Ok, so I've been doing some research on geocentric cosmology.  I am aware of the basics.  One thing I cannot figure out.  I hope I can make this clear, thanks in advance for any assistance.

As far as I'm aware, the *only* reason to be interested in geocentric cosmology is for the sake of the Faith.  In other words, I don't see that I or anyone else would currently be interested in it one way or another without the testimony of scripture.  Mathematically, heliocentric cosmology obviously functions well enough for mankind's practical needs, so unless it was a religious issue, there's no reason to delve into it.

For a Catholic, the religious issue is fidelity to scripture (and the tradition of being faithful to scripture).

So.  I'm vexed by an issue.  I don't see any consistency in how scriptural principles are applied to cosmology in this case.  I want to know, what happened to the vault?

6 God said, 'Let there be a vault through the middle of the waters to divide the waters in two.' And so it was.

7 God made the vault, and it divided the waters under the vault from the waters above the vault.

8 God called the vault 'heaven'. Evening came and morning came: the second day.

9 God said, 'Let the waters under heaven come together into a single mass, and let dry land appear.' And so it was.

10 God called the dry land 'earth' and the mass of waters 'seas', and God saw that it was good.

Has anyone ever seen a treatment of this?  If we take this teaching as seriously as the teaching of a stationary Earth, then we should be able to identify the vault, as well as the heavenly waters mentioned here, no?  It seems that scripture is unequivocal on this point, there is water above the vault, the vault holds the water up.  How come I never hear anyone explain this water above the vault?  

Maybe I have just missed this.  If someone could enlighten me on the matter of the vault, I'd appreciate it.

Ok, so I've been doing some research on geocentric cosmology.  I am aware of the basics.  One thing I cannot figure out.  I hope I can make this clear, thanks in advance for any assistance.

As far as I'm aware, the *only* reason to be interested in geocentric cosmology is for the sake of the Faith.  In other words, I don't see that I or anyone else would currently be interested in it one way or another without the testimony of scripture.  

Mathematically, heliocentric cosmology obviously functions well enough for mankind's practical needs, so unless it was a religious issue, there's no reason to delve into it.

For a Catholic, the religious issue is fidelity to scripture (and the tradition of being faithful to scripture).

...

You have it entirely backwards, icterus.




Mathematically, heliocentric cosmology is useless for rockets and
and satellites launched from and orbiting around the earth.

However, geocentric cosmology functions well for these.  



Heliocentric cosmology is much too complicated for use
with orbiting satellites, and therefore is only used for
the sake of denying the Faith!



Go to JPL in Pasadena, CA, and walk around asking people there to
tell you about how they compute the orbits of satellites going around
the earth.

Ask them to explain how the rotational momentum or velocity in
radians per second of the earth figures in to their calculations.  They
will tell you, with kind of a curious smirk on their face, that they
presume the earth is stationary, not because it "is" but because that
way their calculations are much more easily handled.  You always do
things the easy way so long as the easy way yields the same results
as the more complicated way of doing things.  

If they 'recognized' the rotation of the earth, they would have to add
that in at the beginning, do the calcs, then subtract that out at the
end, because when a satellite is taking off or landing, it is as though
the earth is a starting point, that is, not moving.  Since all satellites
begin and end at the surface of the earth, the 'movement' of the
earth is unnecessary for consideration in satellite orbits.


.