Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: 50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat  (Read 340458 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
« Reply #390 on: March 14, 2017, 01:28:26 AM »
,Polaris, situated almost straight over the North Pole, should not be visible anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere.  For Polaris to be seen from the Southern Hemisphere of a globular Earth, the observer would have to be somehow looking “through the globe,” and miles of land and sea would have to be transparent.  Polaris can be seen, however, up to approximately 23.5 degrees South latitude.

“If the Earth is a sphere and the pole star hangs over the northern axis, it would be impossible to see it for a single degree beyond the equator, or 90 degrees from the pole.  The line-of-sight would become a tangent to the sphere, and consequently several thousand miles out of and divergent from the direction of the pole star.  Many cases, however, are on record of the north polar star being visible far beyond the equator, as far even as the tropic of Capricorn.”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” (41)

“The astronomers' theory of a globular Earth necessitates the conclusion that, if we travel south of the equator, to see the North Star is an impossibility. Yet it is well known this star has been seen by navigators when they have been more than 20 degrees south of the equator. This fact, like hundreds of other facts, puts the theory to shame, and gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.”  -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (71)

50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
« Reply #391 on: March 14, 2017, 01:30:03 AM »
“The astronomers' theory of a globular Earth necessitates the conclusion that, if we travel south of the equator, to see the North Star is an impossibility. Yet it is well known this star has been seen by navigators when they have been more than 20 degrees south of the equator. This fact, like hundreds of other facts, puts the theory to shame, and gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.”  -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (71)


50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
« Reply #392 on: March 14, 2017, 01:32:22 AM »

“It has often been urged that the earth must be a globe, because the stars in the southern ‘hemisphere’ move round a south polar star; in the same way that those of the north revolve round the northern pole star. This is another instance of the sacrifice of truth, and denial of the evidence of our senses for the purpose of supporting a theory which is in every sense false and unnatural. It is known to every observer that the north pole star is the centre of a number of constellations which move over the earth in a circular direction. Those nearest to it, as the ‘Great Bear,’ etc. are always visible in England during their whole twenty-four hours' revolution. Those further away southwards rise north-north-east, and set south-south-west; still further south they rise east by north, and set west by north. The farthest south visible from England, the rising is more to the east and south-east, and the setting to the west and south-west. But all the stars visible from London rise and set in a way which is not compatible with the doctrine of rotundity. For instance, if we stand with our backs to the north, on the high land known as ‘Arthur's Seat,’ near Edinburgh, and note the stars in the zenith of our position, and watch for several hours, the zenith stars will gradually recede to the north-west. If we do the same on Woodhouse Moor, near Leeds, or on any of the mountain tops in Yorkshire or Derbyshire, the same phenomenon is observed. The same thing may be seen from the top of Primrose Hill, near Regent's Park, London; from Hampstead Heath; or Shooter's Hill, near Woolwich. If we remain all night, we shall observe the same stars rising towards our position from the north-east, showing that the path of all the stars between ourselves and the northern centre move round the north pole-star as a common centre of rotation; just as they must do over a plane such as the earth is proved to be. It is undeniable that upon a globe zenith stars would rise, pass over head, and set in the plane of the observer's position. If now we carefully watch in the same way the zenith stars from the Rock of Gibraltar, the very same phenomenon is observed. The same is also the case from Cape of Good Hope, Sydney and Melbourne in Australia, in New Zealand, in Rio Janeiro, Monte Video, Valparaiso, and other places in the south. If then the zenith stars of all the places on the earth, where special observations have been made, rise from the morning horizon to the zenith of an observer, and descend to the evening horizon, not in a plane of the position of such observer, but in an arc of a circle concentric with the northern centre, the earth is thereby proved to be a plane, and rotundity altogether disproved - shown, indeed, to be impossible.”  -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (284-6)

50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
« Reply #393 on: March 14, 2017, 05:23:08 AM »
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: cassini
Quote from: BumphreyHogart
Quote from: happenby

Now that we have a little history of NASA, Pythagorean/Copernicans and their "Luciferian doctrine" it is quite clear that those who adopt the heliocentric theory hold anti-Catholic belief.  The Church condemned this trash during the Galileo Affair.  


The Church' magisterium did not condemn it. The Church's disciplinary arm acted on a particular case to protect the faith of the faithful. You probably don't understand this because your own faith is screwed up (as shown in the Feeneyite sub-forum). The Church has, and always will, even condemn truth if it is worded improperly which is prone to mislead the common faithful.

The Holy Office protected the faithful because geocentrism was so closely connected with Holy Scripture and commonly so. At a time when Protestant revolt was disfiguring the faith, the Galileo affair was disturbing the faithful in a sudden wave, and the Holy Office successfully protected the faithful. It appears to be true that the Holy Office considered the danger to be intrinsicly doctrinal, which we know now was a mistake, but it WAS NOT a doctrinal mistake of the magisterium, and in the end it showed itself to be an extrinsic danger to the faith. Extrinsic dangers pass with the passing of time and circuмstance.


See what I mean Bumpy? 300 years of propaganda designed to get people like you to argue that it was just a disciplinary decree that could be overturned. Now where did you get this information from, one of the books or articles invented by the apologists and minimisers?

Well I get my information from the records of the Supreme Congregation of the Inquisition, yes, the very same Holy Office that issued its 1616 decree. In 1820, the question of the authority of the 1616 decree had to be qualified before any change could be considered. Not one theologian dared to say the decree was merely disciplinary, no, because they all knew it was 'irreversible' and binding on all. They  admitted in their docuмent recording the circuмstances of their U-turn that the 1616 decree was forever binding.

So, you ask, how did they do their U-turn and have their irreversible decree and their CAKE (non-heretical heliocentrism)?
They said the heliocentrism condemned as heresy in 1616 was NOT the heliocentrism of 1820. And how so? Well here is the answer that few on this earth know, they said the heliocentrism of Galileo was a 'turbulent' one, whereas the heliocentrism of 1820 was not a 'turbulent' one so was not one condemned but could be believed by all.
Boy would I like to take that matter to a court and see how many would swallow it.



So, your point is that the Church's magisterium reversed a Church teaching?


Quite the opposite Bumpy, the magisterium was cleverly by-passed to make it look like the Church was going along with the dictates of science when in fact it was a reversal of men in the Church, an important distinction.

(The question of a flat-earth never entered the entired Galileo case by the way.)

The magisterium as we know is the term that is used for the infallible teaching of the Church by way of a pope's or doctrinal council's definition of a particular truth that all Catholics must abide by. God promised this magisterium would never teach a falshood. If that happened then the Catholic Church could no longer claim to be divinely guided.

In the Galileo case, the decree of 1616, looked to many philosophers and theologians to have been an error. They believed this in their hearts because they were convinced the 'proofs' claimed by science for a fixed-sun and stars with an orbiting earth were actual proofs.

Every ploy possible was used by these Galileans to try demote the 1616 decree to one of a disciplinary nature. but when it came to it, the magisterium could not contradict itself. Instead most of the officials of the 1820-1835  Holy
Office (there were some who insisted the 1616 decree was safe) found a way PASSED THE MAGISTERIUM that pleased the Copernicans and Galileans.

So no Bumpy, the magisterium did not reverse the Church's teaching, that was done outside the magisterium. And that is the most important aspect of the whole affair for if the magisterium did a U-turn on a defined dogma then all of us on Catholic info are in a religion that makes false claims. Of all my research into the affair the answer to your question is the most important of them all.

50 Plus Reasons The Earth Is Not Flat
« Reply #394 on: March 14, 2017, 08:34:03 AM »
Quote from: Neil Obstat
I find it noteworthy that there has been no intelligent reply to my earlier post:



Why should anyone respond to your post when you don't respond to theirs? You can't give an answer as to where the hundreds of feet of this mountain come from