Just curious to see the breakdown here on CI.
I understand that there could be some permutations of this, so, for instance, you can believe that the earth is flat, but that the universe is vast, or you can be a geocentrist and still believe in a firmament, but just pick the category that's closest to what you believe. I understand that you could be undecided as well, so just pick the model that you lean toward ... the one you'd pick if you were forced to make a choice.
I have not voted.
"Geocentrism: earth is stationary, shaped like a globe…"
Please provide an accepted source, preferably Magisterium, defining that geocentrism demands GE.
In my geocentrism journey, I recall no such definition.
In my geocentrism journey, I recall no such definition.
the universe is vast but heliocentrism has exaggerated the size of it by about 85%. The Sun's not 93,000,000 miles away but much closer.
Lazy drunk, I provided the link: http://judaism.is/cosmology.html If you imagine anything ambiguous about my geocentrism, see the sentence above: I am 100% geocentrist.
What part of "fiercely geocentrist" didn't you understand?
After your brilliant mind and impeccable logic and perishing perspicacity adjudicated that I am a heretical heliocentrist, the plain fact is I am 100% geocentrist and the public record has attested to that for at least a year.
Lazy drunk, I spoon-fed you the link: http://judaism.is/cosmology.html
I took what little you had said on CI -- not elsewhere, especially as it was only recently provided -- and drew conclusions which you have helped me see were erroneous.Happens WAY too often on CI.
Happens WAY too often on CI.
It happens everywhere. Such are the limitations of this medium.It should not happen on a trad Catholic forum.
It should not happen on a trad Catholic forum.
I honestly can't believe the flat Earthism here is real. How is it that a plane from Teniente Julio Gallardo Airport, which is near the very Southern end of Chile, can't take off and find the edge of the flat Earth and fly over it or inspect it for everybody to see the aerial photography? not to mention what we have today from satellites?Are you that guy who thinks the Earth is round because a sphere is perfect and space is 3D?
Are you that guy who thinks the Earth is round because a sphere is perfect and space is 3D?So is belief in flat-earth a new requirement in order to be a trad catholic?
:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
So is belief in flat-earth a new requirement in order to be a trad catholic?
I believe the earth is a globe and fixed, not even spinning and is the center of the universe. The real center is hell, which is a physical place inside the earth, and encapsulates the infinitisimally small "black hole" of nothingness, the real real center, from whence the creatio ex nihilo procured all creation from. This seems the most beautiful model to me, therefore true.That's about what I'd accept if the globe were without a doubt proven to me. And it makes sense as the lowest of all things falls to the "bottom" (or, center, in this case), which is hell.
Here's another one who has struggles with reading comprehension and logic. Servus here is criticizing the REASONS that poster gave for the earth being a globe. Nor did he even remotely imply that this was a "new requirement to be a trad catholic". He's simply disagreeing with him on the issue, and he's entitled to do so.Thanks, me too.
For pretending to be above all the "judgmentalism," you're reading several things into his post that simply isn't there.
I'm really getting fed up with people who simply can't think or reason or properly comprehend things that are written.
That's about what I'd accept if the globe were without a doubt proven to me. And it makes sense as the lowest of all things falls to the "bottom" (or, center, in this case), which is hell.Same. Maybe a circular dome around it too :D
Are you that guy who thinks the Earth is round because a sphere is perfect and space is 3D?Are you another idiot who thinks it's flat? because you're an idiot, of course. I mean that's why it's as flat as your brains. etc. :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2: :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
For geocentrism to make a good case, imho, it can't concede Newtonian "gravity", or Einsteinian relativity, or the light years nonsense. Otherwise it'll get trapped in the heliocentric insanity which is a lot like Feral Rezerve Bank debt ... astronomical nonsense. The best place for geocentrism to start is to get the Earth and Moon details straight, then the other things fall in place.
For geocentrism to make a good case, imho, it can't concede Newtonian "gravity", or Einsteinian relativity, or the light years.
Are you another idiot who thinks it's flat? because you're an idiot, of course. I mean that's why it's as flat as your brains. etc. :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2: :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
I honestly can't believe the flat Earthism here is real. How is it that a plane from Teniente Julio Gallardo Airport, which is near the very Southern end of Chile, can't take off and find the edge of the flat Earth and fly over it or inspect it for everybody to see the aerial photography? not to mention what we have today from satellites?
So, given the one opinion here of geocentrism with a smaller universe, I must say that I am bugged by the geocentrist position that concedes modern science's allegations regarding the size of the universe.I posit that a supernaturally fixed earth as center with a black hole as hell inside it could work with a modern physics model: high gravity causes time dilation so that everything moves slower exponentially closer to the black hole, whence time seems to move so slowly it stops. Imagine a high gravitational field like moving through jelly as opposed to moving freely through air. This would mean the universe is spinning around earth within the limits of physical laws, it's just that it seems to be moving faster because on earth time is slowed down incredibly by the immense gravitational field of hell. This theory could be disproved by people doing space travel and leaving that field and finding there is no big difference, but i think all the space travel stuff so far is a hoax and no one has actually left the firmament and the gravity field.
I ran the numbers to calculate the circuмference of the universe given the diameter. If the entire universe rotated around the earth once per day, then the objects at the outermost regions would be travelling at a rate of about 200,000,000 LIGHT YEARS PER MINUTE, or 3,333,333 LIGHT YEARS PER SECOND.
I know that some claim that, well, God can do anything. Of course. But would he violate what appear to be laws of physics, and make matter travel that much faster than the speed of light?
But how is it possible for items to move at 3,333,333 LIGHT YEARS PER SECOND.
Seems to me that if you're a geocentrist, you absolutely have to hold that the universe is much smaller than science claims. I think that even Donachie's numbers are way too big (you didn't give a size of the entire universe), and would still result on speed past the speed of light.
Does anyone know how Dr. Sungenis explains this?
I did download his book on Hildegard of Bingen (I don't accept "St." since her canonization was 2012 and therefore not worth the paper it was written on). I'm having a hard time finding the actual passage from Hildegard. Based on the subtitle, I was hoping there would be a separate complete text, but there's probably more "commentary" from one guy or another (and his own) than there is actual citations from Hildegard.
I also find it interesting how modern physicists have calculated the age of existence as 14 billion years, which has an odd coincidance of fitting in a with creation being 7200 years old (14 billion/7000 giving an elegant time dilation magnitude of 2million difference between earth and the universe.The arbitrariness of "2 million" (what significance does that number have at all?) aside, you rounded 13.7 up to 14 and 7200 down to 7000. You can't just play with the numbers until you get an even answer, and then say that this random even number is somehow significant.
I did download his book on Hildegard of Bingen (I don't accept "St." since her canonization was 2012 and therefore not worth the paper it was written on). I'm having a hard time finding the actual passage from Hildegard. Based on the subtitle, I was hoping there would be a separate complete text, but there's probably more "commentary" from one guy or another (and his own) than there is actual citations from Hildegard.Well she is certainly Bl. Hildegard at least.
The arbitrariness of "2 million" (what significance does that number have at all?) aside, you rounded 13.7 up to 14 and 7200 down to 7000. You can't just play with the numbers until you get an even answer, and then say that this random even number is somehow significant.Does the bible not play with numbers? E.g the disciples sent out both referred to as the 72 and 70. There's nothing wrong with approximations, it is a natural thing and in a pinch modern man says 14 billion and the catholic says 7000.
The exaggerations are worse than 85% but I got the 85% from a geocentric book. I think the Sun is less than 5,000,000 miles away. Maybe 4,560,000 or so. And it doesn't orbit the Earth because of "gravity". Gravity is not even a lateral force.
The distances of the sun, Earth, moon and planets from each other was the first exercise in astronomy.Interesting. What presuppositons was he operating under? Did he assume a globe Earth and used the distance between SA and Paris according to that model?
Measuring the distance of the sun from the earth and other planets is near impossible without proper instrumentation that Copernicus did not have, let alone use. Estimates based on earth-diameters were all the early astronomers could manage. Ptolemy estimated the sun to be 610 earth-diameters away. Copernicus ‘corrected’ this estimate to 571, which was even further from the actual distance than Ptolemy. The first astronomer to achieve a realistic magnitude for the sun and planets was Domenico Cassini. He estimated the distance of the sun from the earth at 10,305 earth-diameters, now said to be 11,500 earth-diameters. An Earth-diameter is 7,917.5 miles.
‘In 1672 Cassini took advantage of a good opposition of Mars to determine the distance between the Earth and that planet [Mars]. He arranged for Jean Richer (1630-1696) to make measurements from his base in Cayenne, on the north eastern coast of South America, while Cassini made simultaneous measurements in Paris which permitted them to make a triangulation of Mars with a baseline of nearly 10,000 kilometres. This derived a good approximation for the distance between the Earth and Mars, from which Cassini was able to deduce many other astronomical distances. These included the Astronomical Unit [the distance of the sun from the Earth] which Cassini found to be 138 million kilometres, only 11 million kilometres too little [that is, according to today’s measurements].---David Abbot: Astronomers, The Biographical Dictionary of Scientists, Blonde Educational, 1984, p.35
Well she is certainly Bl. Hildegard at least.
Probably, but I didn't look up the actual date for her beatification.Beatified way back in 1326 by Pope John XXII.
So, given the one opinion here of geocentrism with a smaller universe, I must say that I am bugged by the geocentrist position that concedes modern science's allegations regarding the size of the universe.
I ran the numbers to calculate the circuмference of the universe given the diameter. If the entire universe rotated around the earth once per day, then the objects at the outermost regions would be travelling at a rate of about 200,000,000 LIGHT YEARS PER MINUTE, or 3,333,333 LIGHT YEARS PER SECOND.
I know that some claim that, well, God can do anything. Of course. But would he violate what appear to be laws of physics, and make matter travel that much faster than the speed of light?
But how is it possible for items to move at 3,333,333 LIGHT YEARS PER SECOND.
Seems to me that if you're a geocentrist, you absolutely have to hold that the universe is much smaller than science claims. I think that even Donachie's numbers are way too big (you didn't give a size of the entire universe), and would still result on speed past the speed of light.
Does anyone know how Dr. Sungenis explains this?
I did download his book on Hildegard of Bingen (I don't accept "St." since her canonization was 2012 and therefore not worth the paper it was written on). I'm having a hard time finding the actual passage from Hildegard. Based on the subtitle, I was hoping there would be a separate complete text, but there's probably more "commentary" from one guy or another (and his own) than there is actual citations from Hildegard.
Beatified way back in 1326 by Pope John XXII.
Also, I had a thread of some of my impressions of Bobby Sun's book on her visions. Let's say, in all charity, that he definitely stretches them to fit his geocentric-Modern cosmology. And I made a point of purchasing and reading her book after I read his for comparison.
https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/sugenis-hildegard-and-the-cause-of-gravity/
Hildegard was greatly venerated in life and after death [1179 A.D.]. Her biographer, Theodoric, calls her saint, and many miracles are said to have been wrought through her intercession. Gregory IX (1227-41) and Innocent IV (1243-54) ordered a process of information which was repeated by Clement V (1305-14) and John XXII (1316-34). No formal canonization has ever taken place, but her name is in the Roman Martyrology and her feast is celebrated in the Dioceses of Speyer, Mainz, Trier, and Limburg, also in the Abbey of Solesmes, where a proper office is said (Brev. Monast. Tornac., 18 Sept.). When the convent on the Rupertsberg was destroyed in 1632 the relics of the saint were brought to Cologne and then to Eibingen. At the secularization of this convent they were placed in the parish church of the place. In 1857 an official recognition was made by the Bishop of Limburg and the relics were placed on an altar specially built. At this occasion the town of Eibingen chose her as patron. On 2 July, 1900, the cornerstone was here laid for a new convent of St. Hildegard.
I must say that I am bugged by the geocentrist position that concedes modern science's allegations regarding the size of the universe.
I ran the numbers to calculate the circuмference of the universe given the diameter. If the entire universe rotated around the earth once per day, then the objects at the outermost regions would be travelling at a rate of about 200,000,000 LIGHT YEARS PER MINUTE, or 3,333,333 LIGHT YEARS PER SECOND.
I know that some claim that, well, God can do anything. Of course. But would he violate what appear to be laws of physics, and make matter travel that much faster than the speed of light?
But how is it possible for items to move at 3,333,333 LIGHT YEARS PER SECOND.
Seems to me that if you're a geocentrist, you absolutely have to hold that the universe is much smaller than science claims. I think that even Donachie's numbers are way too big (you didn't give a size of the entire universe), and would still result on speed past the speed of light.
Does anyone know how Dr. Sungenis explains this?
Interesting. What presuppositons was he operating under? Did he assume a globe Earth and used the distance between SA and Paris according to that model?
I believe the earth is a globe and fixed, not even spinning and is the center of the universe. The real center is hell, which is a physical place inside the earth, and encapsulates the infinitisimally small "black hole" of nothingness, the real real center, from whence the creatio ex nihilo procured all creation from. This seems the most beautiful model to me, therefore true.I've never seen an explanation like this. I find it very intriguing. I'd have to think about whether "nothing" could inhabit a "physical place." Certainly, though, hell is in the center of a spherical earth, that neither moves nor spins. And I say this because of universal Catholic iconography.
That's about what I'd accept if the globe were without a doubt proven to me. And it makes sense as the lowest of all things falls to the "bottom" (or, center, in this case), which is hell.I'm not intellectually equipped to argue sphere versus globe. I only know that the Church explicitly teaches geo, whereas She does not explicitly teach either globe or flat earth. But Her traditional iconography is invariably globe. Also doesn't Hildegard hold for a globe? I believe with a moral certainty that Hildegard has actually seen the entire universe while in the state of ecstasy.
In the past I ridiculed the idea of hell at the center of the universe, but upon further reflection of the order of all things, and Dante, it does make sense to me. I just don't buy the globe anymore.
So, given the one opinion here of geocentrism with a smaller universe, I must say that I am bugged by the geocentrist position that concedes modern science's allegations regarding the size of the universe.I have an intuitive sense that, just as evolution's billions of years is hogwash, so too is the cabal's assertion that the universe is infinitesimally vast.
I agree, and I have yet to see any real proof that the lights we see in the sky are actually stars (or suns). I've seen very convincing evidence presented that the sun is not in fact a huge fusion machine, but is, rather, electrical in nature. If the sun is electrical in nature, then everything else has been misinterpreted.I think the safest thing to do, is understand the sun to be a material body created to serve the earth (Man), for times and seasons. I like to think in terms of determinations and order. This way my mind does not veer off into places where it can be picked off.
Probably, but I didn't look up the actual date for her beatification.She was greatly esteemed by the Mellifluous Doctor, Bernard.
I'm not intellectually equipped to argue sphere versus globe. I only know that the Church explicitly teaches geo, whereas She does not explicitly teach either globe or flat earth. But Her traditional iconography is invariably globe. Also doesn't Hildegard hold for a globe? I believe with a moral certainty that Hildegard has actually seen the entire universe while in the state of ecstasy.
This (below) is from a book called "Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary" commissioned for the French king Francis I but was completed in 1548 for King Henry II.That's a good image. I'm going to save it, thanks.
Please have a look a the "globe". Sacred Scripture calls the earth (the world) God's footstool, and thus Our Lord's feet are on top of the globe.
But this is NOT NASA's globe, a spherical surface on which people walk, but it's the globe created by the firmament surrounding our world.
Dr. Sungenis used a picture from DaVinci for the cover of his book, but CLEARLY the DaVinci picture suggests the same thing as here below, so his book's cover picture actually exposes the error Sungenis makes throughout his analysis of the Church Fathers, assuming the the word "sphere" refers to NASA's globe rather than THIS notion of Globe.
When I write my piece on "Sungenis: Flat Dishonest" :laugh1: ... I'm going to use this picture here, since this is pretty much the crux of why he's misinterpreting the Church Fathers.
(https://i.ibb.co/qYhD0Gb/Life-Virgin-Mary-facsimile-edition-15.png)
That's a good image. I'm going to save it, thanks.
Didn't you have one from a Dutch artist that was really interesting? I can't find it now.Was it this one from Hieronymous Bosch? It's the outer panel of his "Garden of Earthly Delights"
It looks like a convex mirror but it is not quite it. The closest analogue that comes to mind is those souvenir ‘snow globes‘ that show miniature scenes of various kinds inside their glass balls, often with an effect of the ‘falling snow’ when shaken. With snow or without, this orb does not seem to reflect but rather presents, displays the world inside it, somewhat similar to an old TV set.
Was it this one from Hieronymous Bosch? It's the outer panel of his "Garden of Earthly Delights"
With time the image of Christ holding the Earth globe became widespread, and during the Baroque Period, from the middle of the 17the century on, it is nearly a default version. At the same time we see gradual disappearance of the ‘glass orbs’ that became fairly exceptional.
author of this fine article points out that by the 17th century ...And interestingly, the Challoner Douay-Rheims Bible, (which contains "globe" for gyrum, which was previously "compass" in the 1610 DR Old Testament) was published in the 18th century, 1749-52.
After the Galileo revolution, it starts to get replaced with this --
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3736/33076789614_fc5e0e1b6b_b.jpg)
So it was only LATER that the "earth globe" replaces the original/traditional "snow globe" model.
This is the constant source of confusion. Yes, the WORLD is understood to be a globe, but that's due to the world including the firmament. Part of the bias here that always interprets globe or sphere as NASA's globe/sphere is a denial that the Church Fathers, and all Catholics though the Middle Ages, believed that there is a dome / sphere / or at least hemisphere shaped solid firmament that surrounds the earth. This does not translate into a belief that people walk around on a globe SURFACE of the earth.I understand what you are saying, and I couldn't agree more that NASA is giving us absolute fabrication. They have literally invented their own phantasy universe and hawked it to the world, as if it were real. I suppose that the great majority of human beings believe that they are seeing photos of actual planets, stars, and galaxies, and not digital art.
author of this fine article points out that by the 17th century ...Fascinating.
After the Galileo revolution, it starts to get replaced with this --
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3736/33076789614_fc5e0e1b6b_b.jpg)
So it was only LATER that the "earth globe" replaces the original/traditional "snow globe" model.
Here's another one, from a church, depicting the sun inside the globe (i.e. in the firmament, as Sacred Scripture teaches). It looks like it has the blue of the sky on the top hemisphere and then it gets darker (with a bit of green) on the bottom hemisphere, suggesting that it's earth and grass.Okay, correct me if I am wrong, but a globe or sphere is often used to depict the entire finite material universe. This geometric symbol is especially useful in getting across the idea that the universe is not infinite.
(https://sprezzatura.it/Arte/Trinita_Salimbeni_Montalcin.jpg)
From the 16th century:This is truly interesting.
(https://assets-global.website-files.com/5b8fd783bee52c8fb59b1fac/5c052312758853f966085f1f_143937.jpeg)
‘They do not with regard to the phenomena seek for their reasons and causes but forcibly make the phenomena fit their opinions and preconceived notions and try to reconstruct the universe.’- Aristotle on the PythagoreansAn interesting quote, as it sums up the mentality of modern cosmologists and astronomers quite well; given that their cosmology is nothing less than Pythagorean (the biggest tell being that one acquires "gnosis" of the truths of the universe through mathematics).
Yes, that's the one! Thank you. It could be more clear than it is there.I think we need to determine what is intended by the symbolism in these icons. I don't immediately sense that I am being schooled in cosmology. I sense that I am being schooled in theology.
I think we need to determine what is intended by the symbolism in these icons. I don't immediately sense that I am being schooled in cosmology. I sense that I am being schooled in theology.
Did not St. Thomas teach that the finitude of the material universe - that it had a beginning - is not a truth accessible to the unaided human intellect? That without Divine Revelation, it might be equally surmised that the universe is infinite?As it is impossible to know, definitively, that there is a beginning of the universe outside of Divine Revelation; and God gives us just that, as well as other details pertaining to the cosmos being centralized over and around the earth. That is theological cosmology, in a sense. As it deals not only with the wisdom of God and the nature of the universe.
author of this fine article points out that by the 17th century ...Now this is seriously interesting!
After the Galileo revolution, it starts to get replaced with this --
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3736/33076789614_fc5e0e1b6b_b.jpg)
So it was only LATER that the "earth globe" replaces the original/traditional "snow globe" model.
The two coincide. Just as you noted:As it is impossible to know, definitively, that there is a beginning of the universe outside of Divine Revelation; and God gives us just that, as well as other details pertaining to the cosmos being centralized over and around the earth. That is theological cosmology, in a sense. As it deals not only with the wisdom of God and the nature of the universe.And when the Catholic world - i.e., the hierarchy - got wind of the revolution, they buckled down on the earth's place and position in the material order - not it's material composition or shape. I've always sensed that the fight has to do with motion and position and absolute rest - and above all, with inerrancy of Sacred Writ.
The purpose here being, with this analysis of Catholic art, to show the mindset and conception of the earth that people had during the height of Catholicism in order to better understand what was commonly held before being muddled by "knowledge falsely so called" (1 Tim. 6:20).
And also the location of Heaven as outside the material universe? That's why I asked about Heaven below. Where is Heaven? The iconography suggests it is outside the material universe. I wish I knew more theology right now. :)
P.S. My comment here can be applied to the other pics Lad has posted with Christ outside the globe.
The place looks creepy with anFixed it for you. I am of the opinion that the "resurrectifix" is nothing more than an icon of the Antichrist to come."Ascended Master"Antichrist-looking resurrecifix:
(https://i.imgur.com/iaAAW0X.png)
Now this is seriously interesting!
But again, are we being schooled in cosmology or theology?
Take Fr. Faber for example. Most unfortunately, he was a theologian who nevertheless got snookered by false science, and in his theological works he sometimes makes examples using false science. He does not intend to teach the false science, he intends to teach sound doctrine. But he inadvertently and indirectly disseminates an error through a misapprehension caused by common usage.Yes, he does. I recall him utilizing the "many worlds" heresy to speak of creatures living on other planets and whether or not they need their own Christ. If I can recall where, I'll quote it.
I'm thinking about the speed at the edges of the universe, but can't quite get it. I understand the concept, in that speed is somewhat relative to size ... to a point, but it seems to me that there is some notion of an absolute speed. Is the perception of the effect of speed, however, related to whether there's any inertia that it encounters. So if these outer bodies of the universe are going in circles, what is driving the motion? Gravity? I don't believe in gravity. So what's causing them to turn?Lad, since you say you don't believe in gravity, perhaps you might be interested in exploring quite a fascinating book Dr. Sungenis has authored on the subject of gravity as seen and linked below.
I don't believe in gravity, and at this time I hold the dense physical part of the universe to be orders of magnitude smaller than scientists claim.
Yes, he does. I recall him utilizing the "many worlds" heresy to speak of creatures living on other planets and whether or not they need their own Christ. If I can recall where, I'll quote it.
God made the angels and the stars. The starry world is an overwhelming thing to think of. Its distances are so vast that they frighten us. The number of its separate worlds is so enormous that it bewilders us. Imagine a ray of light, which travels one hundred and ninety-two thou-sand miles in a second; and yet there are stars whose light would take a million of years to reach the earth. We know of two hundred thousand stars down to the ninth magnitude. In one single cluster of stars, eighteen millions of stars have been discovered between the tenth and eleventh magnitudes. Of these clusters men have already discovered more than four thousand. Each of these stars is not a planet, like the earth; but a sun, like our sun, and perhaps with planets round it, like ourselves. Of these suns we know of some which are one hundred and forty-six times brighter than our sun. What an idea all this gives us of the grandeur and magnificence of God! Yet we know that all these stars were created for Jesus and because of Jesus. He is the head and firstborn of all creation. Mary’s Son is the king of the stars. His Precious Blood has something to do with all of them. Just as it merited graces for the angels, so does it merit blessings for the stars. If they have been inhabited before we were, or are inhabited now, or will at some future time begin to be inhabited, their inhabitants, whether fallen and re-deemed, or unfallen and so not meddling to be re-deemed, will owe immense things to the Precious Blood. Yet earth, our little humble earth, will always have the right to treat the Precious Blood with special endearments, because it is its native place. When the angels, as they range through space, see our little globe twinkling with its speck of coloured light, it is to them as the little Holy House in the hollow glen of Nazareth, more sacred and more glorious than the amplest places in starry space.
https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/fr-faber-on-the-cosmos-and-aliens/msg758059/#msg758059
When I have time, I think I'm going to throw together a thread showing how a belief in "many worlds" (i.e. planets, like earth) is heretical.
This (below) is from a book called "Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary" commissioned for the French king Francis I but was completed in 1548 for King Henry II.
Please have a look a the "globe". Sacred Scripture calls the earth (the world) God's footstool, and thus Our Lord's feet are on top of the globe.
But this is NOT NASA's globe, a spherical surface on which people walk, but it's the globe created by the firmament surrounding our world.
Dr. Sungenis used a picture from DaVinci for the cover of his book, but CLEARLY the DaVinci picture suggests the same thing as here below, so his book's cover picture actually exposes the error Sungenis makes throughout his analysis of the Church Fathers, assuming the the word "sphere" refers to NASA's globe rather than THIS notion of Globe.
When I write my piece on "Sungenis: Flat Dishonest" :laugh1: ... I'm going to use this picture here, since this is pretty much the crux of why he's misinterpreting the Church Fathers.
(https://i.ibb.co/qYhD0Gb/Life-Virgin-Mary-facsimile-edition-15.png):popcorn:
Terrific. I'm looking forward to it!
As for that thread the upcoming talk may be of interest to some on this forum:
- Dr. Robert Sugenis November 15, 2022 Did God create aliens? A critique of the new book by Paul Thigpen “Extraterrestrial Intelligence and the Catholic Faith” posted at https://isoc.ws/ (https://isoc.ws/)
…Catholicism is DYING on Earth.…
If anyone is serious about knowing the history of other worlds and aliens, and the condemnations of them by three centuries of Fathers and popes, then that research has been done by the non-Catholic Professor A. A. Martinez in his books. I read Burned Alive and Pythagoras or Christ.I just finished Pythagoras or Christ? myself, which is what I wanted to draw from. Since it's a physical copy, it'll take a little more time on my part to make a thread in between familial and work obligations. It's far easier to do so with ebooks since I don't have to type out all of the quotes/references.
If anyone is serious about knowing the history of other worlds and aliens, and the condemnations of them by three centuries of Fathers and popes, then that research has been done by the non-Catholic Professor A. A. Martinez in his books. I read Burned Alive and Pythagoras or Christ. Since popes adopted an evolved heliocentrism in 1820, and went on to find no fault in aliens on other worlds, all these old heresies were hidden in the Vatican archives. That is why no Catholic dared research the history of faith and science for they would have been classed as anti-Catholic stupid, ignorant, uneducated fundamentalists. When Pope Paul VII allowed heliocentric books to be read by Catholics and believed by them, he decreed that anyone who tried to stop heliocentric books from being read by Catholics would be punished. Today however, because very few Catholics know other worlds that evolved from atoms with aliens on them is heresy to the Catholic faith, then the heresies are material, out of Ignorance that they have long been condemned by the Church. Now when heresies are tolerated in Catholicism, then as Pope St Pius X said:https://www.kolbecenter.org/would-extraterrestrial-intelligent-life-redound-to-the-glory-of-god/
‘We say with St Augustine: ‘In an authority so high, admit but one officious lie, and there will not remain a single passage of those apparently difficult to practice or to believe, which on the same most pernicious rule may not be explained as a lie uttered by the author willfully and to serve a purpose.’ And thus it will come about, the holy Doctor continues, that everybody will believe and refuse to believe what he likes or dislikes. But the modernists pursue their way gaily.’--- St Pius X’s 1907 Pascendi.
One hundred and eighty years after anti-Biblical heretical science was welcomed into Catholicism and after a hundred years of popes telling their Pontifical Academy of Sciences that all this 'science' has enhanced the Catholic faith, Catholicism is DYING on Earth. Faith in the Big Bang has done away with the ex nihilo Creation by God. The priest as scientist is now more revered than the Priest of faith. Go look up all the accolades for Fr Paul Robinson SSPX and other 'priests as scientists,' and you will see how all these heresies are not tolerated but allowed to flourish EVEN in one of the more traditionalist priest societies on Earth.
Now Satan knows that of all the sins pride is the one that can catch 'even the elect' out. And 'knowledge of science gets the most praise today in the Catholic Church. Go read the addresses of popes to his PAS and you will vomit with the praise of those who promote all the Pythagorean heresies of the past. Ant there lies the problem. The PRIDE of churchmen today will never allow them to admit they are the ones who made the errors in 1820 and not the churchmen of 1616 and 1633.
It is true that the Lord, my Creator, took slime from the earth and, with his life-giving breath, gave me a soul and life, honoring me and setting me on the earth as the king of all visible things, enjoying the life of the angels. (Byzantine Daily Worship, Before Lent, At Vespers, Stichera of the Triodion, 1, p. 785).(https://i0.wp.com/www.kolbecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/transfiguration-icon.jpg?resize=427%2C398&ssl=1)
Go look up all the accolades for Fr Paul Robinson SSPX and other 'priests as scientists,' and you will see how all these heresies are not tolerated but allowed to flourish EVEN in one of the more traditionalist priest societies on Earth.And the other half of the Robinson "tag team," Father Kevin Robinson, SSPX has been (and apparently still is) the greatest supporter/promoter of Valtorta and her Poem of the Man God within the ranks of the SSPX. Both of these priests espouse their views freely, but if either of them went public in speaking truth about the h0Ɩ0h0αx they would very quickly realize the temporal consequences of a "sin" of such great magnitude.
Lad, you are certainly not the only one who in your own words is "bugged by the geocentrist position that concedes modern science's allegations regarding the size of the universe." Since I have come to understand geocentrism have strongly suspected that -- and I know it was my own greatest difficulty to overcome at first -- for many, if not easily most, people who consider geocentrism as an alternative to heliocentrism, the most difficult issue to deal with is how in the world an enormous (to put it mildly) universe could revolve around the Earth once every some 24 hours. To do so the outer reaches of the universe would have to be traveling at "zillions times zillions" of miles per second -- obviously much, MUCH faster than the speed of light.
You may wish to run the numbers for comparison's sake, but here is a comparison that was quite useful to me in helping me wrap my head around the incredible super astronomical speed involved with the entire universe going around the Earth every 24 hours. Imagine if you will that you were Planck size. In other words imagine yourself to be REALLY small, i.e., 10 to the negative 35 of a meter. (See https://www.htwins.net/scale2/ (https://www.htwins.net/scale2/)) Now imagine that you were standing on an object in relative terms the size of the Earth and that object sat motionless in a big bowl of water one meter in diameter. Now, for you being only Planck size the outer reaches of that bowl would seem to be of an absolutely incredibly immense distance from the object you stood on.
Now continuing with our thought experiment we could easily imagine that bowl being set on something that would be easily calculated to make it complete one complete revolution every 24 hours while the object at the center which you stood on remained motionless. At the same time other relatively super tiny (compared to the size of the bowl) objects moved about freely while remaining in their same "local" area at the end of each 24 hour period.
In our thought experiment the water in the bowl could be thought of as the ether in the universe. All kinds of things are moving about freely in the water (just as they move about freely in the ether in the universe) while at the same time they are being carried around every 24 hours in one complete revolution. I hope this thought experiment, albeit an imperfect one, helps some people as it certainly did me, come to grips with the incredibly enormous speed involved with our universe revolving around the motionless Earth every approximately 24 hours.
Dr. Sungenis and his co-author Dr. Robert Bennett cover in detail the actual mechanics, if you will, of how the universe does indeed go around a motionless Earth every approximately 24 hours in their outstanding work, Galileo was Wrong: The Church was Right.
This is a question I have asked as well. Is Heaven outside the material universe?Great points, Miser!
From what I can find it looks like the term "universe" refers more to what is described by Kabbala's Ein Sof--an ever expanding result of the Big Bang with no firmament enclosure.
Along these lines I have pondered the title, "Mary, Queen of the Universe".
As far as I can find, the traditional title is, "Mary, Queen of Heaven and Earth".
Does anyone know of older churches under the "universe" title?
There are only a couple churches I can find with the name "Mary, Queen of the Universe" and they are new and modern.
The most notable one is in Orlando, FLA. It serves Walt Disney World and Cape Canaveral.
Apparently Orlando is considered by some to be the largest diocese in the universe because it includes the moon. ::)
https://aleteia.org/2018/08/03/yes-the-moon-has-its-own-catholic-bishop/
The church was designated a shrine by Benedict XVI
The use of the title "Mary, Queen of the Universe" is drawn from section 59 of Lumen gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church issued in 1964 by the Second Vatican Council, which stated: "Finally, the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all guilt of original sin, on the completion of her earthly sojourn, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen of the universe...
...This usage could reflect Orlando's connection to nearby Cape Canaveral, the liftoff point for America's crewed space program, as spaceflight was likely the inspiration for the term."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_Mary,_Queen_of_the_Universe
The place looks creepy with an "Ascended Master" looking resurrecifix:
(https://i.imgur.com/iaAAW0X.png)
Mary and Jesus will be part of the fake alien New Age Ascended Masters show so I'm always looking out for that garbage. You know, the pope says he is ready to baptize the aliens and as I posted the other day, even the Baltimore Catechism says there could be life on other planets out there in the "universe".
Does anybody know of any ancient churches under the title "Mary, Queen of the Universe" or is this title only from the last century?
I'm thinking about the speed at the edges of the universe, but can't quite get it. I understand the concept, in that speed is somewhat relative to size ... to a point, but it seems to me that there is some notion of an absolute speed. Is the perception of the effect of speed, however, related to whether there's any inertia that it encounters. So if these outer bodies of the universe are going in circles, what is driving the motion? Gravity? I don't believe in gravity. So what's causing them to turn?I think the absolute in the universe is absolute rest. For without some body being at absolute rest, there is no possibility of measuring motion, including speed.
I don't believe in gravity, and at this time I hold the dense physical part of the universe to be orders of magnitude smaller than scientists claim.
Indeed, it could be artistic expression rather than a statement about cosmology. These posts were mostly a response to 1) those who say that Christian art uses globes (OK, but that doesn't prove they believed in NASA's version of "globe") and 2) Sungenis using DaVinci's Salvator Mundi as a symbol for (NASA) globe earth.Lad, you have actually helped me to revise my thinking somewhat. Having looked at your icons, I realize that it is not necessarily so easy to use iconography as one's standard of scientific belief. The truth about Christian art, is that it generally teaches doctrine, not physical science, pictorially.
Yet, it is interesting that this snow globe version got replaced after Copernicus and Galileo, and turned into the NASA-looking globe earth.
And my main point is that, yes, indeed, (many of) the Church Fathers believed that the "world" was a globe, but given that they understood the firmament enclosure to be the boundaries of this world, their reference to the globular world doesn't necessarily (and in fact likely doesn't) correspond with NASA's globe earth on which we stand. Fathers also believed that this globular structure was at the boundary of the waters, keeping waters out. So if one reads this globe as the NASA model, then the waters are in contact with the earth.
Yes, he does. I recall him utilizing the "many worlds" heresy to speak of creatures living on other planets and whether or not they need their own Christ. If I can recall where, I'll quote it.And he's not the only one. I think it was Fr. Arnoudt, in the Imitation of the Sacred Heart, who does the same thing. Tsk, tsk. It's been a long time, but I think something erroneous he said made me put down that book.
Lad, since you say you don't believe in gravity, perhaps you might be interested in exploring quite a fascinating book Dr. Sungenis has authored on the subject of gravity as seen and linked below.May we not think of motion in inanimate creation as being caused both by determinate forces of matter, and by Angels?
You ask: "So if these outer bodies of the universe are going in circles, what is driving the motion? Gravity?" I trust you have considered that God may have set them in motion when He created them and that the angels have been put in charge of maintaining and overseeing their movement.
(https://i.imgur.com/tjfu6TB.png)
https://gwwdvd.com/product/a-googolplex-of-tiny-blackholes-a-theory-of-gravity-inertia-and-the-speed-of-light-hardback/
(https://gwwdvd.com/product/a-googolplex-of-tiny-blackholes-a-theory-of-gravity-inertia-and-the-speed-of-light-hardback/)https://www.amazon.com/Googolplex-Tiny-Blackholes-Gravity-Inertia/dp/1939856825 (https://www.amazon.com/Googolplex-Tiny-Blackholes-Gravity-Inertia/dp/1939856825)
A Googolplex of Tiny Blackholes: A Theory of the Cause of Gravity, Inertia and the Speed of Light Hardcover – July 23, 2016
by Robert Sungenis (https://gwwdvd.com/product/a-googolplex-of-tiny-blackholes-a-theory-of-gravity-inertia-and-the-speed-of-light-hardback/)
For centuries scientists have been trying to find the physical cause of gravity, but to no avail. Newton, for all his scientific prowess, could only tell us how fast the apple fell to Earth, but he had little clue why it fell. Likewise, Einstein merely gave us a mathematical model of gravity (i.e., 'a warping of spacetime' ), but he could never explain what precisely space is or how it could warp. Others like Berkeley, LeSage, and Lorentz also gave us theories, but none were able to answer all that gravity requires to be explained. Borrowing from a concept that St. Hildegard of Bingen described in her many inspired visions of the world, Robert Sungenis has applied her insights to what we know from modern science, particularly quantum mechanics, and has theorized the physical cause of not only gravity, but the equally puzzling phenomenon of inertia; as well as telling us why the speed of light is sometimes c, and why it can exceed c. In the end, this theory of gravity, inertia and light helps us fully understand the account of creation in Genesis 1 in the light of modern science.
************************************************************************************************
In the Introduction of Dr. Sungenis' book he states: "Each historical view of gravity has provided a step toward understanding its cause, but no theory has been able to bridge the gap and provide the actual cause. This book seeks to take what is true from all the theories of gravity and combine it with a new understanding of the constitution of space, which in turn will explain the actual cause of not only gravity, but inertia; as well as why the speed of light is c in our terrestrial environment; the cause for "action-at-a-distance"; the cause for "entanglement"; the cause for the anomalous rotation rate for spiral galaxies; the cause for the strong and weak nuclear forces; and the reason gravity can travel beyond c. In brief, it will be shown than understanding of space as composed of Planck-dimension particles (e.g., a googoplex of black holes) will provide the physical cause for all these phenomena."
**************************************************************************************************
Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googolplex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googolplex)
Allow me to elaborate on my thought experiment above a bit more. I could be a slightly off on my measurements, but from what I can see there appears to be somewhat of a consensus among most mainstream astrophysicists that the diameter of the known/observable universe is some 92 billion light years, i.e., 10 raised to the positive 26 meter. Also, most would appear to agree that the smallest theoretical particle would be of Planck size, i.e., 10 raised to the negative 35 of a meter. A man just under 5'11" would in scientific notation be measured at 1.8 raised to 0 meter.
What all this means is that if we are to accept the above measurements (give or take a little) the midpoint between the smallest theoretical size/particle and the largest known/observable object would be in the order of 10 raised to the negative 4 or 5 of a meter, i.e about the size of an ovum (human egg), the largest cell in the human body which is just slightly less than the width of a human hair. If we follow this line of thought out it would mean that if we were of Planck size and standing at the center of our imaginary universe, i.e., our 1 meter wide bowl of water, the bowl of water would in terms of relative size be about ten thousand to one hundred thousand times bigger than our actual known/observable universe is to us. (Yes, we would have to modify the thought experiment to make the bowl into a big spherical/globe container of water.) This all assumes, of course, that the diameter of this universe is actually some 92 billion light years.
And he's not the only one. I think it was Fr. Arnoudt, in the Imitation of the Sacred Heart, who does the same thing. Tsk, tsk. It's been a long time, but I think something erroneous he said made me put down that book.I've read it four times, what error did he say in that book specifically?
I just voted geocentrism but I'm close to leaning towards flat earth, too.Flat earth is inherently geocentric. No distinction really need be made
Can't there be flat earth and geocentrism, too?
Flat earth is inherently geocentric. No distinction really need be made
Flat earth is inherently geocentric. No distinction really need be made
I agree, but for the purposes of the poll, I was interested in knowing who were globe geocentrists and who were FE geocentrists ... meaning just a breakdown of the numbers / percentages.I don’t understand how one can consider themselves a traditional Catholic and hold to atheistic, evolutionary modern cosmology.
It wasn't too long ago that FEs were a ridiculed minority banished to a ghetto subforum. We now have a nearly 50-50 split. I am curious about how there could be 8 people though who buy the "modern science" explanation when it's being discredited as we speak even among "mainstream" scientists ... with Kaku talking about the crisis in cosmology with an orders-of-magnitude mismatch between theory and observation.
May we not think of motion in inanimate creation as being caused both by determinate forces of matter, and by Angels?
And do you really believe that the universe is 92 billion light years in diameter. I don't, not for one second. Scientists can barely get anything right, much less something that difficult. They've just been exposed apparently by Webb in terms of their contention that the universe is expanding. Red Shift has been exposed as a fraud (though this has been suppressed), and their gravitational theories about the universe have been completely debunked ... to the point that they had to invent dark matter. Another debunking has been their notion that the sun is some fusion furnace. There's convincing evidence that is is NOT. So even the basic things things about our closest star they get wrong, and they then use these assumption about "our star" to pretend they can then draw inferences about other stars. But all these other things were wrong.In answer to your question, I neither believe nor disbelieve the universe is some 92 billion light years in diameter. I was merely referring to what I perceived to be a "consensus among most mainstream astrophysicists." My full statement was, "I could be a slightly off on my measurements, but from what I can see there appears to be somewhat of a consensus among most mainstream astrophysicists that the diameter of the known/observable universe is some 92 billion light years, i.e., 10 raised to the positive 26 meter." What I do believe, however, is something Sungenis & Bennett have explained very well in their masterpiece work Galileo was Wrong: The Church was Right -- that the laws of science would not be in opposition to the entire universe spinning around the Earth not simply once in a 24 hour period, but a million, billion or trillion times in a 24 hour period!
I don't believe anything these people tell me.
What I do believe, however, is something Sungenis & Bennett have explained very well in their masterpiece work Galileo was Wrong: The Church was Right -- that the laws of science would not be in opposition to the entire universe spinning around the Earth not simply once in a 24 hour period, but a million, billion or trillion times in a 24 hour period!
Maybe, but I'm not seeing it ... yet. Of course Sungenis refuses to consider that NASA is totally full of it and that the World is much smaller and that the lights that science claim are balls of fire (fusion engines) billions of light years away are actually much closer and much smaller and of a different nature than the sunTo be fair to Dr. Sugenis here, he does actually consider the possibility, although he doesn't seem to accept it based on his other writings.
Lastly, modern science itself admits that we cannot be certain about the distance to the stars. The only empirical method (that is, one that is not based on a theory that lacks scientific proof) of determining the distance to the stars is stellar parallax, but it can estimate distances only to about 300 light years. Even then, stellar parallax is based on the assumption that vast distances separate the two stars being viewed in the telescope. Although we presently work from the assumption given to us by modern astronomy that the stars are very large and very far away, there is no proof for that conclusion. The stars could be very close and smaller than presently believed. Even with the finest optical instruments, the stars and galaxies remain as mere points of light through our telescope lenses. No one has ever obtained a finer focal point, which means either that they are very small or very far away.
-The Geocentric Universe according to St. Hildegard, p. 42
Sungenis' notion of an infinitely-dense and yet fluid substance just sounds to me like a huge stretch, an ad hoc theory,Wrong! The idea of a super dense and yet super fluid or flexible substance is not some sort of notion, much less some sort of ad hoc theory that Sungenis came up with. It is and has been for many centuries referred to as ether or aether. It is at the very heart or core of a good understanding of geocentrism.
Wrong! The idea of a super dense and yet super fluid or flexible substance is not some sort of notion, much less some sort of ad hoc theory that Sungenis came up with. It is and has been for many centuries referred to as ether or aether.
To be fair to Dr. Sugenis here, he does actually consider the possibility, although he doesn't seem to accept it based on his other writings.
Yes, I'm fully aware of ether, but the notion that it's infinitely dense is a novel attribute ascribed to it by Sungenis to explain how there could be a "firmament" that the Church Fathers considered to be a solid substance and that is yet compatible with the notion of the vacuum of space. It's not. There is no vacuum of space.Lad, with all due respect, I assert that you are in error, quite serious error at that, in claiming that the ultra dense (or "infinitely dense" as you call it) attribute ascribed to ether by Dr. Sungenis is a novel one from him. That characteristic or attribute assigned to ether has been around for ages. (In a word, the "Planck loop" is the super tiny entity of indivisibility the Greeks had first called the "atom.")
Lad, with all due respect, I assert that you are in error, quite serious error at that, ...
Also, just because the good doctor is not a Flat Earther does not mean that he buys into everything NASA disseminates.
No one said he buys EVERYTHING NASA disseminates, just that he buys way too much of it. He acknowledges a single instance of NASA fraud (where in point of fact entire books can be written about it that would be larger than his anti-FE book), and then euphemizes the fraud as a "foible".Can't you just give it a rest on Sungenis and NASA? There's more to his life than the FE/G Question. You sound as though you don't even come close to realizing that he openly rejects a huge amount of stuff that NASA spews out. In general he recognizes it as an extremely evil, lying enterprise. If you don't believe me ask him yourself and let him personally prove it to you.
This putative "firmament" made of Planck particles is not capable of keeping water outside the earth.It's not intended to. I would suggest you learn a bit more about Planck particles.
It's not intended to. I would suggest you learn a bit more about Planck particles.
Can't you just give it a rest on Sungenis and NASA? There's more to his life than the FE/G Question. You sound as though you don't even come close to realizing that he openly rejects a huge amount of stuff that NASA spews out. In general he recognizes it as an extremely evil, lying enterprise. If you don't believe me ask him yourself and let him personally prove it to you.
Go ahead and read is 700+ page book, where he spends a great deal of it defending NASA against FE. He rejects "a huge amount" only when it contradicts his theories, but then accepts whatever backs up his theories. Of course, he says that both NASA and FE are wrong ... and only he is right and capable of deciding when NASA is wrong. But if FEs argue that NASA is wrong, well, they're wrong about NASA being wrong. :facepalm:There you go again in speaking about "his theories." When you put forth your assertions about FE why not refer to them as "my theories" or "Ladislaus' theories?" You seem to do a lot of projecting in tearing into Sungenis because he doesn't buy into your sacred FE cow, even by such exorbitant claims as above where you state that he "says that both NASA and FE are wrong ...and only he is right and capable of deciding when NASA is wrong." Here you've clearly gone into unwarranted hyperbolic overdrive attack. In his entire FE book (have you read it yet?) Sungenis never said that!
This putative "firmament" made of Planck particles is not capable of keeping water outside the earth.Says who? Are you an "expert" on what would be the theoretical nature of a putative "firmament" made of Plank particles?
Says who? Are you an "expert" on what would be the theoretical nature of a putative "firmament" made of Plank particles?
I would suggest you debate Sungenis rather than singing to the choir in playing to your loyal FE fan base.
So "I would suggest you learn a bit more" about what Sungenis said in that debate.
1) you just conceded that it wasn't "meant to". So now it IS meant to?I didn't say "meant to," but rather "intended to." Nevertheless you are right on that. As for #2 I would hope (beyond hope?) that you would present your case directly to Sungenis. Like Mark 79 (remember him?) the FE question is not really my bag.
2) this entire universe being filled with an infinite density of these things doesn't stop "bigger" matter from flowing around and moving in it ... it can't
I would suggest you debate Sungenis rather than singing to the choir in playing to your loyal FE fan base.I mean, if we're going to go that route, then no more discussions about any particular persons unless you are going to debate them directly. This includes priests, bishops, and other trads that one disagrees with. :facepalm:
I mean, if we're going to go that route, then no more discussions about any particular persons unless you are going to debate them directly. This includes priests, bishops, and other trads that one disagrees with. :facepalm:Dear Hero Member,
Disagree with +Barron? No talking about it here. Call him up and challenge him to a debate, Dimond-style. Francis? No criticisms. Send him an email, call the Vatican or seek out his Nuncio.
Voicing criticisms of the works and positions of certain individuals is part-and-parcel of being on a forum. It is not calumny or detraction or anything of the sort to criticize the positions of someone who has made themselves a public figure on a subject. If Lad were actually making threads of complete falsities about Dr. Sugenis, then yes, you both would have a point. But just because you have a particular personal attachment to him, does not make his works beyond open criticism.
I would suggest you debate Sungenis rather than singing to the choir in playing to your loyal FE fan base.
It's not intended to. I would suggest you learn a bit more about Planck particles.
Did you really just break out the cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ narrative to discredit Planck? :laugh2:I like the font
the originator of quantum theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics),[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck#cite_note-5) which revolutionized human understanding of atomic and subatomic processes
Alas, we "understand" next to nothing about these processes, that's why it's one "revolution" after another. One of the Church Fathers pointed this out even in his era, that it was one theory after another displacing and overturning the previous one.In other words, for modern science, it's turtles all the way down. Regress upon regress forever.
I just the other day watched a video by a Flat Earther who presented video from professor who taught at MIT for 40 years. This professor stated that gravity has no role to play whatsoever in terms of holding / drawing the earth together, for up to thousands of kilometers, that it's all about electric forces, which are much stronger than gravity. But then he states that the electrical forces are not strong enough to have planets rotating around one another, and that's where gravity comes in. Finally, at the sub-atomic level, there are different forces involved. This highlights that gravity was simply invented (never proven in any way) simply to come up with an explanation for modern cosmology. Of courses, it's all blowing up right now, as they had to invent "dark matter" to explain why what they (claim to) see in the universe doesn't work with the known "laws" of "gravity".
I find quantum theory to be total bunk, the mathematical fantasy world derided by Tesla. Even Planck himself felt that the math was somewhat contrived and did not discover anything new about reality in its substance. I don't believe in things in nature that are non-deterministic. Everything is cause and effect, and the system just means that people don't truly understand what's actually going on.
Alas, we "understand" next to nothing about these processes, that's why it's one "revolution" after another. One of the Church Fathers pointed this out even in his era, that it was one theory after another displacing and overturning the previous one.Quantum theory is bogus. Atheists keep using it to discard the principle of non-contradiction and laws of logic.
I just the other day watched a video by a Flat Earther who presented video from professor who taught at MIT for 40 years. This professor stated that gravity has no role to play whatsoever in terms of holding / drawing the earth together, for up to thousands of kilometers, that it's all about electric forces, which are much stronger than gravity. But then he states that the electrical forces are not strong enough to have planets rotating around one another, and that's where gravity comes in. Finally, at the sub-atomic level, there are different forces involved. This highlights that gravity was simply invented (never proven in any way) simply to come up with an explanation for modern cosmology. Of courses, it's all blowing up right now, as they had to invent "dark matter" to explain why what they (claim to) see in the universe doesn't work with the known "laws" of "gravity".
I find quantum theory to be total bunk, the mathematical fantasy world derided by Tesla. Even Planck himself felt that the math was somewhat contrived and did not discover anything new about reality in its substance. I don't believe in things in nature that are non-deterministic. Everything is cause and effect, and the system just means that people don't truly understand what's actually going on.
I find quantum theory to be total bunk, the mathematical fantasy world derided by Tesla. Even Planck himself felt that the math was somewhat contrived and did not discover anything new about reality in its substance. I don't believe in things in nature that are non-deterministic. Everything is cause and effect, and the system just means that people don't truly understand what's actually going on.
Most leading ‘experts’ in quantum physics today will go before the cameras and tell us that in their quantum world the movements of atoms are always uncertain, the outcome based on probabilities with nothing absolutely predictable.
And they may be unpredictable, but that's only quoad nos, meaning that WE can't predict them because we don't know enough about the the true causes of the movements. Einstein was right that God didn't create some kind of random substrate beneath all of material creation. Everything is cause and effect.Exactly, theoretical physics is basically philosophy masquerading as science. It's really not that hard to realize there cannot exist anything truly random. Instead of going from first principles to advanced conclusions these jokers try to disprove first principles by appealing to uncertain conclusions.
Of course, removing the cause and effect chain is one way to take God out of the picture (since God as the First Cause is one of the top proofs for His existence).
I agree.Wolfgang Smith was certainly a giant. He remains a giant. That said, what are we to make of this truly damning report of his going so seriously astray? The report is brought to you by the same individual who has perhaps done more than any other to expose the fake Sister Lucy? See Fall of a Giant? (http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2021/04/traditionalist-occult-neo-modernism.html)
‘A great deal of what we call science is scientism, which is to say that it’s ideology driven. What we are facing here is not “science,” properly so called, but a kind of “religion” you can say. It’s something people are passionate about. It’s something they defend, and it is something for which they are willing to attack. So a great deal of our so-called science is ideology. And, in fact, it is the ideology which is presently manifesting in all the different cultural domains of our civilization, including the political.’ ---Wolfgang Smith, series The End of Quantum Reality
This putative "firmament" made of Planck particles is not capable of keeping water outside the earth.Can you prove that?
Wolfgang Smith was certainly a giant. He remains a giant. That said, what are we to make of this truly damning report of his going so seriously astray? The report is brought to you by the same individual who has perhaps done more than any other to expose the fake Sister Lucy? See Fall of a Giant? (http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2021/04/traditionalist-occult-neo-modernism.html)https://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2021/04/traditionalist-occult-neo-modernism.html (https://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2021/04/traditionalist-occult-neo-modernism.html)
Wolfgang Smith was certainly a giant. He remains a giant. That said, what are we to make of this truly damning report of his going so seriously astray? The report is brought to you by the same individual who has perhaps done more than any other to expose the fake Sister Lucy? See Fall of a Giant? (http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2021/04/traditionalist-occult-neo-modernism.html)Yes, In Quest of Catholicity killed my esteem for both Dr. Smith and Malachi Martin in one fell swoop. I was already on the fence about Dr. Smith once I read his work Christian Gnosis. Both of which are religious-syncretist (see: Modernist) works, not Catholic.
Can you prove that?
It's obvious. If the entire universe is filled with these infinitely dense particles, and yet things move freely about, these particles (assuming they even exist) do not suffice to keep anything from moving.Yes, obviously things move around freely in their local area, but the theory is that the ether made up of Planck particles at the same time holds them in their localized setting so as to prevent them from going upstream so to speak. "They" are all forced to go around the Earth once every some 24 hours whether "they" like it or not!
How would flat earth account for the midnight sun observed near both the Artic and Antarctic?
Yes, obviously things move around freely in their local area, but the theory is that the ether made up of Planck particles at the same time holds them in their localized setting so as to prevent them from going upstream so to speak. "They" are all forced to go around the Earth once every some 24 hours whether "they" like it or not!
BTW, for anyone who may be interested -- the Planck length at approximately 10 to the negative 35 meters is presently the smallest distance theoretically possible for separated entities of matter to exist (i.e., the state in which matter is indivisible), Whereas the electron of the atom is 10 to the negative 15 meters, the Planck loop clocks is 20 orders of magnitude smaller. So...if an electron were the size of the Earth, a Planck particle would be about the size of an electron!
As for gravity, which if I understand correctly from your past assertions you don't believe in, Dr. Sungenis proposes -- and I stress the word proposes not declares or pontificates -- the following as one possible explanation, an explanation which he does indeed promote as theoretically tenable -- again as a proposal not as any sort of certainty. This is taken verbatim from his book A Googoplex of Tiny Blackholes: "Since nature abhors a vacuum, the Planck-particles will attempt to relieve the vacuum by reuniting the Planck-particles outside the Earth with those inside the Earth. More specifically, the partial vacuum of Planck-particles inside the Earth will attempt to pull in the Planck-particles outside the Earth so as to relieve the vacuum. The attempt to relieve the vacuum is what we know as gravity. The gravitational force persist because the Planck-particles are unable to completely relieve the vacuum." There is a lot packed into that and much of the content of the book unpacks/explains it.
As for your first paragraph, I'm not talking about the dense matter causing everything to revolve, but rather about whether these particles have the inherent capability of preventing the flow of water for instance, and they clearly do not, as they're everywhere, and everywhere except for in solid matter (as we know it), we see free movement.OK Lad, say as you wish. There's not much point in me going back and forth with you on this subject as apparently you refuse to read Sungenis' book on this subject matter where he explains and explains and explains.
As for the third paragraph, Dr. Sungenis says that any vacuum is metaphysically impossible, so how can these particles fail to fill a vacuum?
OK Lad, say as you wish. There's not much point in me going back and forth with you on this subject as apparently you refuse to read Sungenis' book on this subject matter where he explains and explains and explains.
Just one thing more though. You assert here: "Dr. Sungenis says that any vacuum is metaphysically impossible" This is quite a claim on your part. Please back it up with exact easily verifiable proof of same such as a direct quote from him in a book or article or a statement by him in a video or an audio clip with the time frame for same. (Hint: You apparently don't have a clue as to the nature of the vacuum Sungenis refers to. This would make sense if you haven't read his book where he explains it.)
There is no midnight sun in Antarctica.
You're clearly deeply confused about this matter. YOU yourself stated that this idea of infinitely dense space is predicated on the notion that nothing cannot exist (i.e. the metaphysical impossibility of there being nothing), and I've head Sungenis stating the same principle in some of his talks and interviews.
Either there can be "empty space" or there can't.
You repeatedly contradict yourself. You YOURSELF stated earlier that empty space cannot exist, but then cited something about these particles being unable to fill ... empty space (a vacuum).
Dr. Sungenis says that any vacuum is metaphysically impossible, so how can these particles fail to fill a vacuum?You assert here: "Dr. Sungenis says that any vacuum is metaphysically impossible" This is quite a claim on your part. Please back it up (or unambiguously retract it) with exact easily verifiable proof of same such as a direct quote from him in a book or article or a statement by him in a video or an audio clip with the time frame for same. (Hint: You apparently don't have a clue as to the nature of the vacuum Sungenis refers to. This would make sense if you haven't bothered to read his less than 50 page book on the subject matter which you apparently have not.)
Nevertheless, man has a few different theories as to what causes universal gravity. That next.
Any evidence for Universal Movement?
Finally, there was Kepler, who once thought magnetism might account for the movements of celestial objects, but decided against pursuing the idea. Newton however, while taking advantage of its effects of its attraction, was unable to show any connection at all between his theory and electromagnetism.
Terrific. I'm looking forward to it!
As for that thread the upcoming talk may be of interest to some on this forum:
- Dr. Robert Sugenis November 15, 2022 Did God create aliens? A critique of the new book by Paul Thigpen “Extraterrestrial Intelligence and the Catholic Faith” posted at https://isoc.ws/ (https://isoc.ws/)
In pushing heliocentrism Galileo was found to be suspect of heresy. Query as to whether the Church has ever found anyone suspect of heresy for pushing globe earth or for that matter flat earth.
In pushing heliocentrism Galileo was found to be suspect of heresy. Query as to whether the Church has ever found anyone suspect of heresy for pushing globe earth or for that matter flat earth.The book "Pythagoras or Christ?" by A.A. Martinez does mention something about the shape of the earth, but not necessarily a formal condemnation. I'll try to remember to quote it when I get home later tonight.
From a letter of Pope St. Zachary (1 May, 748), addressed to St. Boniface, we learn that the great Apostle of Germany had invoked the papal censure upon a certain missionary among the Bavarians named Vergilius, generally supposed to be identical with the renowned Ferghil, an Irishman, and later Archbishop of Salzburg. Among other alleged misdeeds and errors was numbered that of holding "that beneath the earth there was another world and other men, another sun and moon". In reply, the Pope directs St. Boniface to convoke a council and, "if it be made clear" that Vergilius adheres to this "perverse teaching, contrary to the Lord and to his own soul", to "expel him from the Church, deprived of his priestly dignity".
They fail to notice that, even should it be believed or demonstrated that the world is round or spherical in form, it does not follow that the part of the earth opposite to us is not completely covered with water, or that any conjectured dry land there should be inhabited by men.
As of today the current poll numbers are the following:I'll guess the poll outside the fe forum would turn out 62% heliocentric, 25% geocentric, 11% flat earth, 2% other.
What model do you believe most accurately describes the cosmos?
Modern Science: earth revolves around barycenter of solar system as solar system moves through space, etc.
16 (25%)
Geocentrism: earth is stationary, shaped like a globe, and the vast universe revolves around it
22 (34.4%)
Flat Earth: earth is stationary, the surface we live on is flat, covered by a physical firmament, and the universe is closer than we're told
20 (31.3%) Other
6 (9.4%)
Total Members Voted: 64
***************************************
Query as to what they would be if the poll was held on one of the more populated forums on CI. I wonder if Matthew would allow it.
The earth is flat. It's in Scripture. And how sad that 25% of Catholics here believe "modern science" and its deceptions.
The earth is flat. It's in Scripture.
Why do you think the Church has not condemned globe earth like they condemned helicoentrism?
Why do you think the Church has not condemned globe earth like they condemned helicoentrism?For the same reason it didn't condemn evolution.
Why do you think the Church has not condemned globe earth like they condemned helicoentrism?
For the same reason it didn't condemn evolution.Ha! You beat me to it. :)
That part does bother me. I get the geocentrists who are not FE ... but the number of people who uncritically accept modern science doesn’t bode well for Traditional Catholicism. When neo-SSPX promotes Fr. Robinson’s Modernist book, you know it’s over for them.
Science per se doesn’t mean Modernism of course, but to accept the claims of modern science requires doing violence to Sacred Scripture that is inevitably at least subtly Modernist even in the most conservative attempts.
The geocentric globalists pretend it isn't a tangible thing, that the term "firmament" is a casual reference to the air or the atmosphere. But if disregard for the reality of the firmament isn't bad enough, I wonder where on their model all the water above the firmament is? Genesis says all the water was divided, presumably in half, and some remained on earth and the rest was retained above the firmament. Again, too embarrassed to promote the idea of space water, the geocentric globalists prefer to believe scripture shouldn't be taken literally whenever it inconveniences their dangling space ball.
How do the geocentrists who are not FE account for the firmament in Sacred Scripture 23 times?
Hmm? The silence seems deafening. I didn't mean to kill the thread with that one simple question.Wow! Happy to know the thread has suddenly come back to life again!
How do the geocentrists who are not FE account for the firmament in Sacred Scripture 23 times?
Here is as good a meaning as you will get.
The firmament is the curve of the sky, especially if you imagine it as a solid surface. You can describe the sky at night as a firmament shining with stars.
The word firmament comes from the Latin firmus, or "firm," and this description of the sky as something solid reflects ancient ideas of the way the universe was constructed. The first stargazers imagined the sky as a sphere,
My understanding of the firmament is the space created as the universe. Both FEs and GEs know that outside the Earth is that space. As for the waters well the clouds for one are waters and they are separated from the part of the firmament between the Earth and the clouds. There is no big mystery to this as some make out. These same waters would be used by God to flood the whole Earth.
So, let us see this in the light of the private revelations to Sister Mary of Jesus, known as Mary of Agreda (1602-1665), a nun known to have bilocated over 500 times to America without leaving her convent in Spain. The following are insights, dictated to her, she said, by the Virgin Mary herself in 1637, a mere four years after Galileo’s trial. Her three-volume work was entitled; ‘The Mystical City of God’ also known as ‘The Divine History and Life of the Virgin Mother of God.’ These revelations to Venerable Maria, whose body now lies miraculously incorrupt in a Franciscan Monastery in Spain, have withstood many years of investigation and even misinterpretation that caused them to be placed on the Index in 1681 but lifted after 3 months of inspection before receiving approbations from popes as a way to gain a deeper understanding of the Catholic faith in line with traditional Church teaching.
Mary of Agreda wrote: 'In the same instant, and as it were in the third and last place, God determined to create a locality and an abode, where the incarnate Word and his Mother should converse and dwell. For them primarily He created the heaven [the firmament] and Earth with its stars and elements and all that is contained in them . Of the first day Moses says that “In the beginning God created heaven and Earth.” And before creating intellectual and rational creatures, desiring also the order of executing these works to be most perfect, He created heaven for angels and men, and the Earth as a place of pilgrimage for mortals. These places are so adapted to their end and so perfect that as [King] David says of them, the heavens publish the glory of the Lord, the firmament and the Earth announce the glory of the work of his hands (Ps.18:2)… Of the Earth Moses says that it was void, which he does not say of the heavens, for God had created the angels at the instant indicated by the word of Moses: “God said: Let there be light, and light was made.” He speaks here not only of material light, but also of the intellectual or angelic lights… God created the Earth co-jointly with the heavens in order to call into existence hell in its centre; for, at the instant of its creation, there were left in the interior of that globe, spacious and wide cavities, suitable for hell, purgatory and limbo. And in hell was created at the same time material fire and other requisites, which now serve for the punishment of the damned.'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhX8BZz6RiA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhX8BZz6RiA)
Go listen to 20.30 minutes. Up to then he has been talking about Scripture and tradition as the truth. Didn't all the Fathers, tradition, and the 1616 decree define sunrise as the sun actually rising in the East and those who reject this are formal heretics. Could someone let him know this.Anyway, let him carry on.I just want to know where east is located on a globe.
So do you believe in the ever expanding universe and outer space? The Ein Sof?
Is there a circle that surrounds the ball earth? A circle at the edge of the ever expanding universe where Heaven begins?
I've never seen a picture of it. Have you?
Mary of Agreda's depiction seems compatible to this:
I do not believe in an expanding universe for that would suggest it is infinite. A heliocentric universe could be said to be infinite. A geocentric universe proves it cannot be infinite.Sorry to hear, I will pray for your friends.
The ever expanding stars, not the universe, comes from Hubble's interpretation of the red-shift of stars. Robert Gentry wrote that many scientists disputed this interpretation. Anyway, it was extrapolated back to a big bang beginning.
Few know that Copernicus wrote:
'‘But if someone opines that the Earth revolves, he will also say that the movement is natural and not violent. Now things which are according to nature produce effects contrary to those that are violent… and are kept in their best organization. Therefore, Ptolemy had no reason to fear that the Earth and all things on the Earth would be scattered.’ --- On the Revolutions, Book 1, par 8.'
In other words a geocentric universe could cause an expansion of the stars
I have seen many pictures of heaven above. Heaven is up there, that is all we know about the place of heaven. Aquinas said Hell has to be the furthest place away from heaven.
Just got a phone call as I was writing this to tell me an old friend has just died. Don was his name, a great Catholic whose wife died some time ago. She wanted to die because the world has been taken over by Satan. A prayer for the repose of his soul would be appreciated.
I suppose we have to get our priorities right
Go listen to 20.30 minutes. Up to then he has been talking about Scripture and tradition as the truth. Didn't all the Fathers, tradition, and the 1616 decree define sunrise as the sun actually rising in the East and those who reject this are formal heretics. Could someone let him know this.Anyway, let him carry on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhX8BZz6RiA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhX8BZz6RiA)
:pray:
Just got a phone call as I was writing this to tell me an old friend has just died. Don was his name, a great Catholic whose wife died some time ago. She wanted to die because the world has been taken over by Satan. A prayer for the repose of his soul would be appreciated.
I suppose we have to get our priorities right
Here is as good a meaning as you will get.Again, it's ambiguous. Could be a snow globe. I'll concede that this is the best citation from the globe side I've seen so far since the context actually indicates a globe earth more than a snow globe.
The firmament is the curve of the sky, especially if you imagine it as a solid surface. You can describe the sky at night as a firmament shining with stars.
The word firmament comes from the Latin firmus, or "firm," and this description of the sky as something solid reflects ancient ideas of the way the universe was constructed. The first stargazers imagined the sky as a sphere,
My understanding of the firmament is the space created as the universe. Both FEs and GEs know that outside the Earth is that space. As for the waters well the clouds for one are waters and they are separated from the part of the firmament between the Earth and the clouds. There is no big mystery to this as some make out. These same waters would be used by God to flood the whole Earth.
So, let us see this in the light of the private revelations to Sister Mary of Jesus, known as Mary of Agreda (1602-1665), a nun known to have bilocated over 500 times to America without leaving her convent in Spain. The following are insights, dictated to her, she said, by the Virgin Mary herself in 1637, a mere four years after Galileo’s trial. Her three-volume work was entitled; ‘The Mystical City of God’ also known as ‘The Divine History and Life of the Virgin Mother of God.’ These revelations to Venerable Maria, whose body now lies miraculously incorrupt in a Franciscan Monastery in Spain, have withstood many years of investigation and even misinterpretation that caused them to be placed on the Index in 1681 but lifted after 3 months of inspection before receiving approbations from popes as a way to gain a deeper understanding of the Catholic faith in line with traditional Church teaching.
Mary of Agreda wrote: 'In the same instant, and as it were in the third and last place, God determined to create a locality and an abode, where the incarnate Word and his Mother should converse and dwell. For them primarily He created the heaven [the firmament] and Earth with its stars and elements and all that is contained in them . Of the first day Moses says that “In the beginning God created heaven and Earth.” And before creating intellectual and rational creatures, desiring also the order of executing these works to be most perfect, He created heaven for angels and men, and the Earth as a place of pilgrimage for mortals. These places are so adapted to their end and so perfect that as [King] David says of them, the heavens publish the glory of the Lord, the firmament and the Earth announce the glory of the work of his hands (Ps.18:2)… Of the Earth Moses says that it was void, which he does not say of the heavens, for God had created the angels at the instant indicated by the word of Moses: “God said: Let there be light, and light was made.” He speaks here not only of material light, but also of the intellectual or angelic lights… God created the Earth co-jointly with the heavens in order to call into existence hell in its centre; for, at the instant of its creation, there were left in the interior of that globe, spacious and wide cavities, suitable for hell, purgatory and limbo. And in hell was created at the same time material fire and other requisites, which now serve for the punishment of the damned.'
But cassini does mention that the sky was conceived of as a sphere. Correct, and this is precisely what the Church Fathers mean when they refer to the world as a sphere ... and not NASA’s ball on which people walk upside down. First quote from Sungenis in his book is from St. Ambrose. But saint Ambrose refers to the “sphere” as having water flowing off of it. Imagined as ball earth that would mean that waters are constantly flowing off the surface of the earth ... which is absurd.People also transpose meanings of words on a regular basis not comprehending what they're doing. Otherwise, who would think the word circle means ball?
Even Sungenis sees this, coming up with a theory about infinitely-dense matter. While that’s a stretch,
This notion of firmament being “space” is both Modernistic and absurd. Clearly the Church Fathers unanimously believed that it was an actual substance, with some mentions of debates regarding what it was made of. So I am surprised to see cassini promoting the idea. He’s such a literalist about how the sun rising means that it moves and can’t be a matter of perspective and yet the firmament is space? Even Sungenis sees this, coming up with a theory about infinitely-dense matter. While that’s a stretch, he tacitly admits that the Fathers clearly did not believe that it was empty space. For them, it was something solid that keeps literal waters from inundating the earth. There’s absolutely no doubt about that.
Never once have I heard or read of the space into which their big Bang matter supposedly spread. In other words they assume the space of the universe was there already, something that just exists.The standard Big Bang model would say things aren't expanding through space but rather space itself is stretching. So instead of a boat moving through water (galaxies moving through space) it might be more like a loaf of raisin bread that continues to rise (space itself, containing all matter, continues to expand).
I just want to know where east is located on a globe.It's no different on a flat circle earth because the sun still rises from the east, or the east and west would have an end at the edge where people could fall off. The north and south are fixed points even on a globe, but east and west are only directions, so their separation might be interpreted as unending or undefinable, which may indicate our iniquities are removed an infinite amount or no longer exist.
Must be random placement. Clearly Taylor Marshall is unaware of the real discussions on flat earth.
The globe casts doubt on this passage in scripture:
As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our iniquities from us. Psalm 103:12
On a globe, the two directions actually meet at some point or technically, everywhere.
The standard Big Bang model would say things aren't expanding through space but rather space itself is stretching. So instead of a boat moving through water (galaxies moving through space) it might be more like a loaf of raisin bread that continues to rise (space itself, containing all matter, continues to expand).Interesting. It sounds like they're just using the word "space" to mean the same thing as "aether", and that they really don't reject the concept itself. This would also seem to follow from their claims that space curves. Obviously, space in its true meaning is not a substance or a thing, but simply an abstract description, and therefore it can't curve. So if they talk about it curving and being the medium through which electromagnetic waves propagate, that would seem to make it the same thing as aether.
Of course, the only thing with more holes than the Big Bang theory is a block of Swiss Cheese.
Interesting. It sounds like they're just using the word "space" to mean the same thing as "aether", and that they really don't reject the concept itself.It depends. After the Michelson-Morley interferometer tests of the 1880's, which showed the earth was not in motion, Einstein invented Relativity and dispensed with the ether (and ever since he's been a deity). However, Georges Sagnac, and others, performed a similar test to the MM test and showed, again, there is an ether (1913, I believe). The presence of an ether 'implies' a non-moving earth so it's a hushed topic as far as I can tell. Einstein, when he revised his theory, put the ether back in. Also, it seems our GPS systems use the 'Sagnac Effect' (stationary earth) in order to work.
It's no different on a flat circle earth because the sun still rises from the east, or the east and west would have an end at the edge where people could fall off. The north and south are fixed points even on a globe, but east and west are only directions, so their separation might be interpreted as unending or undefinable, which may indicate our iniquities are removed an infinite amount or no longer exist.To suggest "As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our iniquities from us" can even work on a globe where the east and west can and do meet up is beyond iffy, Especially when it's perfectly obvious that it works far better on a flat earth, where east and west can never meet up. Not to mention we have no fathers or saints teaching earth is a globe, yet we have over a dozen of them who teach earth is not a globe, and further, that when these fathers fought the globe, they were fighting pagans over the issue making many other clarifications using types like the temple, the tabernacle and the ark to make sure it was clear to Catholics that the shape of the earth was intimately tied in with the faith and providence of God and never included a spherical earth.
It's no different on a flat circle earth because the sun still rises from the east, or the east and west would have an end at the edge where people could fall off.There is no "falling off". The edge is hypothesized to be where the Firmament meets the earth. Which is obscured by possibly hundreds or thousands of miles of Antarctic hellscape.
The following from Wiki gives a partial list of flat earth Fathers of the Church who taught that earth is shaped like the OT Tabernacle, the Ark, and the Temple:
*St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Ambrose, Origen, Methodius, Cosmas, Ephrem Syrus, St. Gregory of Nyssa, Theodore of Mopsuestia, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Procopius of Gaza all offered an intriguing exegesis of the Tabernacle.
Cosmas' exegesis on the flat earth and the tabernacle in his book Christian Topography is easily obtained to read for free online.
Wiki continues:
Examining the Apostolic Constitutions, Book VII, Chapters 33-37, and Book Viii, Chapter 12, we find its further influence on Constantine's (and Cosmas') method. The verses quoted in both the Apostolic Constitutions and Christian Topography to describe the structure of the universe are taken from the books of Psalms, Isaiah, and Job rather than from the account of Creation in Genesis giving them a homiletic application to articulate and illustrate a specific physical shape of the cosmos.
The created universe is portrayed in both words and pictures as a vaulted rectangle. The Tabernacle, the Temple and the Ark were all depicted in the same way, since they were made "according to the pattern shown to thee in the mount" EX 25:40
The sanctuary and its vessels are symbolic representations of the Creation.
The Ark represents the earth and the part of the "Holy" in the Tabernacle, while the upper, vaulted, section represents both heaven and the most sacred area, the "Holy of Holies". With the angels spreading their wings to cover the Ark.
The cosmos created in Genesis 1 bears a striking resemblance to the Tabernacle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabernacle) in Exodus 35–40, which was the prototype of the Temple in Jerusalem and the focus of priestly worship of Yahweh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh); for this reason, and because other Middle Eastern creation stories also climax with the construction of a temple/house for the creator-god, Genesis 1 can be interpreted as a description of the construction of the cosmos as God's house, for which the Temple in Jerusalem served as the earthly representative.[31] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative#cite_note-FOOTNOTELevenson200413-31) Wiki
Origen called the firmament “without doubt firm and solid” (First Homily on Genesis, FC 71). Ambrose, commenting on Genesis 1:6, said, “the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant” (Hexameron, FC 42.60). And Saint Augustine said the word firmament was used “to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that it constitutes an impassible boundary between the waters above and the waters below” (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, ACW 41.1.61).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Fathers of the Church knew the value of scripture so they didn't ignore the firmament, or pretend it was another term for air, but saw how it fit within the spiritual and physical paradigm of creation. These fathers identified types like the ark, the temple and the tabernacle in relation to the earth, furthering understanding the relationship between creation and the liturgy, between the earth and the church. All of these great men (and others not mentioned here) believed the firmament is the divider between heaven and earth. Anyone who ignores a consensus of Father's teachings for the sake of their own personal opinion is a contrarian to true Catholic exegeses and teachings.
When the modern geocentrics provide historical Catholic teachings like the selection provided above, to prove their dangling in space ball theory, we'll be all ears. I've been hanging around for a couple of years now waiting and asking for their proof, but have yet to be provided even one historical Catholic saint or father, or scripture, that expounds on earth being a sphere. Here we have a dozen great Catholic historical saints and fathers, the Apostolic Constitutions and Scripture, to show that the firmament is not just hot air, but an impassable boundary between heaven and earth and they all agree that earth is not a globe.
I do not believe in an expanding universe for that would suggest it is infinite. A heliocentric universe could be said to be infinite. A geocentric universe proves it cannot be infinite.
I don't know for sure, so please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding for the ranking of revelation of truth on this topic would be:
1. Sacred Scripture
2. Early Church Fathers
3. Approved private revelation such as Our Lady of Fatima with thousands of witnesses
4. Approved revelation of V Mary of Agreda
5. Modern Scientific analysis
6. Taylor Marshall and other layman analysis
1. Sacred ScriptureGreat list MP. That last one deserves a better placement. Am I remembering wrong, or have I've heard Thomas Aquinas says the senses are infallible?
2. Early Church Fathers
3. Approved private revelation such as Our Lady of Fatima with thousands of witnesses
4. Approved revelation of V Mary of Agreda
5. Modern Scientific analysis
6. Taylor Marshall and other layman analysis
Oh, one more very important thing to add to this list:
Personal experience with one's own senses! :)
It depends. After the Michelson-Morley interferometer tests of the 1880's, which showed the earth was not in motion, Einstein invented Relativity and dispensed with the ether (and ever since he's been a deity). However, Georges Sagnac, and others, performed a similar test to the MM test and showed, again, there is an ether (1913, I believe). The presence of an ether 'implies' a non-moving earth so it's a hushed topic as far as I can tell. Einstein, when he revised his theory, put the ether back in. Also, it seems our GPS systems use the 'Sagnac Effect' (stationary earth) in order to work.
Just to be clear -- Sungenis refers to this matter as the aether (or ether) and it is certainly not some theory that he came up with. The idea of aether has been around for many centuries. What authorities and or ideas are you relying on when you refer to the idea of the aether as "a stretch?"
I'm referring to his characterization of aether as infinitely-dense matter. What I'm referring to a stretch is his trying to characterize this infinitely-dense matter as what's meant by the "firmament".
He characterizes the aether as being made up of Planck size (1.616 X 10 to the negative 35 meters) particles. This is the shortest length theorized in physics and thus the state in which matter becomes indivisible. Nevertheless, it is not and could not technically and or theologically be considered to be infinitely small since the aether is matter and hence by definition to be of a finite nature.
Can the earth still rotate on an axis in the stationary center model?
Be careful about ether. Some definitions are getting close to 'dark matter.' for me ether is electromagnetism.
The actual proportion of five male spirals to eight female spirals or 5:8 forms part of the so-called Fibonacci series that progressively and with increasing accuracy, mathematically defines the proportion of the ‘Golden Section,’What would make a spiral male or female?
What would make a spiral male or female?
That's not my point. To basically say that this Planck-ether = "the firmament" is a stretch (prescinding from whether or not it's real). Firmament described in Sacred Scripture is a solid barrier that prevents water from coming down onto the earth.By analogy a sponge held up in your hand can hold back a lot of water before it becomes too saturated to hold any more. If all those H2O molecules could speak they might well say that the sponge was too solid for them to fall from -- at least until the sponge got more saturated and even then all of them could not fall.
Be careful about ether. Some definitions are getting close to 'dark matter.' for me ether is electromagnetism.
By analogy a sponge held up in your hand can hold back a lot of water before it becomes too saturated to hold any more. If all those H2O molecules could speak they might well say that the sponge was too solid for them to fall from -- at least until the sponge got more saturated and even then all of them could not fall.
You may not agree with the science on this, but there appears to be a fairly solid consensus in the world of mainstream science that the cosmos in all likelihood is fairly saturated with pockets of water in one form or another.
There is a lot to know about the aether. These guys (globebusters) have been studying it for years. Because they are flat earthers, they can see through Einstein and modern science while employing verifiable science in their search for the truth by experimentation. Below is a very long video on the subject and the discussion is in depth. To save time and introductions, start at 12:30.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1IhQDUSosM
But this ubiquitous infinitely dense matter does not prevent water's flowing from one place to another, i.e. it cannot serve as some kind of barrier.The physics is somewhat complicated, definitely above my pay grade, but the theory would hold that the ether is an integral part of the "equation" in holding back the water which is found throughout the ether from inundating the Earth in no less an effective way than it along with other forces of nature keep the universe going around the Earth.
They very clearly got rid of ether because otherwise Michelson-Morley proved coclusively that the earth is not moving through space.
I've been listening to this while I'm working, so have only caught maybe 15% of it about an hour in, but this is outstanding. One guy there is particularl knowledgeale about science, and he makes a very convincing case that there is solid scientific evidence for the ether, including various interferometry experiments (one done by the US Air Force in 1987). Tesla evidently said that many of his discoveries hinged on the assumption that something like the ether exists. They very clearly got rid of ether because otherwise Michelson-Morley proved coclusively that the earth is not moving through space.
Googling led me to this, and perhaps this is what he was talking about vis-a-vis the Air Force study:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19870020003
I don't know how to copy and paste a tweet other than to give the link:
https://twitter.com/ronin19217435/status/1575708762551328768
This is Scientifically impossible
That's a nice graphic to illustrate how absolutely ridiculous it is.Assuming they entered in all the variables correctly into their computer simulation, but they got the scale wrong. The air would have a significant damping effect on the waves.
Assuming they entered in all the variables correctly into their computer simulation, but they got the scale wrong. The air would have a significant damping effect on the waves.
No, the air would be ripped off the planet by the vacuum of space, and then the water would boil off the surface. This has been repeatedly demonstrated with vacuum chambers that had an orders of magnitude weaker vacuum than that of space. Gravity does not have enough force to overcome the forces pressing out into the vacuum. Gravity can't even overcome the weak buoyancy of a helium balloon.Garbage. You are too biased by your strict adherence to the FE model to consider the real physics at play and instead reduce it to an all or nothing understanding where there is no possibility outside your current understanding of the natural forces for there to be an in-between for the real physics to achieve the properties of a GE.
So gravity then pulls on the air, which would in turn suppress the violent movement of the water. That would take a huge force on the air. For gravity to be strong enough to completely immobilize the Oceans rather than our being subject to incredible forces and constant inundation, it would also have to hold everything as solid as a vice grip (including the air above it), and yet butterflies float around in the air without a care in the world.
it's so utterly absurd, every bit as absurd as the claims of Darwinism.
Garbage. You are too biased by your strict adherence to the FE model to consider the real physics at play and instead reduce it to an all or nothing understanding where there is no possibility outside your current understanding of the natural forces for there to be an in-between for the real physics to achieve the properties of a GE.
Enclosed or not, what causes the pressure gradient of air? It's supposed to be 0 PSI at space and around 15 PSI at the surface, if I remember correctly. A gradient must exist in a vacuum chamber too if the effects of gravity are still present inside it, but it won't have the full weight of the atmosphere above on it unless the vacuum chamber is as tall as from the ground to the edge of space. Apparently gravity can't overcome the weak buoyancy of hardwood in water either, so what's different about a helium balloon?
Air obviously has the ability to apply huge forces if it can blow several feet of ocean up over much of Florida. It can also resist huge forces. There's an exponential increase in wind resistance as an object travels faster through it. Add lots of surface area to that object, and all of a sudden there is a massive increase in the amount of resistance the air applies, such that the ocean could not slosh so violently in real life as in that small scale globe model if the waves are hundreds of square feet or miles moving at several tens if not hundreds of miles per hour. I said nothing about completely immobilizing the oceans. The air just dampens them significantly. And, butterflies are a small scale very slow speed thing operating far in the bottom end of the exponential increase of wind resistance scale that is based on speed and surface area. If one stepped foot on that little simulation planet in the twitter post, it would cause a tsunami.
I don't have a superzoom camera, but if I did I would love to not only check out boats that are supposedly too far away to be seen, but also get a photo like this if I could:
(https://i.imgur.com/2Zf7pDJ.png)
Talk about it when you have the math for calculating the rate of acceleration or rate of rotation experienced when a jet is flying 600mph at 35,000ft above the circuмference of the earth. I think it will be much too small to notice.
See how the nose points downward, but you don't feel that at all during inflight. ??
Talk about it when you have the math for calculating the rate of acceleration or rate of rotation experienced when a jet is flying 600mph at 35,000ft above the circuмference of the earth. I think it will be much too small to notice.
Garbage. You are too biased by your strict adherence to the FE model to consider the real physics at play and instead reduce it to an all or nothing understanding where there is no possibility outside your current understanding of the natural forces for there to be an in-between for the real physics to achieve the properties of a GE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaoTaiq66k4&t=9s
Perhaps you could claim that there's a computer on board that automatically adjusts the angle downwards multiple times per second to keep the plane level ... except that no plane manufacturer, not even military plane manufacturer (in the high-speed planes where it would be extremely noticeable) has ever claimed that they introduced technology to perform this function.Auto pilot uses a computer to fly the plane and maintain altitude.
As for constantly dipping the nose of the plane down to go over the curving earth surface, the "argument" is incredibly lame, namely, that gravity pulls the nose of the plane down ... as if gravity would only effect the nose of the plane (as a plane is only about 100 feet or so long on average). There would be no difference in terms of gravity's effect on the nose, vs. the rest of the fuselage. So, the world's fastest plane, given the rate at which it travels, would have to adjust down at the rate of something like 1,000 feet per second. At that rate, you would have to fly downward, but since the earth isn't a flat downward slope, there would constantly have to be adjustments made, and at such a high rate that it would be impossible for a pilot to pull off. In other words, the pilot simply can't angle the plane down by, say, 1 degree, and keep it there, because a curve doesn't follow a linear descent. So there would have to be an adjustment made multiple times per second for the plane to remain level, and no pilot can pull that off. Even a pilot with lightning-quick reflexes and concentration would struggle mightily and his altitude above the earth would fluctuate +/- several hundred if not several thousand feet constantly, and his plane would be going up and down, up and down, during the entire flight path, unable to maintain a constant altitude.I don't argue that gravity constantly pulls just the nose down. I would argue that, based on speed, there is an altitude at which a sort of buoyancy equilibrium is reached where the plane doesn't travel fast enough to fly in the thinner high altitude air, but fast enough to not descend either. So, it would be like it is continually falling around the curve, or like it is a boat floating over the globe earth ocean.
You're pathetic. Vacuum of space and atmosphere have nothing to do with FE. Your "real physics" is absolute bullshit and has been exposed as such repeatedly. Even Kaku admits that modern cosmology is a joke.And you are a name caller. :laugh1:
So even while mainstream physicists are questioning it, you continue to adhere to it and promote it like the brainwashed fool that you are.
There is no "real physics" that would explain how the earth can have a pressurized atmosphere (without a container) adjacent to a nearly-infinite vacuum This violates all the laws of "real" physics, in particular the various laws of thermodynamics.
This notion of firmament being “space” is both Modernistic and absurd. Clearly the Church Fathers unanimously believed that it was an actual substance, with some mentions of debates regarding what it was made of. So I am surprised to see cassini promoting the idea. He’s such a literalist about how the sun rising means that it moves and can’t be a matter of perspective and yet the firmament is space? Even Sungenis sees this, coming up with a theory about infinitely-dense matter. While that’s a stretch, he tacitly admits that the Fathers clearly did not believe that it was empty space. For them, it was something solid that keeps literal waters from inundating the earth. There’s absolutely no doubt about that.
Just came across something that was interesting. In his research on Bruno, A. Martinez found one of the heresies Bruno was accused of was , (5) the motion of the Earth and immobility of the firmament. This suggests to me the Church of 1600 considered the universe, which is the space that contains all the stars that revolves around the Earth as the firmament.
Just came across something that was interesting. In his research on Bruno, A. Martinez found one of the heresies Bruno was accused of was , (5) the motion of the Earth and immobility of the firmament. This suggests to me the Church of 1600 considered the universe, which is the space that contains all the stars that revolves around the Earth as the firmament.This is a study in and of itself. From what I can tell, the Fathers believed the aether carries the sun, moon and stars in their paths through the firmament, although different stars move differently through the aether as do sun and moon, each at their own pace. All celestial bodies are supposedly moved about by angels. While the outer firmament is actually hard, like brass or glass and provides an impassable boundary between heaven and earth, that portion of the hard boundary holds back the waters and doesn't move. However, everything in the firmament does move and the entire thing at times, outer boundary and celestial soup, can also be referred to as "the firmament" which explains (5) The contents (sun, moon stars and aether) move, the boundary itself does not.
Condemning the motion of the Earth and immobility of the firmament has absolutely no relevance to what the firmament is, only whether the firmament moves in relation to the earth or the earth in relation to the firmament. Only reason this "suggests" this to you is because you're begging the question in the first place and assuming that somehow a "mobility of the firmament" means there must be this vast expanse of space with star-suns and planets in it.
This is a study in and of itself. From what I can tell, the Fathers believed the aether carries the sun, moon and stars in their paths through the firmament, although different stars move differently through the aether as do sun and moon, each at their own pace. All celestial bodies are supposedly moved about by angels. While the outer firmament is actually hard, like brass or glass and provides an impassable boundary between heaven and earth, that portion of the hard boundary holds back the waters and doesn't move. However, everything in the firmament does move and the entire thing at times, outer boundary and celestial soup, can also be referred to as "the firmament" which explains (5) The contents (sun, moon stars and aether) move, the boundary itself does not.
Interesting Tradman. You write: 'From what I can tell, the Fathers believed the aether carries the sun, moon and stars in their paths through the firmament.' Earlier I showed that Domenico Cassini has proven the sun, moon, planets and stars travel in electromagnetic ovals. When I suggested the ether was electromagnetism I wasn't far off, was I Tradman?Probably not far off. There are some great theories for electromagnetism to include other things like resonance helping to explain many things to include gravity along with explanations for celestial operations. It's a heady subject with a lot of scope. That video I just posted discusses it and may connect some dots.
FE Banjo guy, while I like him, isn't always particularly careful, and sometimes makes some bad argument (sounds like you Lad, and probably most of us). So, the response from the rotating-globe-earth crowd to the rotation of the earth under a plane is that gravity and the closed atmospheric system drag the plane alone with it.Gravity and the closed atmospheric system DRAG the plane along with it? Against what force does the plane get dragged? When you picture this system in your head and first set it into motion, the plane will initially get dragged along to accelerate it to the speed of the earth's rotation, but after that it is already up to speed. Any direction the plane flies and the thrust required will be based on a relative zero ground speed, only meeting the same amount of wind resistance in any direction (assuming the wind isn't blowing). If the earth and atmosphere was stopped from rotating, then the plane would initially travel at 1000mph before being once again slowed down to a stop by the air.
But there's a huge problem with this that the Globers don't address. If that's the case, then a plane travelling from East to West would have to overcome these tremendous forces. Remember that this force drags the plane around at 1,000MPH (at the equator), and that's a tremendous amount of force. So, then flying against, these forces, from East to West, that would be like a fish swimming upstream, and planes would need a tremendous amount of additional fuel going in that direction vs. the other. And flights going West would take longer than flights going East. But there's no difference whatsoever in time or fuel consumption.
Here's an example to illustrate the problem. You know those moving walkways they have (typically at airports), where there's a belt that moves people so that they don't have to walk with their luggage. Kids especially tend to goof around on those and then walk in the opposite direction. Or you also see people trying to go up downward-moving escalators. It requires a tremendous amount of extra energy to go AGAINST the direction that these things are moving, since you have to overcome the forces that are taking you in the other direction.
So the Globers constantly contradict themselves, talking about forces that are present when it's convenient but then disappear when they're not convenient.
We had the RedBull guy take about 2.5-3 hours to ascend to about 120,000 feet, from which he jumped. During that time the earth would have rotated about 1500 miles (if I recall, given his latitude). But after he jumped, instead of ending up about 1500 miles to the West, in the Pacific Ocean, he landed about 20-30 miles East of where he took off from. So even at those altitudes, the capsule was held steady by the iron rod of gravity (and then perhaps the wind pushed him East). Also, as you get higher, to keep up with the ground below, your movement around the earth actually has to accelerate, since the circuмference of your rotation has to increase. Of course, that's another thing. Wind patterns move from West to East, and that means that the atmosphere is moving faster than the earth's rotation, in excess of 1000MPH at the equator, several times faster than the highest wind speeds ever recorded in a tornado.
North to south flights are even a bigger problem. As you go from North to South, your angular momentum constantly increases, as the speed of the earth beneath increases. Finally, an engineer was won over by the argument that he laid out that if a plane is travelling, say, West to East, and then had to turn on its final approach to hit a North-South runway, that turn from going with the rotation for the earth to suddenly going North-South would put such force on the plane that it would get torn apart, not to mention that landing on a North-South runway would be nearly impossible to pull off.
These forces that would drag objects from West to East simply don't exist.
Gravity and the closed atmospheric system DRAG the plane along with it? Against what force does the plane get dragged?
However you wish to explain it, if there's a drag from West to East, then travelling from East to West would require more force/effort/fuel than in the other direction, like swimming upstream. Evidently this drag is powerful enough to drat a hot-air balloon at 1,000 MPH (at the equator). That's a mighty strong force that would have to be overcome when travelling to the West.
No flat earther has bothered to try understanding the explanations for it. It's like you and Lad completely skipped my post. I'm not trying to have anything both ways. How can I be more clear?
NO GLOBE EARTHER HAS BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THIS YET. WHICH IS WHY I MUST REMAIN IN THE "FLAT EARTH" CAMP for this and other reasons.
Technically, the question of movement has more to do with stationary than flat earth, but the fact that the fastest plane in existence would have to adjust down about 1,000 feet per second to maintain the same atmosphere clearly suggests that it does not have to correct for curvature. No pilot has ever been taught that he has to dip the nose regularly to stay level.Like you would know with such certainty. It is very rare that any normal pilot flies faster than 600mph let alone 1500mph. Maybe a 2300mph plane does have to pitch down fast at such speeds. Have you flown one? And you call my posts garbage, utter hogwash, BS, and me a pathetic brainwashed fool? Take a careful look in the mirror just in case there's a mote or a beam in your eye, and lets proceed politely.
I believe you. Why would it need to? what matters is the distance between the plane and the closest ground, but to make things simple they use average sea level as their zero altitude level. Whether flying over a flat earth or a ball (lets assume no mountains or hills) there will always be one point on the ground that is closest to the plane.
Strangely, the altimeter does not factor in
curvature:
This is interesting, but I'm not up for verifying it right now so somebody might want to do that?
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23flatearth%20mountains&src=typed_query&f=top
(https://i.imgur.com/pn01n7L.png)
I believe you. Why would it need to? what matters is the distance between the plane and the closest ground, but to make things simple they use average sea level as their zero altitude level. Whether flying over a flat earth or a ball (lets assume no mountains or hills) there will always be one point on the ground that is closest to the plane.
Maybe a 2300mph plane does have to pitch down fast at such speeds. Have you flown one?
Like you would know with such certainty. It is very rare that any normal pilot flies faster than 600mph let alone 1500mph. Maybe a 2300mph plane does have to pitch down fast at such speeds. Have you flown one?
I can't answer the deep science stuff, but I agree and don't like the ad hominems that fly on this topic in either direction. It takes the fun out of it.
Anyway, this guy has a lot of interesting info.
At 22:37 he shows why the SR 71 (which flys at 2200mph) DROP factor is crazy ridiculous to consider:
https://youtu.be/x0KA5Ozg-uo?t=1357
Yes, this guy his hilarious.I mean... There's a million ways to prove a true thing. The only times I start doubting the FE is when people shame me for pride and try to emotionally manipulate me of accusing basically everyone of being evil. Even then it's only for a second. There are just too many proofs.
Another curious thing that someone did an experiment about ... So the globers claim that we have eclipses because the sun is exactly 400x farther away than the moon and exactly 400x larger (pay no attention to the fact that our distance to the sun can allegedly vary by about 3%, certainly enough to botch up the perfect total eclipse), but a gentleman did an experiment. He had a light source that was roughly twice as far away and twice as large as an object that he put in between the light and his vantage point (the camera). It looked nothing like what a total eclipse would look like, as the light bled all the way around the object (and that makes perfect sense if you think about it). You can do a simple experiment. Just look up at a light bulb somewhere. Now take a round object that's smaller, put it in front of your face, and move it away from you until it just about perfectly covers up the edge of the light bulb. Does it go pitch black? Or does the light bleed around the object. Then this gentleman took an object that was the same size as the light, and put it just in front of it (a few inches) and then it look exactly like an eclipse. Because the object was so close, it blocked out the light completely. But if the larger object is farther away, that could not happen, as the light would simply bleed around it. Now, you need to do this in a room that's otherwise darkened, so at night with just a small light bulb across the room. There can't be ambient light coming from some other source.
All of this stuff is just obvious if you think about it a little bit ... with an open mind.
I mean... There's a million ways to prove a true thing. The only times I start doubting the FE is when people shame me for pride and try to emotionally manipulate me of accusing basically everyone of being evil. Even then it's only for a second. There are just too many proofs.
I mean... There's a million ways to prove a true thing. The only times I start doubting the FE is when people shame me for pride and try to emotionally manipulate me of accusing basically everyone of being evil. Even then it's only for a second. There are just too many proofs.I now feel a brief emotional pang when I hear people say the earth rotates or that the sun is larger than the earth lol
This hostility against FEs, the stong, often violent, emotional reaction against it is one of the surest signs that it's been programmed into people's minds and psyches by propaganda. If someone came to me and started going on about how, oh, the moon is actually a hollow spaceship inhabited by aliens (that's a real theory out there), I would not waste any time or energy attempting to refute this. If something is THAT "crazy," then why bother with it? You'd just walk on by while making that familiar circular motion beside your ear while whistling, and never give it a second thought. This kind of reaction demonstrates two things, namely, 1) that people have developed some serious psychological attachment to the globe (which doesn't happen by accident in the normal course of affairs) and 2) that there is in fact something to it, that there's some significant evidence in its favor that's not that easy to refute. If just one of these 2 were not the case, we would not get these reactions from people. If someone told me that the Oceans were made of suphuric acide, or of Jello, or that the core of the earth was filled with chocolate pudding, I would not be particularly upset or offended by this, and at most I'd feel sorry for the poor bloke that was obviously losing his mind. But I would not spend hours of my time and energy attempting to "refute" it. And their reaction also means that it MATTERS, that there are some very serious and significant implications that come from the earth being flat ... against the old "Why does it matter?" argument ... generally proferred by those to whom it matters exceedingly, given how hostile they become at the mere mention of Flat Earth.
I've never really looked into this but is the moon also flat? And the planets too? Thanks. Succinct answers get more points.I don't think the moon is flat flat, but has optical illusion properties that make it hard to tell if its convex or concave (like the lighted singing busts on the Haunted Mansion ride at Disneyland) The visible part of the moon may be convex (rounded outwardly) which gives it a spherical appearance, or the surface may be actually be concave. This allows for an outer layer to interact with the aether to create a shadow for phases. Because the moon rolls like a wheel, almost 180 degrees every night, and we only see one side, yet we see > 50%, also lends itself to to it being more of a disk with a concave or convex surface.
Interesting. When you've observed, did you mount the P900 onto a telescope and what size lens on the telescope? Also, if the rings of Saturn are visible, why is Mars so distorted? Seems like Mars should be a lot clearer given its distance.The only thing I mounted my camera on was a tripod because the P900 *is* a telescope. In fact, my camera out performed my friend's 10" telescope and during a recent event we found ourselves looking more through the camera than the telescope. There is a drawback to the camera because the telephoto is both mechanical and digital and it can be a bear to stabilize against moving objects like the stars that quickly move out of frame. When you get it right, the pictures and video are amazing.
Also, for a flat earth newbie such as myself, what's on the other side or bottom of the earth? ThanksHeaven is above. Hell is below. Earth is the plane in between.
How wide is the earth as a disk?Some say 8,000 miles but there's reason to believe that amount is only the current habitable space, with more available.
Also, for a flat earth newbie such as myself, what's on the other side or bottom of the earth? Thanks
How wide is the earth as a disk?
round, and bounded on every side by the circuмference of a solid sphere
I don't have a superzoom camera, but if I did I would love to not only check out boats that are supposedly too far away to be seen, but also get a photo like this if I could:
(https://i.imgur.com/2Zf7pDJ.png)
Periscopes prove flat earth:
59 seconds
https://twitter.com/TNTJohn1717/status/1578424135029604358
They can see 16 miles!
So, I quickly Googled "how far can a periscope see". Why is it that the FIRST search result at the top is a link to an FE debunking article, an article that doesn't even contain the phrase "how far can a periscope see"? There's no mention of FE in my search terms.Ah yes, it's like the P900 videos as far as taking somebody's word for it I guess, except where Black Swan and others have given exact measurements.
It's true that anything taller than about 120 feet can be seen from 16 miles out, at least the uppser part of it. So we'd have to look into what they can see from that far away.
There's one former military-submarine guy who's a Flat Earther who gave an interview where he explained a lot about how thy can see too far and whom provided a lot of detail, but I can't remember them offhad.
Makes you wonder about the lack of gray matter in people's heads who still insist that earth is a globe. If earth surface curves, the rail gun will miss it's target. Every single time. Since the gun is accurate 100+ miles away, there is no physical possibility for earth to be a globe. Those people having seen the railgun, continue to defend globe earth models, advertise their own intellectual dishonesty.
US NAVY RAIL GUN HITS TARGET 100 MILES AWAY PROVES FLAT EARTH
https://www.bitchute.com/video/JxvyHIUpPTGQ/
Makes you wonder about the lack of gray matter in people's heads who still insist that earth is a globe. If earth surface curves, the rail gun will miss it's target. Every single time. Since the gun is accurate 100+ miles away, there is no physical possibility for earth to be a globe. Those people having seen the railgun, continue to defend globe earth models, advertise their own intellectual dishonesty.https://flatearth.ws/railgun
https://flatearth.ws/railgun
(https://flatearth.ws/railgun)Railgun
A railgun is an experimental weapon that uses electromagnetic force to launch high-velocity projectiles. Some railguns are expected to have a range of more than 200 miles.
Flat-Earthers claim that a railgun round always travels straight. And because it can hit targets beyond 200 miles, they use it as “proof” Earth’s curvature does not exist. They are wrong. In reality, railgun rounds are projectiles. The same law of physics that applies to bullets, arrows, or thrown rocks also applies to them. The rounds are affected by air resistance and Earth’s gravity, and will not travel straight for very long. Railguns are capable of hitting targets obstructed by Earth’s curvature and are not proof that Earth’s curvature does not exist.
Flat-Earthers probably took the conclusion after watching some videos showing that railgun rounds travel straight. However, the videos only show us the trajectory of a railgun round over a very short distance. It looks straight just like a handgun shoots practically straight over 10 ft. Over a longer range, the curved trajectory will be apparent, be it a thrown rocks or hypervelocity railgun rounds.
There are several docuмents from the US Navy that clearly show us that railgun rounds are not fired straight at the target but fired at an angle, with a parabolic trajectory, consistent with other applications of ballistics.
Presentations
From “Naval Railgun Tech Assessment” — US Navy, 2004
Geocentrism: earth is stationary, shaped like a globe, and the vast universe revolves around it 30 (35.3%)
Flat Earth: earth is stationary, the surface we live on is flat, covered by a physical firmament, and the universe is closer than we're told
26 (30.6%)
******************************************************************************************
:popcorn:
So, I quickly Googled "how far can a periscope see". Why is it that the FIRST search result at the top is a link to an FE debunking article, an article that doesn't even contain the phrase "how far can a periscope see"? There's no mention of FE in my search terms.Out of curiosity I searched the same thing and I recommend everyone to stop using Google as a search engine:
It's true that anything taller than about 120 feet can be seen from 16 miles out, at least the uppser part of it. So we'd have to look into what they can see from that far away.
There's one former military-submarine guy who's a Flat Earther who gave an interview where he explained a lot about how thy can see too far and whom provided a lot of detail, but I can't remember them offhad.
I'm not so sure after I read this from Haydock:
And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: - Genesis 1:14
The day is completed in twenty-four hours, during which space the earth moves round its axis, and exposes successively different parts of its surface to the sun. It goes at a rate of fifty-eight thousand miles an hour, and completes its orbit in the course of a year. (Haydock)
- George Leo Haydock
I'm not so sure after I read this from Haydock:
And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: - Genesis 1:14
The day is completed in twenty-four hours, during which space the earth moves round its axis, and exposes successively different parts of its surface to the sun. It goes at a rate of fifty-eight thousand miles an hour, and completes its orbit in the course of a year. (Haydock)
- George Leo Haydock
I just find it weird, because Haydock was from way back in 18th century and obviously his works were all approved by the Church before getting published. So it was a lie, then back then all the Catholics including the ones in Vatican were lied to back then. Most narrative of the Flat Earther I read argues that the lie was made up by NASA and they fabricated history since then, but now we see a catholic priest from way back who wrote commentary in 18th century "being lied to"? Then by whom? And how long ago was this alleged lie formed?
Haydock was deluded like the rest of us before we realized we were lied to. Incidentally, his numbers are way off. According to NASA the imaginary globe travels quite a bit faster at 67,000 mph to complete a year around the sun which is almost 10,000 mph difference. So it's not like Haydock knew anything, he was repeating what he'd heard at the time. That's not science. It's also not teaching. It is a lie planted purposefully by evil doers so error can be propagated by good people unintentionally, which is how the enemy operates, sowing tares.
I just find it weird, because Haydock was from way back in 18th century and obviously his works were all approved by the Church before getting published. So it was a lie, then back then all the Catholics including the ones in Vatican were lied to back then. Most narrative of the Flat Earther I read argues that the lie was made up by NASA and they fabricated history since then, but now we see a catholic priest from way back who wrote commentary in 18th century "being lied to"? Then by whom? And how long ago was this alleged lie formed?
If the Earth is flat, why isn't the moon also flat? It's visibly spherical.Is the floor round because the light bulb in the ceiling is round?
Is the floor round because the light bulb in the ceiling is round?
Plus you can like literally see the curvature when flying on planes, too, so...Are you sure? You must have really good eyes. You can't base this observation off of video footage because camera lenses can distort the horizon to curve either way.
The Earth revolving around the sun would also show that we are not the center of the universe or God's attention, God Himself is.A very interesting thought you have here. I'm not against a universe with the earth and sun flying through space around a galaxy, it seems sensible, but I do like the idea of a geocentric model that includes the possibility of the earth spinning.
No, but that still doesn't really mean anything.Neither did your original comment, which is why I said it.
The moon is a sphere, the sun is a sphere, spheres form in zero/low gravity environments. Plus you can like literally see the curvature when flying on planes, too, so...
If the Earth is flat, why isn't the moon also flat? It's visibly spherical.
You can’t tell spherical by looking at one face. Even IF you could say you’re looking at convex toward you, that doesn’t mean sphere. But the appearance of sphericity can be caused by a lot of factors including light, dark, and shadow. Only way to determine sphericity is to see the other side ... which none of us FE believe has ever been done.Or maybe it just proves how magnificent God's creation is. Working perfectly and everything in order.
Beside that, professional astronomers have reported that stars can be seen through the dark part of the moon.
Finally, even if the moon were a sphere, this does not mean the earth is .., as DL pointed out.
If as some believe the moon is a reflection off of or projection onto the firmament, concavity can also appear as convexity. You’d have to see the other side.
Maybe it’s a hemisphere.
So for centuries the face of the moon we see has not changed. For this to happen the moon’s alleged rotation would have to match its speed of revolution to the second. If it were even a second off, the face would change over years, decades, and centuries. I find that preposterous. Scientists claim that the moon gets a bit farther from the earth every year, so that would mean that it’s rotation speed would have to increase by the exact same ratio. This stretches credulity to its breaking point and is ridiculous.
So for centuries the face of the moon we see has not changed. For this to happen the moon’s alleged rotation would have to match its speed of revolution to the second. If it were even a second off, the face would change over years, decades, and centuries. I find that preposterous. Scientists claim that the moon gets a bit farther from the earth every year, so that would mean that it’s rotation speed would have to increase by the exact same ratio. This stretches credulity to its breaking point and is ridiculous.
https://www.rt.com/news/566781-earth-weight-new-measurements/ (https://www.rt.com/news/566781-earth-weight-new-measurements/)Wow, they must've had to break out a big scale for that one, huh?
Wow, they must've had to break out a big scale for that one, huh?
Well apparently there is evidence that the part that faces us has changed.
https://earthsky.org/space/moons-tilt-has-changed-over-time/
Or maybe it just proves how magnificent God's creation is. Working perfectly and everything in order.
Or maybe it just proves how magnificent God's creation is. Working perfectly and everything in order.
1.The Bible never said the firmament is visible or solid.
Yes, His creation is perfect.
(https://i.imgur.com/jDuc6SK.png)
Just one question about this model though...
(https://i.imgur.com/5i0jJDv.png)
Where is the firmament?
(https://i.imgur.com/rjvDube.png)
Firmament is in the Bible 23 times. I don't see it here:
(https://i.imgur.com/1zkDmwx.png)
Where is it??
Is the Bible wrong? 23 times?
1.The Bible never said the firmament is visible or solid.
1.The Bible never said the firmament is visible or solid.
And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. - Genesis 1:6
1.The Bible never said the firmament is visible or solid.
And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. - Genesis 1:6
A firmament: Strabus and Bede teach that there is an eternal heaven, because the firmament, which they take to mean the sidereal heaven, is said to have been made, not in the beginning, but on the second day: whereas the reason given by Basil is that otherwise God would seem to have made darkness His first work. Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. i, 9) that the heaven of the second day is the corporeal heaven. According to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii) the firmament made on the second day is the starry heaven. Chrysostom understood that the heaven in 1:1 is the same heaven of the second day.
Sidereal/physical Heaven was to distinguish that Heaven from the Heaven in which God dwells (which is immaterial / spiritual ... although there are mansions prepared there for those who will dwell in Heaven with physical bodies, e.g. Our Lord, Our Lady, likely St. Joseph, and eventually all the human elect). So you're begging the question pretending that this "sideral heaven" implies the vastness of space that holds the stars. That's not how the Church Fathers understood it. They believed it to be solid and that the stars (smaller lights) were in it. There were debates among the Fathers about 1) what it was made of and 2) whether the sun, moon, stars move within it vs. whether they are fixed in the firmament and the firmament as a whole moves around the earth. And the entire debate / argument / dispute had to do with the question of how is it possible for physical objects to move within another physical object (the firmament). Those who did not believe it possible held that the firmament itself (being solid) moved around the earth. Others believed that the firmament was made of some kind of quasi-solid substance (similar to some kind of hard plasma) where the solid matter could be displaced the same way as happens when objects move through water, and yet it was more solid than water so that water could not pass through it (since it kept actual physical waters out from atmosphere and from flooding the earth).You should take a look at Tradman's response. You keep mentioning Church Fathers but he was the one that actually gave quotations. And I still don't see why a firmament can not exist in a globe model.
So because you believe that the stars are these giant suns, you falsely equate mention of "sidereal heaven" with some vast space. To repeat, the Jєωs and the Church Fathers believed in THREE heavens. First Heaven was Air (where birds fly, etc.), Second Heaven was the Firmament (in which the Sun, Moon, and Stars are), and the Third Heaven was where God and the angels are. That second was also called the Sidereal/Physical Heaven and the mention of Sideral/Physical Heaven does not mean what you try to pretend it does.
Thank you, Mr. Protestant, for your opinion, but Catholics understand Sacred Scripture based on the unanimous interpretation of the Church Fathers, and they unanimously believed in a physical firmament that kept physical waters above the sky from flooding the earth.And sir, if you take a look on the context, I was replying to someone that keep saying bible verses such and such without even mentioning the interpretation.
If 1 Genesis were the only reference to explain the firmament, that alone concludes the firmament is solid. Considered the verse itself. We also know that the firmament is visible to some degree. But first, the firmament was made by God to divide all the water He created in the beginning, that is, water is above the firmament, water is below the firmament, on earth. Only something firm and solid is able to hold back presumably half of water created. That's an incredible amount of water. Scripture also likens the toughness of the firmament to God's power in Psalm 150:1,2 'Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power'.
But we also have the Fathers' take on how we should understand the firmament: Origen called the firmament “without doubt firm and solid” (First Homily on Genesis, FC 71). Ambrose, commenting on Genesis 1:6, said, “the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant” (Hexameron, FC 42.60). And Saint Augustine said the word firmament was used “to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that it constitutes an impassible boundary between the waters above and the waters below” (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, ACW 41.1.61).
As far as the firmament being visible, scripture tells us: 'The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament showeth his handiwork.' Psalm 19:1
There's so much more than this, the Fathers and scripture have not been silent about creation. They describe the firmament so many ways saying it was pounded out like brass or glass, it is shining and glorious, shaped like a dome or tent, very lofty, and was even likened to the roof of a bath house.
Lucky for us in this day and age, you can type words into a Bible search engine and chase down all the references and cross references. For instance, the dividing of the water in Genesis is likened to the parting of the Red Sea, and even to baptism, all way too much to go into here. Scripture is so incredibly rich! You can also search through the Fathers' docuмents, even pick up tidbits like saint quotes from Wiki. God has made the information available for those who knock, seek and ask.
You should take a look at Tradman's response. You keep mentioning Church Fathers but he was the one that actually give quotations. And I still don't see why a firmament can not exist in a globe model.
1.The Bible never said the firmament is visible or solid.
And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. - Genesis 1:6
A firmament: Strabus and Bede teach that there is an eternal heaven, because the firmament, which they take to mean the sidereal heaven, is said to have been made, not in the beginning, but on the second day: whereas the reason given by Basil is that otherwise God would seem to have made darkness His first work. Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. i, 9) that the heaven of the second day is the corporeal heaven. According to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii) the firmament made on the second day is the starry heaven. Chrysostom understood that the heaven in 1:1 is the same heaven of the second day.
Divide the waters from the waters: Whether, then, we understand by the firmament the starry heaven, or the cloudy region of the air, it is true to say that it divides the waters from the waters, according as we take water to denote formless matter, or any kind of transparent body, as fittingly designated under the name of waters. For the starry heaven divides the lower transparent bodies from the higher, and the cloudy region divides that higher part of the air, where the rain and similar things are generated, from the lower part, which is connected with the water and included under that name.
- Thomas Aquinas
Now we know the clouds are waters so the only logical understanding of the firmament is that space between the clouds and the Earth, that space that contains the air totally necessary for life on Earth, that part of finite space God wanted us to know He created before the land-animals and mankind. We do not know of waters anywhere above the Earth other than clouds.
The only logical meaning of this 'division' on day 2 is that God created a space between the divided waters. Now we know the clouds are waters so the only logical understanding of the firmament is that space between the clouds and the Earth, that space that contains the air totally necessary for life on Earth, that part of finite space God wanted us to know He created before the land-animals and mankind. We do not know of waters anywhere above the Earth other than clouds.
'And God called the firmament Heaven.' Heaven, as we all presume, is 'up there,' through the firmament into a finite space and on to heaven that exists outside of that space. Both Jesus and Mary, in their ascension and assumption up to heaven, went straight up from Earth to Heaven as depicted in images of both.
"And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:" [Genesis 1:14 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=14#x)] |
"To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done." [Genesis 1:15 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=15#x)] |
"And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth." [Genesis 1:17 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=17#x)] |
"And under the firmament were their wings straight, the one toward the other, every one with two wings covered his body, and the other was covered in like manner." [Ezechiel (Ezekiel) 1:23 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=31&ch=1&l=23#x)] |
"God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven." |
"Then hear thou in heaven, in the firmament of thy dwelling place, and do all those things, for which that stranger shall call upon thee: that all the people of the earth may learn to fear thy name, as do thy people Israel, and may prove that thy name is called upon on this house, which I have built." [3 Kings (1 Kings) 8:43 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=11&ch=8&l=43#x)] |
"Then hear thou in heaven, in the firmament of thy throne, their prayers, and their supplications, and do judgment for them:" [3 Kings (1 Kings) 8:49 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=11&ch=8&l=49#x)] |
"The Lord is my firmament, my refuge, and my deliverer. My God is my helper, and in him will I put my trust. My protector and the horn of my salvation, and my support." [Psalms 17:3 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=17&l=3#x)] |
"The Lord is a firmament to them that fear him: and his covenant shall be made manifest to them." [Psalms 24:14 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=24&l=14#x)] |
"Be thou unto me a God, a protector, and a place of strength: that thou mayst make me safe. For thou art my firmament and my refuge." [Psalms 70:3 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=70&l=3#x)] |
"And over the heads of the living creatures was the likeness of the firmament, as the appearance of crystal terrible to behold, and stretched out over their heads above." [Ezechiel (Ezekiel) 1:22 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=31&ch=1&l=22#x)] |
"And above the firmament that was over their heads, was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of the sapphire stone, and upon the likeness of the throne, was a likeness as of the appearance of a man above upon it." [Ezechiel (Ezekiel) 1:26 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=31&ch=1&l=26#x)] |
"And I saw and behold in the firmament that was over the heads of the cherubims, there appeared over them as it were the sapphire stone, as the appearance of the likeness of a throne." [Ezechiel (Ezekiel) 10:1 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=31&ch=10&l=1#x)] |
"But they that are learned shall shine as the brightness of the firmament: and they that instruct many to justice, as stars for all eternity." [Daniel 12:3 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=32&ch=12&l=3#x)] |
Let us use logic when reading the above creation by God.
By the way, for those wondering about tents and vaults fitting over a sphere, don't try that in geometry class, you'll get an F.
This could be referring to the brightness of the stars in the firmament, but again would those stars be under the clouds in the space between the clouds and the earth?
[Daniel 12:3 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=32&ch=12&l=3#x)]
Would this refer to the bright blue sky overhead or would it refer to the air that is the space between the clouds and the earth?
That was the argument made by the those who disagreed that the firmament was spherical, but St. Augustine countered by referring to things like balls which were made of tent material into a spherical spherical shape. Fathers who believed that the firmament was a sphere thought it went all the way around, but that beneath the actual earth surface (on the other side) there was water and the entrance to Sheol (Hell). That's precisely how St. Hildegard described it as well. I believe that cassini once cited St. Hildegard as speaking of the world shaped like a sphere, but then ignored the text right there in the very passage he posted, where she said that no one could live on the underside because down there was water and the entrance to Sheol. She was clearly talking about the same thing that the Fathers discuss here.Yea, the spherical universe does make sense, and it seems the vault would only be needed on the top side where people are. The spherical earth does not make sense and there would be no need for a firmament on the under side because it's just the pit of hell.
Also very clear from the Fathers, they did not believe in gravity, and so they would have had no way of explaining how people could "stick" to the bottom of a ball, and none of the Fathers believed in Antipodaeans (people stuck upside down unear the earth). Pope Zachary in a letter to St. Boniface declared the notion that there were other people who lived beneath the earth to be heretical.
This brings up another thing I wonder about---
Is it possible the sky is blue because of the waters?
This could be referring to the brightness of the stars in the firmament, but again would those stars be under the clouds in the space between the clouds and the earth?This makes sense.
This brings up another thing I wonder about---
Is it possible the sky is blue because of the waters?
It never made sense to me that the sky would be blue but outer space would be black. I mean, the sun is in outer space too right?
Yet, the sky turns black at night and that is what happens to the color of water (as in the ocean) at night.
Okay so a few questions then...
1. Where is the edge of this finite space?
It is commonly held by both flat earthers and the Fathers that the periphery of the earth is flanked by mountains and/or ice shelves and said mountains/ice walls meet up with the lower part of the firmament on all sides. There's a scripture passage in Job* to this effect. The reason no one goes there is because the outer regions are like the off limits mountains in the Old Testament. Conditions are not hospitable to man.
According to the Bible, we live in a self-contained, three-tiered system {Heaven, Earth, Underworld}:
Job 1:7-8; 2:2-3; 37:12; 38:30-34; Gen. 28:12-17; Ex. 20:4; Num. 16:31-33; Deut. 5:8; 1 Sam. 28:13-14; 1 Chron. 29:11; 2 Chron. 6:4; Psa. 46:8-10; 113:6; 119:19; Isa. 14:9-11; 51:13-14; Joel 2:30; Amos 9:2; Luke 10:15; 16:19-31; Acts 2:19; Phil. 2:10; 1 Pet. 3:18-20; 2 Pet. 2:4-5; Jude 6; Rev. 5:3, 13; 9:1-11; 20:14
There is a solid firmament (dome/vault) over us:
Job 22:14; 37:18; Gen. 1:6-8, 20; Ex. 24:10; Psa. 104:2; Prov. 8:27-28; Isa. 40:21-22; 45:12; 66:1; Jer. 10:12; 51:15; Ezek. 1:22-26; Amos 9:6
God's throne sits above the heavens (waters):
Job 9:8; 22:14; 37:18; Deut. 26:15; Psa. 11:4; 29:3, 10; 33:13; 103:19; 104:2-3; 148:4; Isa. 40:21-22; 66:1; Jer. 10:12-13; Ezek 1:22-28; 28:2; Amos 9:6
The sun, moon and stars are in the firmament {and the stars shall fall to Earth}:
Gen. 1:14-18; Psa. 19:4-6; Isa. 34:4; Dan. 8:10; Matt. 24:29; Mark 13:25; 2 Peter 3:10; Rev. 6:13-14; 9:1; 12:4
There are “floodgates” (windows) in the firmament:
Gen. 7:11; 8:2; 2 Kings 7:2-19; Mal. 3:10
The Earth is inscribed in a circular (flat) fashion into something with 4 corners and surrounded by water:
Job 11:9; 26:10-11; 37:3; 38:12-18; Gen. 1:1-9; 49:25; Psa. 24:1-2; 72:8; 136:6; Prov. 8:27-29; Isa. 11:12; 13:5; 40:22; 41:8-9; 44:24; Ezek. 7:2; Dan. 4:10-11, Zech. 9:10; Matt. 4:8; 24:31; Rev. 7:1; 20:8
Earth is a geocentric, stationary world set on pillars:
Job 26:11; 38:4-6; Josh. 10:13; Psa. 19:4-6; 75:3; 104:5; Prov. 8:29; Ecc. 1:5; 1 Sam. 2:8; 2 Sam. 22:8; Joel 2:10; Zech. 12:1
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 1 Corinthians 3:19
It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. - Psalm 118:8
Christian Topography by Cosmas Indeocopleustes
Job 26:7. "He stretcheth out the north over the void, and hangs the earth upon nothing." In both, the dust of the earth is gathered into a square box, as in Job 38:38*. "When the dust runneth into a mass and the clods cleave fast together?" which relies on the Septuagint translation used by Constantine of Antioch: "He has included cleave to earth and that it has been poured out as the dust of the earth.
'I have welded it as a square block of stone.' The use of the same verses suggests a common homiletic understanding of the biblical text as well as a shared conception of the structure of the universe.
Pg 125-127
According to Constantine of Antioch's homiletical interpretation, the verses from Genesis, Psalms, Isaiah, and Job provide a concrete understanding of the schematic model representing the pattern of the world.
Page 128
It is written: In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. We therefore first depict along with the earth, the heaven which is vaulted and which has its extremities bound together with the extremities of the earth. To the best of our ability we have endeavored to delineate it on its western side and its eastern: for these two sides are walls extending from below to the vault above. There is also the firmament which in the middle is bound together with the first heaven and which, on its upper side has the waters according to divine scripture itself.
(https://i.imgur.com/tI7Qpom.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/DdocuF7.png)
The true cosmology of the Earth isn't really that important to me, so I'll go with flat Earth because it makes soyence cultists seethe and froth at the mouth the most :trollface:Good enough. :laugh1:
How about we use the unanimous interpretation of the Church Fathers?
And exactly what was that Ladislaus? That they unanimously believed in a physical firmament that kept physical waters above the sky from flooding the earth.' Doesn't the firmament or part of it that contains air that keeps the clouds above the Earth, as I said?
Okay so a few questions then...
1. Where is the edge of this finite space?
In your model do you draw a circle around the entire solar system and that is the edge?
I've never seen a drawing of this model. Is there one you can provide?
2. Which way is up to heaven? Is it sideways or downways or any direction away from earth until you reach the edge?
3. If the firmament is the "space" between the clouds and the earth then it is not firm but air then how can we understand the following passages:
[Genesis 1:14 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=14#x)]
[Genesis 1:15 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=15#x)]
[Genesis 1:17 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=1&l=17#x)]
In your model are the sun, moon and stars in that space or air between the clouds and the earth?
Are they under the clouds so as to be under "the waters"
[Ezechiel (Ezekiel) 1:23 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=31&ch=1&l=23#x)]
If the firmament is the space under the clouds what about the birds that fly above the clouds?
Do the birds that fly above the clouds fly in Heaven? Is Heaven above the clouds?
[3 Kings (1 Kings) 8:43 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=11&ch=8&l=43#x)]
Is heaven the air that is the space between the clouds and the earth? Is that where God dwells?
[3 Kings (1 Kings) 8:49 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=11&ch=8&l=49#x)]
Is God's throne in the space or air between the clouds and the earth?
[Psalms 17:3 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=17&l=3#x)]
[Psalms 24:14 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=24&l=14#x)]
Is God like the air or the space between the clouds and the earth or is He something strong and solid?
[Psalms 70:3 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=21&ch=70&l=3#x)]
Again is God's strength like space or air or is it solid
[Ezechiel (Ezekiel) 1:22 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=31&ch=1&l=22#x)]
Is the appearance of crystal like air or is it more like glass?
[Ezechiel (Ezekiel) 1:26 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=31&ch=1&l=26#x)]
[Ezechiel (Ezekiel) 10:1 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=31&ch=10&l=1#x)]
In your model, where would you draw a picture of God's throne? Would it be beyond the edge that circles the solar system?
[Daniel 12:3 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=32&ch=12&l=3#x)]
Would this refer to the bright blue sky overhead or would it refer to the air that is the space between the clouds and the earth?
Is someone saying all the Fathers held to a firm firmament?
When scripture says water, it really meant gas.
Trying to debate with you Tradman and some others, is impossible. Take for example the statement above. Are you telling me I am so silly that I think water is gas. Or, are you telling me when water is mentioned in Scripture it really means gas. Then again, over here we call something funny as 'gas.' So when water is mentioned in Scripture is it just being funny? Trying to get a 1 on 1 or a 2 on 2 debate with flat-earthers is very difficult. Anyway, I got to hand it to you guys, you have chased every global earther off the forum. If you were a little more calm and reasonable, it could be an interesting subject. Calling us satanists, heretics, stupid and so on, is not how Jesus would teach a flat Earth, is it? Now that I think of it, did He?
And the vaccuм of space (measured in torr) is orders of magnitude "stronger" than anything we've been able to reproduce here on earth.Please explain where you get this idea, and the proof behind it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz95_VvTxZM
The true cosmology of the Earth isn't really that important to me, so I'll go with flat Earth because it makes soyence cultists seethe and froth at the mouth the most :trollface:Almost all the FE videos you can find online are made by neo pagans and protestants :trollface:
Trying to debate with you Tradman and some others, is impossible. Take for example the statement above. Are you telling me I am so silly that I think water is gas. Or, are you telling me when water is mentioned in Scripture it really means gas. Then again, over here we call something funny as 'gas.' So when water is mentioned in Scripture is it just being funny? Trying to get a 1 on 1 or a 2 on 2 debate with flat-earthers is very difficult. Anyway, I got to hand it to you guys, you have chased every global earther off the forum. If you were a little more calm and reasonable, it could be an interesting subject. Calling us satanists, heretics, stupid and so on, is not how Jesus would teach a flat Earth, is it? Now that I think of it, did He?I agree. I'm not even a globe earther but just trying to figure out things here, and already got many name callings. And it just blows my mind how people don't understand basic physics :facepalm:
Can gravity not act on air? What causes hot air to rise and cold air to fall? What causes buoyancy?
. I don't buy the Einsteinian stuff about curvature of space-time.That's fine, but don't just throw it out until you are certain.
So the common explanation (except for raw gravity) is that there not enough air pressure at the top edges of the atmosphere to push the molecules/atoms out into the vacuum, since that's actually what's happening (vacuums don't actually "suck" from a physics standpoint), but this is just kicking the can down the road, because it doesn't explain why the entropy does not cause the more dense (higher pressure) molecules to push into the less dense areas, and the only plausible explanation for this is that this is all taking place within a container with a finite volume.You know about inches of water and inches of mercury as a measurement of pressure, and that as you go deeper under water in a lake, or wherever, pressure increases. Why this pressure increase? Why should the air be any different? Actually air acts similarly. Put oil in water, and it floats to the top. Put helium in air, and it does the same. Why should water fall because of gravity, but not air? We could have an inches of air measurement, but not only would it be a really small unit, but such a unit of measure would only work in a vacuum just like how you can't weigh a certain number of inches of water in a column while under water. The altitude in which exists enough air pressure to breathe and survive is small compared to the lowest pressure zone at the edge of space, which makes sense because there is no more air to push down on it, so it will expand a lot more being of such little pressure. Yet, gravity still keeps those air molecules from completely flying away. Actually, I think the scientists say hydrogen and maybe helium too are lost into space.
...If we are in a sealed container of finite volume, pressure should be equal, regardless of altitude (see Pascal's Law). Either Pascal's Law is incorrect (which it doesn't seem to be) or we're missing some factor(s).
So the common explanation (except for raw gravity) is that there not enough air pressure at the top edges of the atmosphere to push the molecules/atoms out into the vacuum, since that's actually what's happening (vacuums don't actually "suck" from a physics standpoint), but this is just kicking the can down the road, because it doesn't explain why the entropy does not cause the more dense (higher pressure) molecules to push into the less dense areas, and the only plausible explanation for this is that this is all taking place within a container with a finite volume.
If we are in a sealed container of finite volume, pressure should be equal, regardless of altitude (see Pascal's Law). Either Pascal's Law is incorrect (which it doesn't seem to be) or we're missing some factor(s).
You know about inches of water and inches of mercury as a measurement of pressure, and that as you go deeper under water in a lake, or wherever, pressure increases. Why this pressure increase?
Well, there's some force that is pushing it downwards resulting in the heavier molecules being "down" and the lighter ones going "up" ... and it isn't gravity. Strength of gravity does not suffices to overcome entropy. Without a container there can be NO pressure.Pressure and density are two separate and distinct things. Let's use a down-to-earth illustration. Take a nice t-bone steak, cut off a piece of the meat and chew it. Now take the bone and chew that with the same amount of force that you used on the meat. Now, unless the cow came from Chernobyl Farms, the same amount of force that shredded the meat will not penetrate the bone. The bone is obviously more dense than the meat, but the force (pressure) applied to each is identical.
You can put liquids of different densities into a container, then perhaps add some gases on top of the liquids, and the heavier ones will sink and the lighter ones go up, and they form layers, and the upper layers have lower density than the higher layers. Now put the same liquids into an open-top container and put a vacuum at the top. Not only will the gases in the upper section evacuate, but the liquids will also turn to gas and evaporated out of the container. Obviously how much evaporates depends on how much area there is to fill, but with alleged space, the volume is infinite.
So the pressures do not equalize depending upon the total size of the container and the total volume of matter within the container.
Pressure and density are two separate and distinct things.
Pressure is the measure of force acting on a unit area. Density is the measure of how closely any given entity is packed, or it is the ratio of the mass of the entity to its volume. The relation between pressure and density is direct. Change in pressure will be reflected in a change in density and vice-versa.
Nature of the firmament:
If the firmament is impermeable, we should not have a change in pressure with a change in altitude. The air may contain oxygen at low altitude and helium at high altitude but the pressure should be identical. But we've all observed that it isn't that way; anyone who has driven up or down even moderate hills has felt their ears "pop" because of a change in pressure.
If the firmament is permeable, and surrounded by negative pressure (vacuum), and the leak rate is high enough, we would see a pressure decrease at higher altitudes first, but, before long, would notice it at low altitude. Man would've died long ago.
So when we observe that air pressure increases at lower altitude and that materials always stratify with the densest materials toward earth, it points to there being something (some might be tempted to term it "a force") that draws material things toward earth.
P.S. In case it's not clear, I'm not supporting a "NASA" view of creation nor arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm actually interested in this subject but I find the answers given on certain points quite lacking.
You can put liquids of different densities into a container, then perhaps add some gases on top of the liquids, and the heavier ones will sink and the lighter ones go up, and they form layers, and the upper layers have lower density than the higher layers. Now put the same liquids into an open-top container and put a vacuum at the top. Not only will the gases in the upper section evacuate, but the liquids will also turn to gas and evaporated out of the container. Obviously how much evaporates depends on how much area there is to fill, but with alleged space, the volume is infinite.Now swing that open top container around in a circle within a vacuum chamber to use centrifugal force to simulate gravity and see what happens.
Well, there's some force that is pushing it downwards resulting in the heavier molecules being "down" and the lighter ones going "up" ... and it isn't gravity. Strength of gravity does not suffices to overcome entropy. Without a container there can be NO pressure.Pressure can be exerted by one uncontained magnet pushing on another. I wonder if some sort of magnetic vapor exists that could use magnetism to simulate gravity to prove an invisible force can make a gas act like it does on the globe earth model inside a vacuum.
That pressure obviously due to the "weight" of matter above the point. Billions of gallons of water are pretty heavy.It requires a container? What is a container? What does it do? Don't containers exert and equal and opposite force or else they cannot contain something? Can an invisible force like magnetism or GRAVITY acting on every atom take the place of solid container walls? If gravity is possible, is it possible that there are other forces such as dark matter? Maybe gravity is not relevant to the largest scale workings of the universe, just as it doesn't seems relevant to some very small scale physics.
But with a vacuum on top the "weight" of matter will get lighter and lighter as the upper layers press out into the vacuum of space, and that would continue until the liquids themselves are turned into gas and eventually evacuated.
It all requires a container and cannot happen without a container.
This should be demonstrable on a small scale if gravity can produce this effect. Put some dirt into a chamber, perhaps a cup of water here or there. The introduce gases in the same mixture / proportions that we would have in our atmosphere, and fill the remaining space to within a reasonable average PSI of the earth's atmosphere. Over time, not sure how long, but we should see the heaver gases lower down, closer to the dirt and the lighter gases higher up. Not sure how long it would take to settle out that way. But whether you put a tiny amount of gas in (tiny air pressure) or a larger amount (high air pressure), introduce a vacuum to the open top of the chamber and not only will the gases dissipate, but the water will evaporated (turning directly into gas) and it too will spread out to fill the available vacuum area. Gravity does not suffice to keep those gases nor the water in the lower chamber, nor does the explanation of lower gas pressure at the upper reaches of the atmosphere. Even with tiny air pressure, very quickly the water will begin to transform into gas and will then evacuate the lower chamber. This debunks the explanation that a combination of gravity and the low air pressure at higher altitudes explains why the the earth's atmosphere and oceans do not evacuate the earth out into space.
You could argue that there's some unknown principle or force keeping things bound to the earth, but modern science has articulated no such explanation.
Some of us accept the unanimous Patristic interpretation of Sacred Scripture that there is a solid firmament above the atmosphere that keeps it contained. Others prefer to bow to modern science. Science is proven wrong over and over and over again, so much so that only a fool would put much trust in them, especially when you see how the origins of modern science are clearly driven by the atheistic agenda. They assured everyone that the Big Bang was fact for several generations now, that the universe is expanding, that gravity is the primary force that governs the movements of the galaxies, stars, and planets, but this has been so badly debunked that they had to make up this phantom "dark matter", which allegedly must constitute 80% of the mass of the entire universe to keep their theories on life support, even though no one has ever detected this dark matter.
I've agreed that there is something that has to account for the directionality of the stratification. I just don't believe that it's gravity. In fact, there's a video out there of a lecture given by an MIT professor who dismisses gravity as having any effect on or near the earth, asserting that the force involved is electromagnetism.My problem with the electromagnetism theory is that it should be easily proven right or wrong with electromagnets, or even permanent magnets. Some things are more or less affected by electromagnetism, but in an isolated and out of proportion way compared to the general constant force pulling things down. Magnets can defy gravity to an extreme degree, yet they cannot attract or repel most objects.
In that case the stratification could be determined based on the degree of charge on given bodies. It's said that the earth has a negative charge. Consequently, those elements with higher positive charge would tend to clump downward toward the earth, whereas those with lesser charge would rise higher. Generally speaking the charge would be related too the "weight" or mass, if the charge emanates from nuclear principles.
Subsequently, if there were elements that had a negative charge, they would be repelled upward and away from the earth. I've seen demonstrations online of electric charge being used to counteract "gravity", and of course the tech is being actively used for some of those high-speed trains. But gravity IMO doesn't exist, and it's all somehow related to charge, to electromagnetism.
But regardless of either gravity or charge, it's never been demonstrated that either of these could counteract the power of a vacuum. As I mentioned I've seen vacuum chambers on top of a container opened at the top, and not only was there air evacuated but the water inside the lower chamber turned evaporated. If we are to believed that there's an nearly-infinite vacuum outside of and adjacent to the atmosphere, the atmosphere would most certainly leave the earth, and by now the oceans would have completely dried up as well.
My problem with the electromagnetism theory is that it should be easily proven right or wrong with electromagnets, or even permanent magnets. Some things are more or less affected by electromagnetism, but in an isolated and out of proportion way compared to the general constant force pulling things down. Magnets can defy gravity to an extreme degree, yet they cannot attract or repel most objects.
My problem with the electromagnetism theory is that it should be easily proven right or wrong with electromagnets, or even permanent magnets. Some things are more or less affected by electromagnetism, but in an isolated and out of proportion way compared to the general constant force pulling things down. Magnets can defy gravity to an extreme degree, yet they cannot attract or repel most objects.
This never made sense to me:
(https://i.imgur.com/oKuq8KU.png)
Gen 1:16
And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night
It doesn't make sense. But then, none of the globe model "proofs" make sense. Upside down people and entire oceans magically sticking to a globe? Demonic indoctrination is certainly the culprit. You can't even reason with people anymore.
Anyway I'm on page 20 of this thread and am busy atm so can't read more, is there any 'good' FE models? The current one does not take into account the Southern hemisphere and has some other problems.
It does if you understand it, where the sun moves faster in the southern hemisphere, and the notion of the 24-hour sun in Antarctica has never been demonstrated. In fact, the only two videos out there were demonstrably faked (cuts were made and exact cloud patterns repeated after 24 hours, etc.). One of the things that needs to be studied are the arguments regarding the movement of the stars in the "southern" "hemisphere", and I've seen arguments from both sides but haven't had time to study the details.How about an angel holds the atmosphere from escaping? Will you accept that? Could God have just ordered nature such that the earth is a globe and the air doesn't escape?I think the scientists say helium and hydrogen do escape.
I just know that the tests that have been conducted simply can't work on a globe, well, not a globe of the size they claim it to be. Perhaps if the globe were much larger than we're told, but there's not a chance that these results could be obtained on a globe of the size they claim the earth to be. Really the only answer might be that some other force, perhaps electromagnetism, somehow bends light perfectly around the globe, but no globe earther has ever proposed (much less demonstrated) such a thing.
Nor has there been an even remotely adequate explanation for how the planet could retain the atmosphere adjacent to the nearly-absolute vacuum of space without a container or barrier such as Sacred Scripture describes the firmament.
How about an angel holds the atmosphere from escaping? Will you accept that? Could God have just ordered nature such that the earth is a globe and the air doesn't escape?I think the scientists say helium and hydrogen do escape.
It does if you understand it, where the sun moves faster in the southern hemisphere, and the notion of the 24-hour sun in Antarctica has never been demonstrated. In fact, the only two videos out there were demonstrably faked (cuts were made and exact cloud patterns repeated after 24 hours, etc.). One of the things that needs to be studied are the arguments regarding the movement of the stars in the "southern" "hemisphere", and I've seen arguments from both sides but haven't had time to study the details.What about Southern Constellations?
I just know that the tests that have been conducted simply can't work on a globe, well, not a globe of the size they claim it to be. Perhaps if the globe were much larger than we're told, but there's not a chance that these results could be obtained on a globe of the size they claim the earth to be. Really the only answer might be that some other force, perhaps electromagnetism, somehow bends light perfectly around the globe, but no globe earther has ever proposed (much less demonstrated) such a thing.
Nor has there been an even remotely adequate explanation for how the planet could retain the atmosphere adjacent to the nearly-absolute vacuum of space without a container or barrier such as Sacred Scripture describes the firmament.
What about Southern Constellations?6min 47sec
Well, I might in theory accept that an angel would hold it back, except that Sacred Scripture clearly describes the firmament as serving that function.I recall a firmament separating waters, nothing about the air, maybe I should re-read it?