Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Smedley Butler on April 24, 2018, 09:18:19 AM

Title: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: Smedley Butler on April 24, 2018, 09:18:19 AM
Which do you believe? 
Title: Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: Smedley Butler on April 24, 2018, 09:20:13 AM
I'll go first.
Title: Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: apollo on April 24, 2018, 09:49:27 AM
The choices are convoluted. You might as well have said:
1. Geocentrism of science.
2. Heliocentrism of the Bible.
Which would be equally convoluted.
Title: Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: Smedley Butler on April 24, 2018, 09:58:28 AM
No, it's very straightforward.

You already said you're heliocentrist, why not vote? 
Title: Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: kiwiboy on April 24, 2018, 09:59:17 AM
flat earth is geocentrist.
Title: Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: klasG4e on April 24, 2018, 01:02:52 PM
I was recently informed that Dr. Roibert Sungenis is in the process of finishing up a 600 page Flat Earth rebuttal book! 
Title: Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: klasG4e on April 24, 2018, 01:05:12 PM
I believe the same as the Angelic Doctor.  Aquinas and I are geocentrists.
Title: Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: forlorn on April 24, 2018, 01:25:24 PM
The Church teaches we can know God through his Creation, and I have yet to see a working model for Geocentrism. So tentatively, I accept Heliocentrism pending further research.
Title: Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: TKonkel on April 24, 2018, 01:55:22 PM
Perhaps another option should be given which would be the notion that, scientifically the math can work from either frame of reference though one frame may be better for working out one problem rather than another.  It is my understanding that if relativity were true than one could do the math from either frame of reference.  This would also assume though that, although geocentrism may be a valid frame of reference, it is certainly not the One True Frame of reference.  
Title: Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: klasG4e on April 24, 2018, 01:59:48 PM
The Church teaches we can know God through his Creation, and I have yet to see a working model for Geocentrism. So tentatively, I accept Heliocentrism pending further research.
I hope you will accept what follows as part of your "further research."

I. The Earth Does Not Move

When interpreted literally, the Scriptures teach us that the earth does not move. Should we interpret the Scriptures literally? The Catholic Church, having adopted the rule of St. Augustine, teaches “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.” Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, No. 15, 1893. This was affirmed by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, No. 36, 1950.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 116, also says: “The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”
In other words, we are to interpret the Scriptures literally unless there is a compelling reason to interpret them otherwise. This is why the Church interprets literally, for example, Matt. 16:18 (Peter is the rock); Matt. 19:9 (remarriage after divorce is adultery); Matt. 26:26-28 (“this is my body”); John 6:51-58 (“eat my flesh”; “drink my blood”); John 3:5 (born of water means baptism); John 20:23 (“whose sins you forgive are forgiven”); 1 Peter 3:21 (“baptism saves you”); and James 5:14-15 (“anoint the sick with oil to save them and forgive their sins”).
We must also remember that the Scriptures were dictated to the sacred writers by the Holy Ghost. Thus, we take God’s Word for what it says, for He is the author of Scripture. There does not seem to be a compelling reason to depart from the literal and obvious sense of the following Scriptures which teach, both implicitly and explicitly, that the earth does not move.
Certainly, a literal interpretation is not untenable, nor does necessity require an alternative interpretation (because science has not disproved the geocentric theory; in fact, science also provides more evidence for geocentrism):
1 Sam. 2:8 – “For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and on them he has set the world.”
2 Sam. 22:16; Psalm 18:15 – “Then the channels of the sea were seen, the foundations of the world were laid bare…” (Describing the earth as having “foundations” is consistent with an earth that is fixed and established and does not move, as many Scriptures reveal).
1 Chron. 16:30 – “yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.” This and many other passages say very plainly that the earth does not move.
Job 26:7 – “He stretches out the north over the void, and hangs the earth upon nothing.”
Job 38:4; cf. Job 9:6 – “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?”
Psalm 8:29 – “…when he marked out the foundations of the earth.”
Psalm 93:1 – “Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.”
Psalm 96:10 – “Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved.”
Psalm 102:25 – “Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands.”
Psalm 104:5 – “Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken.”
Psalm 119:90 – “thou has established the earth, and it stands firm.”
Isaiah 24:18 – “…for the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble.”
Isaiah 48:13 – “My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens…”
Isaiah 66:1 – “Thus says the Lord: ‘Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool.”
When the Scriptures say the world is “established” (in Hebrew, “kun”), it indicates that the establishment is ongoing. See, for example, 1 Chron. 22:10, Judges 16:26,29 and Ezra 3:3 where “kun” is used to explain an ongoing lack of motion.
The only time Scripture says the earth will “move” (in Hebrew, “mot” – see “mot” in Job 41:23; Psalm 125:1; 140:10; and Isa. 41:7) is in the context of the end of the world, where God will come in judgment (e.g. Psalm 76:8 ). This coincides with the apocalyptic literature of, inter alia, Matt. 24:29-30 and 2 Peter 3:10-13, but never suggests actual motion.
Gen. 1:1-5; 14-19 – God created the earth on the first day, and the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day. God created them to “give light upon the earth.” The heavenly bodies were therefore created for the earth, to adorn it, and to mark its seasons. The earth is God’s focal point. This ordering is another indicator that the earth is the center of the universe. How could the sun be the center, if it wasn’t created until the fourth day? This also raises the question: How did the earth have “evening and morning” on days one to three, before the sun was created on day four? Scripture reveals this is because the universe has light that is independent of the sun and stars. In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas hypothesized that God created the sun and stars on day four from this effusive light that He created on day one (just like God created man on day six from the dirt He created on day one). This effusive light is what brought about the “evening and morning” periods of days one through three.
Job 38:18-20,24 – in these verses, although Job knows the sun gives light, God asks Job “where is the way to the dwelling of light” and “where is the way the light is divided?” Job cannot answer God’s questions. Why can’t he, if Job knows that the sun gives light? God is referring to the light He created without any dimensional source. For example, Psalm 74:16 says “You have prepared the light and the sun,” which distinguishes the two sources of light. Ecclesiastes 12:1-2 also says “Remember your Creator…before the sun and the light, and the moon and the stars are darkened.” The sacred writer distinguishes between “the sun” and “the light,” and also indicates that there are four separate sources of light.
Gen. 1:1; 2:1,4; Psalm 113:6; Jer. 10:11; 32:17; 51:48; Joel 3:16; Hag. 2:6,21; Jud. 13:18; cf. Psalm 102:25; Isaiah 24:18; 48:13 – here are some examples where God distinguishes “between the heavens and the earth.” The earth is unique and distinguishable from the rest of the heavens.
Gen. 14:19,22; Ex. 20:11; 31:17; Deut. 4:26; 30:19; 31:28; 2 Sam. 18:9; 2 Kings 19:15; 2 Chron. 2:2; Ez. 5:11; Psalms 69:34; 115:15; 121:2; 124:8; 134:3; 146:6; Isaiah 37:16; Jer. 23:24; 33:25; 4 Ez. 2:14; 6:38; Tob. 7:18; 1 Macc. 2:37; Jud. 7:28; 9:12; Matt. 5:18; 11:25; 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 10:21; 16:17; 21:33; Acts 17:24; Rev. 14:7; cf. Matt. 28:18; Eph. 4:8-10; Phil. 2:10; Col. 1:16 – more examples where God distinguishes between “heaven and earth.” The Scriptures clearly teach that the earth is unique among the rest of the universe.
John 17:24 – Jesus says “…behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world.” Jesus’ language also suggests a world that has a firm, unmovable foundation.

II. The Sun, Moon and Stars Move

Joshua 10:12-14 – “Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, ‘Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon.’ And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. There has been no day like it before or since, when the Lord hearkened to the voice of a man; for the Lord fought for Israel.” This is the most powerful passage which supports a geocentric view of the universe. This passage clearly says that both the sun and moon stopped moving. This is the literal reading of the passage, and the passage does not warrant a figurative or phenomenological interpretation. Why? First, the book of Joshua was written to record actual historical events in the history of Israel (as opposed to figurative or poetic literature found elsewhere in Scripture), and there is no compelling reason to interpret it other than literally. Second, heliocentrists believe the moon moves. Therefore, it would be contradictory for them to claim that Joshua told the moon to stand still literally, but told the sun to stand still figuratively. The most reasonable conclusion is that both the moon and sun were moving, and both the moon and sun stopped moving at Joshua’s command. Finally, Joshua records that the sun stopped over Gibeon, while the moon stopped over Aijalon. These are two distinct points on the earth which confirm the coordinates of cessation of movement of the sun and moon. There are other Scriptures which also indicate that the sun, moon and stars are moving:
Judges 5:20 – “From heaven fought the stars, from their courses they fought against Sisera.”
Judges 5:31 – “So perish all thine enemies, O Lord! But thy friends be like the sun as he rises in his might.”
2 Kings 20:11 – “And Isaiah the prophet cried to the Lord; and he brought the shadow back ten steps, by which the sun had declined on the dial of Ahaz.”
Job 9:7 – “who commands the sun, and it does not rise.”
Psalm 19:5-6 – “In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridgegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs its course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.”
Psalm 104:19 – “Thou hast made the moon to mark the seasons; the sun knows its time for setting.”
Eccles. 1:5 – “The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.”
Wis. 13:2 – “but they supposed that either fire or wind or swift air, or the circle of the stars, or turbulent water, or the luminaries of heaven were the gods that rule the world.”
Sir. 43:2 – “The sun, when it appears, making proclamation as it goes forth, is a marvelous instrument, the work of the Most High.”
Sir. 43:5 – “Great is the Lord who made it; and at his command it hastens on its course.”
Sir. 46:4 – “Was not the sun held back by his hand? And did not one day become as long as two?”
Isaiah 38:7-8 – “This is the sign to you from the Lord, that the Lord will do this thing that he has promised: Behold, I will make the shadow cast by the declining sun on the dial of Ahaz turn back ten steps. So the sun turned back on the dial the ten steps by which it had declined.”
Hab. 3:11 – “The sun and moon stood still in their habitation, at the light of thine arrows as they sped, at the flash of they glittering spear.”
1 Esdras 4:34 – “The earth is vast, and heaven is high, and the sun is swift in its course, for it makes the circuit of the heavens and returns to its place in one day.”
James 1:11 – “for the sun rises with its scorching heat…”
Jude 13: – “wandering stars for whom the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved forever.” A “wandering star” is called a “planet.” If the earth does not wander, it is not a planet.
Mark 16:2 – the Apostle says “And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen.” Mark is drawing a clear parallel between the risen sun and the risen Son at this poignant moment when the women discovered that Jesus had risen from the dead. Just as the sun rises literally, so Jesus rose literally as well. Scripture also refers to Jesus as the “Sun of Justice” (see Mal. 4:2).
Gen. 1:14-15, 17 – God said, “let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens”; and “God set them in the firmament of the heavens.” Geocentrists generally believe that God placed the stars and planets in the “firmament” (which scientists often call the “aether”) described by Moses in Genesis. The firmament is a shell containing the heavenly bodies and rotates around a fixed earth.
Dan. 12:3 – “And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.” This demonstrates that there is a relationship between the stars and the firmament, and yet a distinction between the two as well (the stars have been placed in the firmament).
Sir. 43:1 – “the pride of the heavenly heights is the clear firmament…” This text suggests that the firmament is clear (not visible), and that the firmament shows the “heavenly heights” (the stars, which are imbedded in the firmament).
Gen. 15:12,17; 19:23; 28:11; 32:31; Ex. 17:12: 22:3,26; Lev. 22:7; Num. 2:3; Deut. 11:30; 16:6; 23:11; 24:13; 24:15; Josh. 1:4; 8:29; 10:12,13,27; 12:1; Judges 9:33; 14:18; 19:14; 2 Sam. 2:24; 3:35; 23:4; 1 Kings 22:36; 2 Chron. 18:34; Psalm 50:1; 104:22; 113:3; Isa. 13:10; 41:25; 45:6; 59:19; 60:20; Jer. 15:9; Dan. 6:14; Amos 8:9; Jonah 4:8; Mic. 3:6; Nah. 3:17; Mal. 1:11; Matt. 5:45; 13:6; Mark 1:32; 4:6; 16:2; Luke 4:40; Eph. 4:26 – more examples where the sun “rises,” “sets,” “goes up,” and “goes down.”
*******************************************************************************************
P.S. Big Bang is simply and utterly irreconcilable with Sacred Scripture because Genesis unequivocally informs us that the Earth came before the light whereas BB tells us that the light came before the Earth.  It's really that simple, but the modernists and many scientists (who if the truth be known would be more aptly called "scientismists", i.e, those who make a god out of science)  are able to obfuscate to know end other than confounding even themselves with their puffed up notions.  Today honest science is actually proving more and more the truth of Sacred Scripture.

With all the evidence that modern cosmology has accuмulated over the last several decades, which includes:
     *  the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) displaying the famous Axis of Evil that is aligned with Earth's equator and elliptic;
     *  the distinct distribution of galaxies, gamma rays and quasars in concentric spheres around the Earth, which all taper off as if there is an edge to the universe;
     *  the spin axis of galaxies aligned with the Axis of Evil,
....we can safely say that, as some of the best minds today in cosmology have admitted, the scientific data has put Earth back in the center of the universe. 


Title: Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: TKonkel on April 24, 2018, 02:01:52 PM
I believe the same as the Angelic Doctor.  Aquinas and I are geocentrists.

I am not so sure Aquinas would agree with you
 Summa Theologiae, Prima Pars, Question 32, Article 1, Reply to Objection 2
Reason may be employed in two ways to establish a point: firstly, for the purpose of furnishing sufficient proof of some principle, as in natural science, where sufficient proof can be brought to show that the movement of the heavens is always of uniform velocity. Reason is employed in another way, not as furnishing a sufficient proof of a principle, but as confirming an already established principle, by showing the congruity of its results, as in astrology the theory of eccentrics and epicycles [i.e. the theory of geocentrism] is considered as established, because thereby the sensible appearances of the heavenly movements can be explained; not, however, as if this proof were sufficient, forasmuch as some other theory might explain them.
Title: Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: forlorn on April 24, 2018, 02:25:19 PM
With all the evidence that modern cosmology has accuмulated over the last several decades, which includes:
     *  the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) displaying the famous Axis of Evil that is aligned with Earth's equator and elliptic;
     *  the distinct distribution of galaxies, gamma rays and quasars in concentric spheres around the Earth, which all taper off as if there is an edge to the universe;
     *  the spin axis of galaxies aligned with the Axis of Evil,
....we can safely say that, as some of the best minds today in cosmology have admitted, the scientific data has put Earth back in the center of the universe.
I addressed your quotes in the other thread. To summarise here again, most of them refer to "pillars" or "foundations" under the Earth, so if they're to be taken literally they don't fit the Geocentric model either. What is the Axis of Evil by the way?
Title: Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: klasG4e on April 24, 2018, 02:32:46 PM
I addressed your quotes in the other thread. To summarise here again, most of them refer to "pillars" or "foundations" under the Earth, so if they're to be taken literally they don't fit the Geocentric model either. What is the Axis of Evil by the way?
And I as well addressed your reply in the other thread.  As for the Axis of Evil you can Google it.  If you still can't find it give me a shout.
Title: Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: cassini on April 24, 2018, 02:44:46 PM
The Church teaches we can know God through his Creation, and I have yet to see a working model for Geocentrism. So tentatively, I accept Heliocentrism pending further research.

Interesting forlorn, you haven't figured out the best working model for geocentrism available to us all, our very own eyes.

The hearing ear, and seeing eye; the lord hath made them both.’ (Prov. 20:12) All, except the poor blind are blessed with eyesight. All human beings saw and continue to see the sun, moon, planets and stars revolve around the Earth. Without doubt, the geocentric world that can be clearly seen has to top St Paul’s list of visible things that point to a Creator. It did so for thousands of years until men deliberately set out to blind us all, to eliminate the sensible vision of the cosmos that led many souls to know God exists. So successful was their heliocentric heresy in separating faith and reason that mankind soon lost sight of God in His creation, it being replaced by naturalism, the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, all supernatural or spiritual causes are excluded or discounted. The heliocentric universe in only in the mind, on a piece of paper or in a book. Then again if it is scientific proof for geocentrism you are looking for, forget it, proofs do not exist in cosmology.

Albert Einstein, in his effort to save heliocentrism from two experiments, the 1870 Airy test and the 1887 michelson & Morley test, invented his special theory of relativity. He said both the heliocentric model and the geocentric model are identical in that there is no physical difference between both. A great man called Walter van der Kamp tested Einstein's theory to see if it is true. Both had to have the 3 observations to be seen by astronomers, (1) from both had to haver the sun pass in front of the Zodiac annually. (2) stellar parallax had to be seen, and (3) all the stars had to make small circlets annually.

The only model, geocentric or heliocentric, that could physically show all three conditions above was the ammended tychonian model, where all the stars are centered on the sun as they all orbit the earth. In other words the sun and stars are one, and when orbiting around the Earth together annually is the only model that can show the stars producing parallax and the smaller circlets necessary for stellar aberration.
Title: Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: Smedley Butler on April 24, 2018, 02:59:25 PM
Exactly.

The heavens (sun moon stars) are on a track that rotates.

Get out your kid's spirograph and play with it.

That's how it works. 

Notice the toroidal spiral patterns and "circlets" (as you called them) that are created on the paper.
Title: Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: cassini on April 24, 2018, 03:19:23 PM
 What is the Axis of Evil by the way?

It is a long story forlorn so I will try to shorten it for you and readers.

‘In 1978 Penzias and Wilson received the Nobel Prize in physics for their discovery of the CMR in 1965. Study of the CMB continued with the United States government’s agency the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). In June, 2001 a satellite WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) was launched from Cape Canaveral aboard a Delta rocket. Then there was the European Space Agency’s PLANCK mission launched in 2009 to map the CMB in greater detail. By 2013 the cosmologists reckoned the temperature variations of the cosmos were now known and from these had conjured up a history of the universe since the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. Throughout the world, in scientific institutions and universities, massive crowds turned out to hear of and see the ‘proofs’ the CMB had established for their Big Bang theory. One of these, they claim, was the first evolution of the stars from particles 200,000,000 years old. Hundreds of websites were created to show the world what their science had discovered. But the truth will out if you seek it that is:

‘Irrespective of how it originated, the most important fact about the CMR is that it represents unequivocal evidence of an absolute reference frame in the universe… I suggest [this] evidence which has received worldwide acclaim as confirmation of the Big Bang is really its death knell for, ironically, it is now clear that the existence of the CMR essentially falsifies the fundamental postulates of the theory of relativity [that there is no reference frame in the universe]… In simple terms, the theory of relativity has been falsified because a major prediction of the theory is now known to be contradicted by [another] unambiguous experimental result.’ (R. Gentry: Creation’s Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates, 2004, pp.284-5)


Good, someone did notice George Smoot's claim to have witnessed the variation in the CMB that showed the Earth’s movement in its supposed orbit. But now let us address Robert Gentry’s 2004 quote above: ‘Irrespective of how it originated, the most important fact about the CMR is that it represents unequivocal evidence of an absolute reference frame in the universe.’ One of these reference frames has become known as the ‘Axis of Evil,’


‘The light is the CMB, and it provides some of the best knowledge we have about the structure, content, and history of the Universe. But it also contains a few mysteries: on very large scales, the cosmos seems to have a certain lopsidedness. That slight asymmetry is reflected in temperature fluctuations much larger than any galaxy, aligned on the sky in a pattern facetiously dubbed “the axis of evil.” The lopsidedness is real, but cosmologists are divided over whether it reveals anything meaningful about the fundamental laws of physics.’ --- Arstecnica website.

During this time of discovery two scholars, Robert Sungenis and Richard Delano also took an interest in the CMB’s findings. To them, interpretation of the data shows the Earth sits at the centre of the universe.
 
‘All in all, there are three basic [CMB] alignments of the Earth with the universe:
(1) The cosmic microwave radiation’s dipole is aligned with the Earth’s equator.
(2) The cosmic microwave radiation’s quadrupole and octupole are aligned with the EarthSun ecliptic.
(3) The distant quasars and radio galaxies are aligned with the Earth’s equator and the North Celestial Pole. Essentially, these three alignments provide the X, Y and Z coordinates to place Earth in the very center of the known universe.’ (Robert Sungenis: website, Debunking David Palm, 2014.)



Title: Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: forlorn on April 24, 2018, 03:26:19 PM
It is a long story forlorn so I will try to shorten it for you and readers.

‘In 1978 Penzias and Wilson received the Nobel Prize in physics for their discovery of the CMR in 1965. Study of the CMB continued with the United States government’s agency the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). In June, 2001 a satellite WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) was launched from Cape Canaveral aboard a Delta rocket. Then there was the European Space Agency’s PLANCK mission launched in 2009 to map the CMB in greater detail. By 2013 the cosmologists reckoned the temperature variations of the cosmos were now known and from these had conjured up a history of the universe since the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. Throughout the world, in scientific institutions and universities, massive crowds turned out to hear of and see the ‘proofs’ the CMB had established for their Big Bang theory. One of these, they claim, was the first evolution of the stars from particles 200,000,000 years old. Hundreds of websites were created to show the world what their science had discovered. But the truth will out if you seek it that is:

‘Irrespective of how it originated, the most important fact about the CMR is that it represents unequivocal evidence of an absolute reference frame in the universe… I suggest [this] evidence which has received worldwide acclaim as confirmation of the Big Bang is really its death knell for, ironically, it is now clear that the existence of the CMR essentially falsifies the fundamental postulates of the theory of relativity [that there is no reference frame in the universe]… In simple terms, the theory of relativity has been falsified because a major prediction of the theory is now known to be contradicted by [another] unambiguous experimental result.’ (R. Gentry: Creation’s Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates, 2004, pp.284-5)


Good, someone did notice George Smoot's claim to have witnessed the variation in the CMB that showed the Earth’s movement in its supposed orbit. But now let us address Robert Gentry’s 2004 quote above: ‘Irrespective of how it originated, the most important fact about the CMR is that it represents unequivocal evidence of an absolute reference frame in the universe.’ One of these reference frames has become known as the ‘Axis of Evil,’


‘The light is the CMB, and it provides some of the best knowledge we have about the structure, content, and history of the Universe. But it also contains a few mysteries: on very large scales, the cosmos seems to have a certain lopsidedness. That slight asymmetry is reflected in temperature fluctuations much larger than any galaxy, aligned on the sky in a pattern facetiously dubbed “the axis of evil.” The lopsidedness is real, but cosmologists are divided over whether it reveals anything meaningful about the fundamental laws of physics.’ --- Arstecnica website.

During this time of discovery two scholars, Robert Sungenis and Richard Delano also took an interest in the CMB’s findings. To them, interpretation of the data shows the Earth sits at the centre of the universe.

‘All in all, there are three basic [CMB] alignments of the Earth with the universe:
(1) The cosmic microwave radiation’s dipole is aligned with the Earth’s equator.
(2) The cosmic microwave radiation’s quadrupole and octupole are aligned with the EarthSun ecliptic.
(3) The distant quasars and radio galaxies are aligned with the Earth’s equator and the North Celestial Pole. Essentially, these three alignments provide the X, Y and Z coordinates to place Earth in the very center of the known universe.’ (Robert Sungenis: website, Debunking David Palm, 2014.)
Very interesting theory, however it does not suggest that the Sun orbits the Earth. Here's a quote of the part I bolded:
Quote
(2) The cosmic microwave radiation’s quadrupole and octupole are aligned with the EarthSun ecliptic.
This means they believe such an elliptic does exist, that the Earh does indeed orbit the Sun. So according to the alignments, the universe seems to be centered around the Earth even as the Earth rotates around the Sun.

Title: Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: cassini on April 24, 2018, 04:15:26 PM
Very interesting theory, however it does not suggest that the Sun orbits the Earth. Here's a quote of the part I bolded:
This means they believe such an elliptic does exist, that the Earh does indeed orbit the Sun. So according to the alignments, the universe seems to be centered around the Earth even as the Earth rotates around the Sun.

First forlorn it is not a theory, it is empirical science. The CMB exists in the form that they found it. It shows empirically the Earth is at the center of the universe.

As I understand it, the exercise by Sungenis and Delano is to show the Earth is at the centre of the universe. Yes, it could be said the 'solar system,' be it geocentric or heliocentric, does exist at the center of the CMB. But given the ammended Tychonian model is the only one that can account for a same size annual physical circling of all the stars of the universe that contains the CMB, and the earth is at the center of the Tychonian system, then the evidence is that it is the Earth that is at the center.    
Title: Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: cassini on April 24, 2018, 04:21:05 PM
apologies, posted twice instead of modify.
Title: Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: apollo on April 24, 2018, 05:58:10 PM
Question. What keeps the Sun in orbit around the Earth ?
Does it have fins like a rocket that keep it turning in a circular direction?
Does the gravitational pull of the Earth keep the Sun in orbit?  Like with
the Moon?  Would the Sun go in a straight line if the Earth did not have
gravity?

The only feasible answer is: the gravity of the Earth.  I know about the
pseudo forces that Robert Sungenis talks about.  But let's limit this discussion
to what we can measure.

OK then the Sun is 93,000,000 miles from Earth.  We can measure that.
The Sun "orbits" the Earth in 24 hours.  

So, 93,000,000 miles x 2 x 3.1416 / 24 hours = 24,347,400 miles per hour.
The Sun is traveling about 24 million miles per hour.  

Don't you think there would be a trail of fire following behind the Sun, like
comets have a trail of some kind?

If the Earth were orbiting the Sun ...
93,000,000 miles x 2 x 3.1416 / 365 days / 24 hrs = 66,705 miles per hour.
The Earth would be going 66,705 miles per hour.

Which has more gravity?  The Sun.  Therefore it makes more sense that the
Earth is orbiting the Sun.  It's total lunacy to think the Earth has enough
gravity to keep the Sun (going 24 million MPH) in orbit around the Earth.  

For the Moon ...
252,000 miles (at most) x 2 x 3.1416 / 28 days / 24 hours = 2,356 MPH.

If the Moon were going 24 million MPH, do you think it would still be orbiting
the Earth?  No way.  It would be far away in outer space.  

Then how could the Sun still be orbiting the Earth.  It would take some kind
of astronomical force to keep it circling the Earth.  

Conclusion.  Geocentrism only makes sense when you can find some kind of
unbelievable force not understandable to humans.  Imagine how fast the
nearest star is traveling ... faster than the speed of light.  

I dare say that Geocentrism is a mere fantasy of people who try to make the
Bible a science textbook, using a view of the universe which was popular in
the time of David (in the old Testament), using vague terminology such as,
"shall not be moved".  

Like I said before, not many people's brain can function in the world of math
and astronomy.  I don't mean to be condescending, but the arguments for
Geocentrism really require a person to believe in magic.




Title: Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: wallflower on April 24, 2018, 07:31:32 PM
I have a small gripe about the wording "Heliocentrism of science".

I'd say Heliocentrism of modernism. Or Heliocentrism of modern scientists.

Otherwise we give up a very important vocabulary word to the modernists and perpetuate the myth that the Faith and science are opposed.  
Title: Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 28, 2018, 11:55:55 PM
.
Don't you think there would be a trail of fire following behind the Sun, like
comets have a trail of some kind? 
.
A)  Comets don't have a "trail of some kind" following them. Comets move through the vacuum of outer space. The tail of a comet is caused by the solar wind (from the sun) which is the force of sunlight and charged particles emitted from the sun, which impact dust and such small bits of the comet that are moving along with the comet through space, giving them a slight push away from the larger mass of the comet itself, while the dust particles continue to remain nearby the comet. The tail proceeds away from the sun as the comet orbits close by the sun, making the tail extend out to the side as the comet approaches, then swings around the outside of the comet like a shadow would. Then the tail of the comet extends out in FRONT of the comet (and slightly to one side) as the comet moves away from the sun.
.
B)  This "trail of fire" you imagine seems to presume the sun is passing through some kind of atmosphere, but it is not doing so. The sun is surrounded by the vacuum of space, with only a very sparse cloud of particles hanging about, which mostly move along with the sun. Only small portions move away from the sun such as the dangerous material in coronal mass ejections, which are charged particles that travel away from sunspots where they are emitted, and move at a speed somewhat less than the speed of light. Charged particles of this sort are what causes the aurora borealis, the northern lights.
.
Title: Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 29, 2018, 12:00:40 AM
I have a small gripe about the wording "Heliocentrism of science".

I'd say Heliocentrism of modernism. Or Heliocentrism of modern scientists.

Otherwise we give up a very important vocabulary word to the modernists and perpetuate the myth that the Faith and science are opposed.
.
Your complaint is well founded. However, modern scientists don't adhere to heliocentrism anymore.
So it wouldn't be proper to say "heliocentrism of modern scientists."
Just as it isn't right to say "heliocentrism of science" because heliocentrism is not scientific.
Your idea of "heliocentrism of modernism" (or Modernist heliocentrism) would be okay, but most today don't know anything about what Modernism is. If anything they think it's a movement in modern art, or architecture, or furniture styles.
.
Title: Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 29, 2018, 12:59:13 AM
.
Very interesting theory, however it does not suggest that the Sun orbits the Earth. Here's a quote of the part I bolded:

Quote
Quote
(2) The cosmic microwave radiation’s quadrupole and octupole are aligned with the EarthSun ecliptic.

This means they believe such an elliptic [ecliptic] does exist, that the Earh [Earth] does indeed orbit the Sun. So according to the alignments, the universe seems to be centered around the Earth even as the Earth rotates around the Sun.
.
The ecliptic (not "elliptic") is defined as the plane in outer space through which the sun passes in its daily cycle about the earth, a plane which also passes through the center of Earth. From the viewpoint of Earth, the ecliptic makes a curving line across the sky since the Sun's path is a curved path. The existence of the ecliptic doesn't preclude the Sun orbiting the Earth. Nor does the ecliptic's existence demand that the Earth does not orbit around the Sun.
.
The ecliptic exists due to the fact that the path the sun makes across the sky as viewed from Earth is a predictable path that projects itself onto the celestial sphere where we see the stars every night. Nor does the ecliptic always remain in the same place. As the seasons change so too the ecliptic makes small movements, but these have to be measured with sensitive astronomical instruments. 
.
The ecliptic is not obvious to casual observers because of the fact that during the day, when we can see the sun, we cannot see the stars in the sky since the sun is so bright. It takes sophisticated filters to find out where the stars are in the daytime sky (nearby or behind the Sun), such devices that the ancients did not have for their use as far as we know. Therefore, one must keep track of where the sun WAS each day, perhaps using some device that traces the direction to the sun, and then wait until sunset to see where the stars are in the sky while continuing to move the device to follow where the sun must be even though it is no longer visible since it's night time, and the sun is below the horizon. Then, keeping this information on record, later in the year when that part of the sky that was obscured by the daytime Sun is then visible at night, it can be determined in retrospect, where the Sun was when the measurements were taken. Note: you really have to be a serious GEEK to be diligent about this process.
.
This process, by the way, is a most embarrassing one for flat-earthers, who insist that the sun does not go down below the horizon but continues somehow to hover out of sight and around the horizon past the north pole (but never past the south pole in the southern hemisphere!) and then inexplicably becomes visible in the east not because it is rising from BELOW the horizon, but because it is getting closer (even while it does not get larger to our sight) and therefore its light is able to reach us (but they're unable to explain why the Sun's light is suddenly able to reach us -- they say things like "light can't travel forever"). 
.
The process alluded to, using a sun tracking device (which all excellent telescopes have BTW) is able to show us where to find the sun at any time during the night, and it is found not along the northern hemisphere but under our feet at some precise angle which is measurable and predictable. This is how lunar eclipses are foreseeable in the future, because the precise location of the sun is not a mystery but rather it is something that can be determined quite accurately even years in advance for each day of the year.
Title: Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 29, 2018, 01:32:33 AM
... most today don't know anything about what Modernism is. If anything they think it's a movement in modern art, or architecture, or furniture styles.
.
.(https://s17-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Ftravelblog.pledgeholidays.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F09%2FTravel-Me-infinity-pools-3.jpg%3Ffit%3D900%252C500&sp=b65e6821b6c17220112e329ef31fa221)  So-called Modernism in pool design.
Title: Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: forlorn on April 29, 2018, 05:45:56 AM
.
Your complaint is well founded. However, modern scientists don't adhere to heliocentrism anymore.
So it wouldn't be proper to say "heliocentrism of modern scientists."
Just as it isn't right to say "heliocentrism of science" because heliocentrism is not scientific.
Your idea of "heliocentrism of modernism" (or Modernist heliocentrism) would be okay, but most today don't know anything about what Modernism is. If anything they think it's a movement in modern art, or architecture, or furniture styles.
.
Maybe not Copernicus' Heliocentrism, but yes they do believe the Earth orbits the Sun. 
Title: Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 30, 2018, 08:24:42 PM
Maybe not Copernicus' Heliocentrism, but yes they do believe the Earth orbits the Sun.
.
It seems to me that "they" are very cautious to give the impression that they "believe" the earth orbits the sun, however, upon closer examination it would seem they have an abiding concern that perhaps the sun orbits the earth -- but they can't dare admit as much because far too many consequences hang in the balance.
.
For example, go to JPL and find out how they compute the landing and takeoff trajectory of rockets given that the earth is rotating on its axis and revolving around the sun with the whole solar system chugging along towards some common destination far, far away. You actually don't need to mention the second two movements. Just say, while the earth turns on its axis, or, "while the earth is spinning at 1,000 miles an hour at the equator." 
.
"How can you calculate where a rocket is going to or coming from, when the earth is spinning at 1,000 miles an hour at the equator?"
.
If you get a knowledgeable and honest person to answer your question, he'll assure you that for the purposes of making computations simple, they presume the earth to be stationary. They just can't say that openly because the only thing fit for public consumption is that the earth revolves around the sun and spins on its own axis of rotation. That's the pat answer to simpletons. You know, like roscoe.
.
Title: Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: Neil Obstat on April 30, 2018, 08:32:13 PM
.
Designers and builders speak with glowing tones about "contemporary" or "modernism" --- can you imagine waking up every morning and looking at this scene while still keeping your sanity?


(https://s17-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-MiEU_Ll27cE%2FVsnZdnSJqsI%2FAAAAAAAAGcs%2FQeLLzHUv29M%2Fs640%2Fmodern_style_interiors.png&sp=a1ec817e3a4520d3b8716f28a41e9ade)
Title: Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: forlorn on May 01, 2018, 02:40:58 PM
.
It seems to me that "they" are very cautious to give the impression that they "believe" the earth orbits the sun, however, upon closer examination it would seem they have an abiding concern that perhaps the sun orbits the earth -- but they can't dare admit as much because far too many consequences hang in the balance.
.
For example, go to JPL and find out how they compute the landing and takeoff trajectory of rockets given that the earth is rotating on its axis and revolving around the sun with the whole solar system chugging along towards some common destination far, far away. You actually don't need to mention the second two movements. Just say, while the earth turns on its axis, or, "while the earth is spinning at 1,000 miles an hour at the equator."
.
"How can you calculate where a rocket is going to or coming from, when the earth is spinning at 1,000 miles an hour at the equator?"
.
If you get a knowledgeable and honest person to answer your question, he'll assure you that for the purposes of making computations simple, they presume the earth to be stationary. They just can't say that openly because the only thing fit for public consumption is that the earth revolves around the sun and spins on its own axis of rotation. That's the pat answer to simpletons. You know, like roscoe.
.
What sort of rockets are we talking about? Any rockets that never leave the atmosphere would always continue to rotate with the Earth, and most that leave the Earth's atmosphere either don't come back or only come back ages later, when they'd just need to make certain it entered the atmosphere at the right spot and then it'd continue to rotate with the Earth. So I don't really see where the rotation calculation would come into play when a rocket was preparing for takeoff. 
Apologies if I have your point entirely misunderstood, a lot of this stuff is way over my head. 
Title: Re: Geocentrism or Heliocentrism?
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 01, 2018, 05:37:25 PM
What sort of rockets are we talking about? Any rockets that never leave the atmosphere would always continue to rotate with the Earth, and most that leave the Earth's atmosphere either don't come back or only come back ages later, when they'd just need to make certain it entered the atmosphere at the right spot and then it'd continue to rotate with the Earth. So I don't really see where the rotation calculation would come into play when a rocket was preparing for takeoff.
Apologies if I have your point entirely misunderstood, a lot of this stuff is way over my head.
.
Even a rocket that leaves the atmosphere continues to carry with it the momentum it had from being in contact with the earth. As soon as a rocket leaves the launch pad, it no longer is in contact with the earth, but just like an airplane or a flying bird, it has the kinetic energy from its position of "rest" on the ground before it launched. Whatever the earth was doing at the time of launch, so the rocket is doing, PLUS whatever additional movement is imparted to it by its own propulsion system.
.