CathInfo.com

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Graham

Quote from: JoeZ

Quote from: Graham

The Earth's rotation contributes to the apparent movement of the stars across the night sky. If the Earth does not rotate, the stars still have to cover the same ground, only now with no aid from the Earth's rotation. They would have to be attributed higher velocities than in a rotating Earth geocentrism.  

If I may,
According to Dr. Sungenis' work "Galileo Was Wrong", our sun is the geographic center of the universe while the Earth is the center of gravity of the universe and to not move or even spin doesn't violate any known law of physics or gravity. Even Einstein eventually said there is no way to observe if the Earth moves or not. People can guess or wish it does all they want, but they just can't prove the Earth moves or rotates.
God bless,
JoeZ

I realize that, for the less careful readers, it looks like I'm arguing for heliocentrism. In fact, all I'm doing is pointing out a mistake Neil made, viz., that a non-rotating Earth geocentric model would not require distant stars and planets to be traveling extremely fast.

Maybe you would benefit from watching the GWWDVD:

Quote

Come with us on a unique and exhilarating journey! Galileo Was Wrong is the first full-length science docuмentary to disclose that the common belief of an Earth rotating on an axis and revolving around the Sun has absolutely no scientific proof, and never did. Truth be told, Copernicanism is merely a philosophical preference driven by the scientific elite’s unyielding desire to preserve the independent status and prestige of modern science. Using what can best be called “scientific jujitsu,” Galileo Was Wrong reveals in spectacular graphics and painstaking research that the true scientific evidence not only puts Earth in a central location in the universe, but shows that it enjoys the unique privilege of being the only motionless body around which everything else revolves. Galileo Was Wrong also brings to light how – in their more candid and honest moments – the major scientists from the last century to the current day have admitted this astounding truth, in one way or another. In the end you will discover that science has come full circle and now admits that geocentrism is the most likely and viable solution to all the cosmological data.

Where did I say that I'm arguing in favour of a rotating or a non-rotating Earth, Neil?

I'm just pointing out that if the Earth is central, and does not rotate, the revolving planets must have extremely high velocities.

Quote from: Graham

Where did I say that I'm arguing in favour of a rotating or a non-rotating Earth, Neil?

I'm just pointing out that if the Earth is central, and does not rotate, the revolving planets must have extremely high velocities.

They must be moving at that velocity only if you posit the heavenly bodies as being a very great distance from earth. If they are nearer, that changes the distance they need to travel.

I think they would have to concede that the bullet disintegration analogy was poor. (By the way, Belatro, in calculating air resistance it is velocity that matters, not acceleration.) I think their issue here is kind of psychological, in that if one actually quantifies the velocity at which distant bodies would have to be traveling, the number seems absurdly high.

Here, since such calculations of velocity rely on the distance of these bodies from Earth, one effective counter-play is to question whether modern science has accurately calculated those distances. And this leads to interesting territory, because, the way I understand it, such calculations are actually based on the assumption of a heliocentric solar system. Clearly they can't argue that a geocentric universe must be false due to the velocities it necessitates when the velocities they are looking at are calculated on the basis of the Earth's movement.