Author Topic: Geocentrism? Why is that part of the Resistance movement? (Read 58682 times)

McFiggly · « **Reply #10 on:** January 15, 2014, 11:44:38 PM »

Quote from: I

In the Middle Ages the scientists were subject to the authority of the Church and the inerrancy of Scripture; in the Modern Age the priesthood are subject to the authority of the scientists and the inerrancy of Man.

I've been mulling over this and I believe that the last word may be inaccurate. Here's a more accurate version:
In the Middle Ages the scientists were subject to the authority of the Church and the inerrancy of Scripture; in the Modern Age the priesthood are subject to the authority of the scientists and the inerrancy of the Science Report.

Science Reports are the new Scripture. For some astounding reason people believe that Science Reports are more reliable than the Scriptures, when Scientists have everything to gain by telling lies / fudging their numbers / data (career advancement, tenure), and the Prophets that wrote the Scriptures had no worldly thing to gain for telling the truth save persecution and slaughter.

ggreg · « **Reply #11 on:** January 16, 2014, 04:10:08 AM »

Evolution from one species into another, however, is not based on direct observation or simple and verifiable mathematical laws.

If there were a fossil record demonstrating macro evolution which was as convincing as the astronomical observations made through telescopes or Newton's laws of motion then I probably would believe in macro evolution also.

It makes no sense to me that random mutations, even subject to environmental conditions can produce ever increasingly complex and diverse forms or life.

If makes complete sense to me based on gravity and angular momentum that small planets are orbiting giant stars. In fact, scientists are now able to observe planets orbiting around other stars. We can see, with a 500 dollar telescope the moons of Jupiter revolve around the much more massive Jupiter.

There are also post doctoral trained scientists, geneticists who doubt all the theories of evolution for scientific reasons. For example the complexity of a single living cell. But as far as I know there are no astronomers anywhere in the world, who subscribe to a geocentric model based on their scientific opinion.

I simply don't believe that you can fool all of the people all of the time.

I addition, when the Apollo spacecraft went to the moon, assuming you believe it did, they had to adjust the trajectory on the return journeys to account for the fact that the earth was moving through space at an orbital velocity of 60,000 mph. If the Sun was revolving around the earth they would not have to do that. The earth would be exactly where it was when you left the moon, not 2 million miles to the left or right on its orbital path.

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #12 on:** January 16, 2014, 04:33:04 AM »

Quote from: ggreg

I addition, when the Apollo spacecraft went to the moon, assuming you believe it did, they had to adjust the trajectory on the return journeys to account for the fact that the earth was moving through space at an orbital velocity of 60,000 mph. If the Sun was revolving around the earth they would not have to do that. The earth would be exactly where it was when you left the moon, not 2 million miles to the left or right on its orbital path.

This is why I love this geocentrism debate. I just really like space topics.

Did they truly do this? Do you have a source?

I wonder if Sugenis has been approached with this example.

ggreg · « **Reply #13 on:** January 16, 2014, 05:03:01 AM »

Of course they did it. Do you really need a source? I saw one of the astronauts taking about it in a speech in Miami about 13 years ago at a technology conference I attended.

Just Google it.

Otherwise they would have missed the earth by hundreds of times it's diameter. The earth moves through it's own diameter in about 7 minutes. The journey back from the moon took 2.5 days. Think how far the earth moves along it's orbital path in that time.

Pretty simply calculation. PI x D

In fact, they had to calculate a very small window to come back in and get caught by the earth's gravity enough for a safe controlled decent. Too high an angle and they would burn up in the atmosphere. Too shallow and they would fly off into space. It was a pretty slim window. Much much much tighter than a landing flight path of a commercial jet or ever a flighter plane on an aircraft carrier.

ggreg · « **Reply #14 on:** January 16, 2014, 05:04:40 AM »

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

I wonder if Sugenis has been approached with this example

I would suspect so.

But it obviously burned up in his thick atmosphere of kookiness.