Now this is a key point.  If the earth is flat and the sun/moon don't go up and down on their course, how do they appear to set behind the horizon line?  Are they merely converging optically somehow with the horizon?

.
It's a thorn in the side of flat-earthers. They even made a whole video (at LEAST one) trying to explain this.
.
They shot the video inside the arctic circle and pretended that it was down around the 40 degrees latitude line.
So it was total deception all the way.
North of the arctic circle during summer the sun never sets for at least a day, and longer the further north you go.
So they show a time-lapse video of the sun going around the camera without setting.
Okay, that's what it does north of the arctic circle.
But they never say that's where they're shooting it.
They deliberately picked a place with very little snow on the ground.
Guess why?
It's prettier with green grass? I don't think that's the reason.
With green grass they can pretend they are on the 40th parallel. 
.
They show the sun approaching the horizon and then sliding along sideways as if that's what it does everywhere.
-- And from an airplane flying west the sun appears to hover over the horizon.
-- From an airplane at low elevation at sunset you can climb a few thousand feet and see the sun set AGAIN.
-- And it does so a lot further away than 30 miles from 20,000 feet, due to earth's curvature.
.
But NEVER MIND the fact that every time we see a full moon around the 35th parallel we can tell where the sun is.
And the sun is not skimming the northern horizon but is rather directly under our feet when the moon is overhead.
We know that's where it is because the moon's FULL appearance has no shadows at the bottom.
In fact, the full moon NEVER has a shadow at the bottom, which it would if the sun and moon were above a "flat" earth.
.

.
When I want to see something complicated or difficult to understand all I need to do is look at any of the explanations that flat-earthers provide for things like why do the sun and moon appear the same size as the move across the sky, or why can we see them descend over the horizon at over 80 degrees from the horizontal?
And I know I have the necessary background to discuss these things, plus I can see them contradict themselves with each sentence.
.
On the other hand, I have been misunderstood so often that perhaps I'm learning a lesson.
When you try to explain something to someone who doesn't have the necessary background you get nowhere.
And when I have tried to provide the background all the flat-earthers can do is heckle, deride and jump topic.
So that tells me that flat-earthers do not want to learn anything.
.
Prove me wrong by being willing to take the first step. Are you willing to take the first step or not?
.

I was addressing the issue of how you post complicated scientific or mathematical information, and then expect flat-earthers to get it. But you don't want to post anything about how it is that you reconcile geocentrism with modern science. That doesn't make sense.

Or, maybe what you're really doing when posting complicated info is to flaunt your supposed expertise, in order to make flat earthers look ignorant, which is a form of pride on your part. In any case, you don't want to address the issue of how you reconcile geocentrism with modern science.

Neil is not a geocentrist.

Neil is not a geocentrist.

If so, it would be a good thing if he would just admit to that. 

I mean, those who believe in a flat earth are clear about where we stand. No need to hide anything. 

Neil is on record stating our solar system is heliocentric.


He also likes to say "scientists" no longer believe heliocentrism, which is a lie.

So, about what you would expect from a forked-tongue NASA. employee. 

I have some questions.

As long as we maintain that the Earth is the center of this Solar System, can we believe what modern science tells us about the rest of the Universe?

What must we believe about relationship of Earth to the rest of the Universe?

Is Geocentrism a necessary belief as it pertains to just the Solar System or is it necessary to believe in relation to the entire Universe? Is Earth just the center of the Solar System or the entire Universe?

The proportions of false cosmology distort the size of the universe saying that space dwarfs the earth, when Scripture says heaven and earth are bound together and divided by the firmament.  The pagans have always said the universe was boundless, and that earth was a tiny insignificant planet among many others, suggesting a Godless origin of the cosmos.  Rather, as Scripture and the Fathers describe, the earth is at the center, like a wheel.  Earth sits on water, but above hell, as well as under the heavenly firmament.  I've provided a couple of excerpts below.
Why believe modern science at all?  They lie about everything.  About the Big Bang, heliocentrism, evolution, moon walking etc.  We actually have Fathers of the Church and ancient civilizations telling us about cosmology. Some are not infallible, but could they be worse than modern science? 
The book of Job describes a geocentric universe, with earth welded to the heavens like a square block of stone.
"The Deity accordingly having founded the Earth, which is oblong, upon its own stability, bound together the extremities of the heaven with the extremities of the Earth, making the nether extremities of the heaven rest upon the four extremities of the Earth, while on high he formed it into a most lofty vault over-spanning the length of the Earth. Along the breadth again of the Earth he built a wall from the nethermost extremities of the heavens upwards to the summit, and having enclosed the place, made a house, as one might call it, of enormous size, like an oblong vapour bath. For, saith the Prophet Isaiah (xlix, 22), He who established heaven as a vault. With regard moreover to the glueing together of the heaven and the Earth, we find this written in Job: He has inclined heaven to earth, and it has been poured out as the dust of the earth. I have welded it as a square block of stone."  Pg 182 Christian Topography 


Although not free from error, but certainly not less reliable than modern science, ancients digress on the geocentric flat earth all the time.  For instance, the division of the waters around and under the earth is elaborately explained in the Book of Jubilees   Below is a snippet.
“And on the third day He (God) commanded the waters to pass from off the face of the whole earth into one place, and the dry land to appear. And the waters did so as He commanded them, and they retired from off the face of the earth into one place outside of this firmament, and the dry land appeared. And on that day He created for them all the rivers, and the gatherings of the waters in the
mountains and on all the earth, and all the lakes, and all the dew of the earth.”

What has been shared on Cathinfo is fraction of what is available in English, and there are many texts in other languages, as well. 

Yeah, He spread them out in Genesis and rolls them up like a scroll in The Apocalypse (Revelations).  Stars falling to Earth in The Apocalypse.  They're obviously much smaller, than depicted on television and Time magazine.  

.
Many of the Church's theologians and exegetes say the stars falling to earth in Scripture is allegory for priests and consecrated people losing their way and becoming corrupted. It is a spiritual falling away, IOW.
.

.
Many of the Church's theologians and exegetes say the stars falling to earth in Scripture is allegory for priests and consecrated people losing their way and becoming corrupted. It is a spiritual falling away, IOW.
.

It's not just either/or, it's both/and. Scripture reveals to us truths on many levels.  Stars are likened to priests and consecrated people, but stars are also physical things. If Scripture says a star come down to show the place where baby Jesus lay, you can be sure a star came down and did just that. No doubt there are analogies as well. Same with stars falling from the sky.  If people reduce everything to the allegorical and skip the literal, what would scripture have to offer except some cryptic message strictly for the learned and subject to interpretation contrary to the literal? God works with allegory and types not to confuse but to support the literal and to clarify.