Because earth is at the barycenter of the universe and the only object that can be said to be still and not in motion.  Consequently, everything else is in motion relative to the earth's position.  God designed it that way.

The barycenter is a center of mass that objects orbit. It is not a point of force equilibrium.

The barycenter is closer to the larger mass object, as in the solar system, it's near or within the sun. An object at that barycenter, being that close to the sun, would not be in gravitational equilibrium but would experience a force pulling toward the sun. (The point of gravitational equilibrium is closer to the smaller mass object. It's called the L1 Lagrange point, and it's unstable.)

Even if it were accepted that Scripture says the Earth is in some sort of "center" of the universe, there is nothing that says it's at the particular type of center called a barycenter.

And there is no observational support for the earth being at the barycenter of the universe either. The radius of the observable universe is about 47 billion light years and we don't see the masses that would, say, balance the mass of the sun relative to earth. So whatever masses would be needed to balance the mass of the sun would have to be beyond observational distance, or more than 47 billion light years away. And each planet would need balancing masses. And none of this would be visible.

So yes, I suppose it's theoretically possible, but it's akin to saying there are aliens living on the dark side of the moon. I can't rule it out, but it has support neither in Scripture nor in observation.

---

Except for ByzCat's post, practically all of this discussion since the first page has been about geocentrism. Shoudn't this be moved to its appropriate ghetto?

And there's no observational evidence against it either.  There's nothing to preclude the earth being the barycenter of the universe.  So it reduces to a question of faith.

A question of faith with no support from the Deposit of Faith either. As far as I know, Scripture and Tradition say nothing about barycenters.

Rather than go on forever challenging each other, here all questions are answered.

Here then is a debate between the geocentrist Robert Sungenis and the most quoted anti-geocentrist David Palm. Begin at 17.00 and take the time to see Sungenis and Palm debating many of the things brought up on this thread. Watch as Palm struggles in this exchange.

[font=Segoe UI, Segoe UI Web (West European), Segoe UI, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, Helvetica Neue, sans-serif]https://youtu.be/sfbFtG6DBtU[/font][/url]

.
That's your basic most often used argument.  Nobody can prove anything, so it's a matter of Faith.
You try to destroy all science and all mathematics and make up magic forces and a magic barycenter.
That's because you cannot understand the science and math.   So, God did it the way you want it
to be.  
.
The barycenter argument is garbage.  I explained why.  You don't respond to my argument because
you don't have a good answer.   More magic and invisible unmeasurable forces are all you have.
.
You refuse to watch the videos I mentioned, because you can't understand them.  
If you ever come up with an answer to my challenges, I will respond.  Until then, I'm not wasting any
more time on this.  
.

You really are an idiot, apollo ... and you are of bad will.  Within the reference frame of the Universe as a whole, from the standpoint of Newtonian physics, the only point that could be classified as the center would be the barycenter of the entire universe.  What's garbage is your allegation that it's garbage.  You've repeatedly embarrassed yourself with your ignorance, and yet you persist ... and the only explanation for that is bad will.  We can neither confirm nor deny, given current scientific knowledge, that it's in the earth.  Since Sacred Scripture teaches that the earth is the center of the Universe, I hold that the earth is in fact at the barycenter of the Universe.

Your "explanation" why the "barycenter argument is garbage" was nothing short of idiotic.

You refuse to watch the videos I mentioned, because you can't understand them.  

From the imbecile that didn't even understand the notion of barycenters in Newtonian physics, I'll take that as a compliment.

I refused to watch your filthy video because its opening image entails a blasphemous mockery of Sacred Scripture, depicting a Bible that, instead of being entitled "Holy Bible" was labelled "Holy Sh...".  You're a scuм for posting that.

.
Where did you get this ?  Because you cannot sit on Mars and watch the Earth move ?

More deceit from the sun god apollo.  In quoting my post, you eliminate with ellipses my reasoning for where I got this.

3. We using human reasoning to understand the order in the universe and the laws
which govern the movement of the planets, which leads to the conclusion that it must
be a creation of an intelligent being (proof of God).  Does God hate for man to use
telescopes ?
.
4. Heliocentrists do not judge the act of creation.  They discover the laws of the
universe and apply them to figure out what is orbiting what.  
.
Geocentrists do not understand the laws of the universe and are forced to say "God
can do it", or it's "An act of Faith".  Geocentrists cannot even explain why we have
seasons.  "God does it somehow" is just not good enough for scientists and
astronomers.  
.
If you need to put a satellite in orbit, that remains stationary over Dallas, TX, then
you must understand a few of the laws of the universe to accomplish it.  You can't
expect God to do it for you.  
.
Geocentrism is NOT a dogma of the Catholic Faith.  See the decree of 1822, which
forbids the condemnation of Heliocentrism.  Sorry, but the decree of 1633 was not
an infallible decree and the church fathers were not astronomers.
.
The original problem with Galileo was not Heliocentrism, it was his idea that Scripture
could be in error on scientific things.  However, Scripture says nothing about the
Earth being in the center of the universe or solar system.  The word "center" is NOT
in the Bible.  The word "universe" is not in the Bible.  Sorry.

I tell you Apollo, I have never read such codswollop on so many fronts.

'Does God hate for man to use telescopes.'

'Heliocentrists discover the laws of the universe,' What laws are you saying heliocentrists discovered Apollo? The only law I am aware of is Kepler's 'The squares of the periods of revolution of any two planets are as the cubes of their mean distance from the sun.' And it was from the observations of the geocentrist Tycho de Brahe that Kepler found this law. His elliptical compromises are not laws because the geocentrist astronomer Domenico Cassini falsified such orbits.

Oh I know whose 'laws' you think God cannot cope with, Newton's and Einstein's., two anti-Christs who pushed God out of creation and replaced His concursus with 'natural laws.' Do you know how many other theories of gravitation there were at the time of Newton Apollo? Did you know Einstein showed Newton's theory could not work so put up another theory of his own. Theory after theory, and the Apollos of this world think they are 'Laws.'

Look Apollo, relativity prevails today, geocentrism is as viable as heliocentrism. Do not try to argue this or that proves heliocentrism, it dosen't. Every physicist in the world today knows this. If relativity prevails, then the 'laws' of the universe cannot be known. Oh yes you can argue your 'laws' for heliocentrism, but you cannot prove them. That is modern physics. You can hold either as the truth.

But Catholicism has its Scriptures. Faith in the Scriptures is the Catholic faith. It is what we believ is the word of God. Now God knows how the universe works, He told us in Scripture the sun and stars move around the Earth. On His word alone all the Fathers read the Bible asccordingly and when challenged in 1616 the pope dogmatised this revelation by making it formal heresy to deny it.

'Geocentrism is NOT a dogma of the Catholic Faith.  See the decree of 1822, which
forbids the condemnation of Heliocentrism.  Sorry, but the decree of 1633 was not
an infallible decree and the church fathers were not astronomers.' you say above.

The decree of 1820 allowed an imprimatur for a heliocentric book. Since when did an imprimatur constitute an ABROGATION. Why do you heliocentrists not know Canon law or ignore it?

Abrogate it; that is, abolish it completely. But for a law to be abrogated, new legislation must accompany it, stating this clearly, and in justice should state why this is being done. (B) A judgment of a previous pope can be derog­ated. This means that the legislation still remains in force but it has been modified in some way.


It was a DEROGATION that occurred in 1820, but the modifications were an illusion. Now the above is canon law and you cannot ignore it.

Here then once again is how your heliocentric heresy eliminated the first dogma of the Catholic Faith, God can be known for certain by the things that he made.'

‘Within two centuries…the world was led into a new realm of thought in which an evolution theory of the visible universe was sure to be rapidly developed. For there came, one after the other, five of the greatest men our race has produced, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, and Newton, and when their work was done the old theological conception of the universe was gone.… the Almighty enthroned upon “the circle of the heavens,” and with his own hands, or with angels as his agents, keeping sun, moon, and planets in motion for the benefit of the Earth, opening and closing the “windows of heaven,”… all this had disappeared. These five men had given a new divine revelation to the world; and through the last, Newton, had come a vast new conception, destined to be fatal to the old theory of creation, for he had shown throughout the universe, in place of almighty caprice, all-pervading law… The bitter opposition of theology to the first four of these men is well known; but the fact is not so widely known that Newton, in spite of his deeply religious spirit, was also strongly opposed. It was vigorously urged against him that by his statement of the law of gravitation he “took from God that direct action on his works so constantly ascribed to him in Scripture and transferred it to material mechanism,” and that he “substituted gravitation for Providence.” But more than this, these men gave a new basis for the theory of evolution as distinguished from the theory of creation…. By the middle of the nineteenth century the whole theological theory of creation – though still preached everywhere as a matter of form – was clearly seen by all thinking men to be hopelessly lost.’[1]

---