.
Since Neil has said in the past that he's a geocentrist, I'd like to see him explain how he reconciles geocentrism with modern science, since modern science does not believe in geocentrism. Modern science is staunchly heliocentric.
.
First thing, you've already come out swinging against a strawman. Modern science is absolutely NOT "heliocentric."
.
Modern astronomers, astrophysicists and mathematicians have long ago abandoned heliocentrism.
.
Maybe you missed the memo.
.
.
So NASA promotes and believes in geocentrism? I guess I missed that memo. Can you please provide data which shows this?
So NASA promotes and believes in geocentrism? I guess I missed that memo. Can you please provide data which shows this?
Neil,.
Why is it so difficult to explain how you reconcile geocentrism with modern science? You have not shown that modern science is geocentric.
.Modern science has only very recently hinted at moving away from heliocentric theory, and that, only in part. They do not (always) say that the sun is at the center of the universe. Big hairy deal! They still pretend without proof that earth is a whirling, spinning ball hurtling through space at hoo wee! 1000, 67,000 550,000 and 1,000,000 mph, 4 different directions at the same time! :facepalm: So, that's basically heliocentrism. They do not say earth is a stationary ball in the middle of the universe. Why? Because that model doesn't work. Without the daily turn on its axis, how do sun and moon work to bring about day and night and seasons? And, if it does spin, that denies not only Scripture but the Church who quite specifically condemned a moving earth. Further, the distances to stars, sun and moon are identical in all pagan globe theories which deny the existence of the firmament clearly described in Scripture, not to mention the water above the firmament. In addition science doesn't even address the windows of heaven that opened to bring about Noah's Great Flood. Modern geocentrism is a nonsensical prevarication based on the heliocentric model and chock full of pagan garbage. Robert Sungenis and buddy Rick Delano are probably modern shills backed by NASA. The last statement is a guess, but I'd personally bank some decent money on it.
First thing, you've already come out swinging against a strawman. Modern science is absolutely NOT "heliocentric."
.
Modern astronomers, astrophysicists and mathematicians have long ago abandoned heliocentrism.
.
Maybe you missed the memo.
.
.
In the past I have found it impossible to converse with someone who is unqualified in the topic of discussion.
.
So I asked you about your background in order to avoid this problem.
.
But you have either not understood my questions, or perhaps, you feel ashamed at the answers you don't want to give me.
.
I know you wouldn't tell me something that isn't true, but you have not responded to my prerequisite inquiry.
.
Do you remember what questions I asked you?
Oh, so I'm unqualified to ask you the question..
So.....in order for you answer the question about how it is that you reconcile geocentrism with modern science, first you have to find out how "qualified" I am. That's hilarious Neil..
You obviously just don't want to address the question in a direct and honest manner..
Maybe Smedley is right..
You aren't actually a geocentrist, as you have said you are in the past. Geocentrism, in the Sungenis model, is dumb anyway, and makes about as much sense as heliocentrism..
.
I didn't say that. You can ask all you want but it seems you're not going to understand my answer.
..
I'm so glad you find this entertaining. Have fun, then.
.
.
So in your ignorance you presume to pass judgment on what you can't comprehend. Okaaaay.
..
Think again. Smedley is wrong with practically every sentence he writes, so this would be no surprise.
..
As you wish. Carry on.
You frequently post supposedly scientific information that you want flat-earthers to read and consider, and some of it is quite technical and difficult to understand. And yet you won't answer this question, because you think that I might not understand your answer..
Does this mean that you will no longer post anything that may be in any way complicated or difficult to understand?
... why can we see them descend over the horizon at over 80 degrees from the horizontal?
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?.
.
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?
.
.
And I know I have the necessary background to discuss these things, plus I can see them contradict themselves with each sentence.
Neil is not a geocentrist.
They converge OPTICALLY.
They do not literally go up & down.
Watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzLMp5jGtHw
I have some questions.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.
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?
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..
.And every day of Creation is a thousand years or a million or a billion or whatever we need them to be at the moment.
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.
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..
.Funny how people make things up as they go and think they know.
We don't have to ignore the literal meaning of Scripture to appreciate its allegorical meaning.
.
The Apocalypse of St. John is written in a manner that is not meant to be literally understood as much as it is allegorical. Perhaps you're not familiar with apocalyptic prophesy. That has something to do with us calling this the Book of the Apocalypse. It says the dragon's tail drew the third part of the stars from heaven and cast them to the earth. Do you suppose that means there is a great red dragon flying around up there, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems with a magnet for a tail, drawing stars around like iron marbles? It SAYS "drew" them and "cast them to the earth" you know. Or maybe it means that the dragon's tail drew one-third of EACH star and cast THAT to the earth.
.
Funny how people make things up as they go and think they know..
Since Neil has said in the past that he's a geocentrist, I'd like to see him explain how he reconciles geocentrism with modern science, since modern science does not believe in geocentrism. Modern science is staunchly heliocentric.
As a global geocentrist I should like to answer the above question. 'Modern science' has, since 1905 at least, admitted relativity. In other words it admits the universe could be geocentric or heliocentric.
What people believe it is does not change the position of 'modern science.'
Finally, just to show how NASA operates, here is an interesting letter:
Royal Air Force College
Cranwell, Lincolnshire, England.
‘Sir, ... One can of course believe anything one likes as long as the consequences of the belief are trivial. But when survival [and success] depends on that belief, then it matters that belief corresponds to manifest reality. We therefore teach navigators that the stars are fixed to the Celestial sphere, which is centred on a fixed Earth, and around which it rotates in accordance with laws clearly deducible from common-sense observation. The sun and moon move across the inner surface of this sphere, and hence perforce go around the Earth. This means that students of navigation must unlearn a lot of confused dogma they learned in school. Most of them find this remarkably easy, because dogma is as may be, but the real world is as we perceive it to be. If Andrew Hill will look in the Journal of Navigation he will find that the Earth-centred Universe is alive and well, whatever his readings of the Spectator may suggest. Yours, Darcy Reddyhoff.’When it comes to working out eclipses etc., according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, it is the geocentric reality mathematics that is used. But watch how they again play mind-games when admitting this:
‘For this purpose [making calculations] it is convenient first to consider the Earth as fixed and to suppose the observer looking out from its centre…’--- Encyclopaedia Britannica (Eclipse, p.869).
One obscure letter does not prove that modern science has admitted relativity. Does this letter really represent all of modern science everywhere? Please show scientific journals that say that everyone in the science field believes that the universe could be geocentric. And then you would have to show how this has trickled down to the average person. I don't know of anyone outside of this forum who believes in geocentrism (of course there is Robert Sungenis). The children are still taught heliocentrism in public and religious schools.Flat earth is the original geocentric model. Globe geocentrism, the notion that the earth is a stationary globe is nonsense.
Evidently, the way in which you have reconciled geocentrism with modern science is to believe that modern science is open to the idea that the universe can be geocentric. Evidently, 'modern science' itself hasn't got the memo yet.
One obscure letter does not prove that modern science has admitted relativity. Does this letter really represent all of modern science everywhere? Please show scientific journals that say that everyone in the science field believes that the universe could be geocentric. And then you would have to show how this has trickled down to the average person. I don't know of anyone outside of this forum who believes in geocentrism (of course there is Robert Sungenis). The children are still taught heliocentrism in public and religious schools.
Evidently, the way in which you have reconciled geocentrism with modern science is to believe that modern science is open to the idea that the universe can be geocentric. Evidently, 'modern science' itself hasn't got the memo yet.
‘Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption that cannot be proved or disproved by observation.’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftn1)You just quoted Bertrand Russell, well-known atheist & occultist, as proof of relative motion.[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftnref1) Bertrand Russell: quoted in D. D. Sciama’s The Unity of the Universe, p.18.
https://physicsofcreation.wordpress.com/2016/08/18/relative-motion/ (https://physicsofcreation.wordpress.com/2016/08/18/relative-motion/)
You just quoted Bertrand Russell, well-known atheist & occultist, as proof of relative motion.Globalist are forced to draw from pagan sources because the globe earth model sprang from the occult. They got nobody else.
There is no relative motion.
Earth does not rotate.
You cannot contradict the Bible which says earth does NOT move.
For Neil Obstat: thought you might like to see this awesome new global map from NOAA.:laugh1: :laugh2:
.
https://weather.com/news/trending/video/noaa-provides-incredibly-detailed-animation-of-the-ocean-floor
For Neil Obstat: thought you might like to see this awesome new global map from NOAA..
.
https://weather.com/news/trending/video/noaa-provides-incredibly-detailed-animation-of-the-ocean-floor