but do not falsify the ability of God to have a moving solar system within a spinning universe, both doing what God makes them do.

Yes, God could do either Geocentrism or Heliocentrism.  So why believe that He cannot do Heliocentrism.
God could have done the more complicated system (Geocentrism) or the far less complicated system (Heliocentrism).
UNLESS the Geocentrism requires stars to travel faster than the speed of light (if there is nothing faster than light,
God knows).  
Of course, God could have used a simple mathematical system using gravity of the bodies and angular forces, if He
wanted to and created Heliocentrism.  

There is an individual by the name of Robert Sungenis who has spent most of his adult life at the service of defending the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God.  

Sungenis would be well to stick to the Faith and not dabble in Astronomy, because the current position of the
Catholic Church is that Catholics may believe either Geocentrism or Heliocentrism.  Why?  Because it's not 
something the Church considers necessary for salvation. 

The problem is that he [Cool Hard Logic] is reacting to Catholic Geocentrists the way most of the modern world
is reacting to them ... running from them.  
What that means is that most of the world is running from ... CathInfo.com
Is that what you want ?  
You had better be sure that Geocentrism is an INFALLIBLE dogma of the Church
before your judgment day,  else God may ask you why you turned so many people
away from the Catholic religion, by cramming Geocentrism down their throats ...
when the pope decreed in 1822 that Heliocentrism is not wrong and Catholics may
believe either way.  
Robert Sungenis is an idiot (just an opinion, proof coming later).

Sorry, Apollo.  I already have a solid Catholic confessor and spiritual director.  You need not apply. 

So nice to see that you are apparently worried about poor little old me Apollo, thinking that God may ask me why I -- personally, little old me -- "turned so many people away from the Catholic religion, by cramming Geocentrism down their throats."  (Mea culpa, mea culpa to anyone on CathInfo for my "cramming Geocentrism down their throats."   I hope it wasn't too traumatizing.  Perhaps, I can make it up to you some way.  Just send me a personal message via this web site so I can begin the process. :)
 
You may want to review your history Apollo if you think souls have been lost to hell because of Robert Sungenis' work concerning geocentrism.  The fact of the matter is that the world has done and continues to do a very effective job driving actual Catholics and potential Catholics away from the Church and the Catholic Faith by convincing them that the Church was wrong in its condemnation of geocentrism and that Galileo was right.  The world's constant refrain for well over 200 years has been that if the Church was wrong on Galileo/geocentrism what else has it been wrong on and what is it still wrong on today.

The Catholic Church has always relied on God and the Catholic faith He has bestowed on His Church to save souls, not on science.  The world which is not of Christ and which hates Christ knows this and has thus used the "Galileo was right, the Church was wrong" mantra/refrain as a way to denigrate Holy Mother Church and the Catholic Faith (and by extension the doctrine of the total inerrancy of Sacred Scripture) as a very effective means to weaken the Church and place it on the defensive.  Review your history.  The proof is in the mix.  The world which is not of Christ has been tremendously successful in doing this.

You say, "Robert Sungenis is an idiot."  Such nice words from one who does not hesitate in complaining about being on the receiving end of ad hominem abuse.

I've said this about 10 times on CathInfo.com and I'm really getting
tired of repeating it.  
Even Robert Sungenis agrees with Kepler and Newton's view of our
solar system.  It's the universe outside of our solar system where
he goes nuts and starts talking about "ether", the magical stuff that
we cannot measure.  
Believe what you want,  Nothing and nobody will change you.  Stay
in the dark ages and claim that the papal decree of 1822 is heresy.

If you really knew and understood what Sungenis teaches you would not engage in such rhetoric unless you simply wished to engage in dishonesty or unless you were under some sort of forced duress to do so.

Here then is the usual way the Earthmovers dismiss any objection to their mind-science, they make no allowances that anyone who is not being paid to kerep therir ideological cosmology alive can study the subject and make their own mind up about them.

Someone with a valid falsification of relativity would likely be inducted in his or her national academy of science and be a prime candidate for a Nobel prize. if such a falsification existed, it would be well known. 

Even possible falsifications are quite widely reported, and the data is reviewed by other scientists. (Experts sometimes make mistakes in their analysis, too.)

What a silly question. Determining where a satellite is orbiting the earth has nothing to do with a particular universal model. But while I am on it I will show you who uses the Geocentric model to determine other cosmic bodies.

Geosynchronous orbits around earth would probably be calculated with a geocentric coordinate system, so this should be a softball to you. But the cooordinate system is not the issue. Any coordinate system could be used. 

No, my question is to 1) find out whether you think the earth is rotating or not, and 2) determine whether your geocentric system has any predictive ability.

The standard model can determine geosynchronous orbit for earth, mars, the moon, or any other body using the same method. As far as I can tell, a geocentric "universal model" means that some other mechanism makes an orbit geosynchronous for earth - and at exactly the same location that would be calculated if earth behaved just like any other planet, even though geocentrists think it doesn't behave like any other planet. 

You also state: "While I'm here: Sungenis' video near the end focuses on asking why the rotation of the earth is not slowing. As a matter of fact, science currently says that it is slowing - and we have leap seconds now and then in part to account for this."  Big deal!  You say as a matter of fact.  So what!  Science says this.  Science says that.  Look at the history of science.  What it "proves" today it "disproves" tomorrow and what it "disproves" tomorrow it "proves" the next day.  Science is true when it's true and false when it's false.

One of his "rebuttal" arguments is wrong according to what should be common knowledge. It's not a "big deal" but it's worth noting.

Then you go off about science changing? What is that about? An ability to adapt to new data would seem like a generally good thing for a science (as well as for a person). Do you think the science of theology is immune from change or development?

One of his "rebuttal" arguments is wrong according to what should be common knowledge. It's not a "big deal" but it's worth noting.

Then you go off about science changing? What is that about? An ability to adapt to new data would seem like a generally good thing for a science (as well as for a person). Do you think the science of theology is immune from change or development?

No use going on with you Stan since you consistently have a penchant for mischaracterizing what I say.