besides scripture attesting to the flat plane with a dome over it and water above, the problem with the sphere becomes manifest when the globe's curvature cannot be demonstrated anywhere. Not today, not in history.  No curve demonstrated--EVER.  Experiments with far reaching lasers, airplanes and balloons sent into the upper layers of sky have proven logically, mathematically, and visually speaking, that earth is a plane.  

But lets look at the globe more closely.  Firstly, discussion in history about the globe remain that.  Popes fought the pythagoran doctrine with a vengeance.  Most saints and popes who discussed it at all were adamantly flat earthers because they were geocentric.  Flat and stationary belong to the same model--geocentricism.  Round and moving earth belong to the same model--heliocentrism.  Ptolemy never said earth was a globe, rather, only that the heavenly bodies circled above the stationary earth.  A stationary globe is a new invention by modern geocentrics who were globe indoctrinated from infancy.  It was never that way in history.  

No curvature commensurate with a globe of 25,000 mi in circuмference has ever been demonstrated. That's a serious statement--no curve, no ball. The surface of water on a globe is arguably unable to curve, let alone stay put on a surface where it can't possibly cling to the ball in all directions.  Direction itself is challenged to scorn on a globe.  One has to wonder: Is "up", up?  Or is "up" actually just "out", in every direction?  Is there an east or a west on a ball? Or are these just relative directions without basis?  Did Jesus Christ rise to heaven above, or go "out" sideways?  And when Jesus rose, did he technically go "down" relative to those on the opposite side of the globe?  Is the horizon a horizontal line or a circle? God is not illogical, but profoundly simple.  Earth is not a globe.  The globe is the necessary groundwork for relativism and denial of truth. Satan's ape of creation visibly subverts the Faith, logic and scripture.  

Besides the discussions in history that included saints and popes and outsiders, without exception, the only people who firmly taught a moving/globe earth were atheistic, demonic pagans, no matter what Wikipedia says.  Those who taught geocentricism were Christian.  Always, without exception.


Since Satan has recreated the world in his own image, replaced the truth for a lie, making a physical science to prove relativity and nonsense, rather than doctrine and truth, he gains a tangible platform for chaos and contradiction because the people interact with ridiculous contrary notions of God in the world in which they live. Heliocentrism/globe moving earth, is the PHYSICAL BULWARK for the SPIRITUAL ANARCHY we endure today.

It is without question that the sun danced in the sky not only to affirm the truth of the prophecies of Fatima but also to prove that it is the sun that moves, not the earth.  With the reality of creation affirmed, Sister Lucy's words about diabolical disorientation take on a whole new dimension.