I personally still believe that there are some stuff that doesn't make sense on a ball earth, but I am trying to focus this thread against heliocentrism and I think there are things that may be reconciled with both geocentric models.

So while I definitely do not believe in heliocentrism which is garbage. I do have some questions about non-flat earth geocentrism. I am finding it rather difficult to find content on it online.

- Do the planets move around the sun or the earth? (i commonly see people represent geocentrism as planets around earth but I have seen the idea that the sun is around the earth but the planets around the sun)
- Cassinian Ovals for geocentrism is not talked about much, I can't find any videos on it at all on bitchute. I would prefer NOT to read long papers that will go over my head
- How does non-flat geocentrism reconcile with the Church Fathers on the firmament being solid? The plank stuff seems like a very weak cope to me.
- Can Cassinian Ovals work in the flat earth model?

I personally still believe that there are some stuff that doesn't make sense on a ball earth, but I am trying to focus this thread against heliocentrism and I think there are things that may be reconciled with both geocentric models.

If all those stars are rotating around the earth once per day at a distance of billions of light years, they'd have to be moving faster than the speed of light.

Incredibly immense distances as for example the claim of the universe having a diameter of some 93 billion light years have never been a problem for me and not simply because God can do all things, but because of my understanding of how the mysterious (incredibly dense yet at the same time incredibly fluid) aether is said to carry the heavenly bodies with it.  And also by way of the following example or if you will thought experiment:  If you could reduce yourself to the size of a theoretical Planck particle and you were in submerged in the outer area of a let's say one yard wide fish bowl as it did one complete rotation once every 24 hours you presumably would not notice or be affected by the motion of the fish bowl.  I haven't done the math, but I suspect that by relative comparative speed that Planck particle would actually be traveling faster, perhaps even much faster than a heavenly body lying in the outer limits of our (for the sake of argument) 93 billion light years wide universe.

(Again, I doubt that any of the little minnows in our fish bowl would really notice or be affected by the rotation of the fish bowl.)

In Genesis 22:17 and Hebrews 11:12, we find a comparison between the number of stars in the sky with the finite numbers of grains of sand by the seashore.

‘For which cause there sprung even from one (and him as good as dead) as the stars of heaven in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.’--- Douay Rheims, Epistle of St Paul to the Hebrews, 11:12.

Now who would like to venture a guess at the number of grains of sand in a teacup let alone by the sea shore? Such a contrast teaches us the omnipotence of God by star numbers and indeed by the space needed to accommodate these created bodies; as such numbers would need a universe of immeasurable distances for so many. In his book City of God (Vol. 1, Ch.23), St Augustine, 1200 years before Galileo’s sightings, addressed this very revelation:

‘But as for their numbers, who sees not that the sands do far exceed the stars? Herein you may say they are not comparable in that they are both innumerable. For we cannot think that one can see all the stars, but the more earnestly he beholds them the more he sees: so that we may well suppose that there are some that deceive the sharpest eyes, besides those that arise in other horizons out of sight.’

Geocentric Speed and Time:

The argument, when brought down to modern levels, states: ‘For the furthest stars to rotate around the Earth they would have to be travelling at speeds not possible.’

As Always says above, Since when was there a limit on speeds to God?

‘For the stars of the firmament all race together through the whole circle of the sky at the same speed during twenty-four hours, for those stars which are called planets or wandering stars are hurled with differing movements, some faster, some slower, so that the stars of the firmament seem to represent the bass notes and the planets play a sort of eternal and sweet counterpoint.’--- Cardinal Bellarmine; ‘Ladder of Assent.’

     

Then there is the principle that things revolve to a centre. God created the stars and the sun in a rotating-door type universe, where the outer parts of the four doors (of sun and stars) move in rotation around its stationary axis the Earth. The next time you pass through a rotating door, watch its parts all turning together, all rotating simultaneously, while seemingly moving at different speeds yet all complete their turn in the same time. Such a universe would also account for a one universal time clock,

Very interesting response. Are there any public people who are doing work with cassini ovals? Also by pear earth. Did he mean as a 3D pear and we live on the surface? Or a flat earth but pear shaped?

In 1959 another measurement for the Earth was found, this time using a satellite called Vanguard. It found Newton’s ‘bulge’ was 25 feet (7.6 meters) higher south of the equator, and announced the Earth was shaped like a pear, that is, it has a bulgier bulge in the southern hemisphere. Seeking a few more details of this curious revelation we find that according to this latest measurement the South Pole is flatter by 50 feet and the North Pole higher (pointed) by 50 feet, as this illustration shows:

I have one paper written by Charles A. Muses: A MORE EXACT THEORY OF GRAVITATION DEDUCIBLE IN PART FROM THE SOLAR OBSERVATIONS OF J.D.CASSINI ( Roma Consiglio nαzιonale Della Ricerche (1965).

As for Einstein's 'That there is no greater velocity than the speed of light through a vacuum,'Muses wrote:

'The phrase in vacuo is a very doubtful assumption, for nowhere has been found any absolute vacuum. Thus for instance, if a compass needle is made to move by a magnet that does not touch it, even though both are in a vacuum with respect to the presence of other matter, there clearly exists a physical connection far more than merely geometric) between the magnet and the compass needle, for otherwise the magnet could not effect the observed rotation of the needle.'

Muses also wrote:‘The planets would thus ride in those energy grooves and the agreement between their semi-major axes and the zeros of the strongest (k = 0 or 1) cylindrical function is thus explained….. All in all, the theory of gravitation sketched here offers several new data, insights, and unifications for physical science and astronomy. There is no similar hypothesis that can explain all the data taken together or the parts taken separately.’--- Charles Muses.

As for a pear shape Earth,
Copernicus, Tycho de Brahe, Kepler, Newton and Cassini all took a global Earth for granted. Thus the shape of this global Earth was said by Newton to have a bulge around the Equator that caused the Earth to act as a gyroscope and cause precession. This was Newton's way to get the world to believe heliocentrism is proven. Cassini, a geocentrist was hated by the Newtonians because he proved them wrong about orbits and then about the shape of the Earth. Here is that science used to determine the shape of the Earth.

‘The period from Eratosthenes to Jean Picard can be called the spherical era of geodesy.  A new ellipsoidal era was begun by Sir Isaac Newton and Christian Huygens. In the Ptolemaic astronomy it had seemed natural to assume that the earth was an exact sphere with a centre that, in turn, all too easily became regarded as the centre of the entire universe. But, with a growing conviction that the Copernican system is true – the earth moves around the Sun and rotates around its own axis – and with the advance in mechanical knowledge due chiefly to Newton and Huygens, it seemed natural to conceive the earth as an oblate spheroid.’

King Louis XIV of France approved Cassini’s last great expedition. With the aid of his son Jacques Cassini (Cassini II) and others, he measured the arc of meridian (see above) from Paris north to Dunkirk and south to the boundary of Spain, and, in addition, he conducted various associated geodesic and further south astronomical operations that were reported to the Academy. Cassini knew that it would be virtually impossible to measure every kilometre of meridian from Pole to Pole at the time. At best, a northern measurement would confirm a probable shape of the Earth. Consequently, they decided to measure where it was most convenient, in Europe in the northern hemisphere.

In 1959 another measurement for the Earth was found, this time using a satellite called Vanguard. It found Newton’s ‘bulge’ was 25 feet (7.6 meters) higher south of the equator, and announced the Earth was shaped like a pear, that is, it has a bulgier bulge in the southern hemisphere. Seeking a few more details of this curious revelation we find that according to this latest measurement the South Pole is flatter by 50 feet and the North Pole higher (pointed) by 50 feet, as this illustration shows:

In the Journal of Surveying Engineering 1988, commenting on the current state of Astronomy and Space Geodesy, we find the following:

COORDINATE SYSTEMS USED IN GEODESY
BASIC DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS
By Tomás Soler  and Larry D. Hothem,  Member, ASCE

‘INTRODUCTION: The principal problem of geodesy may be stated as follows (Hirvonen 1960): “Find the space coordinates at any point P at the physical surface S of the Earth when a sufficient number of geodetic operations have been carried out along S.” Therefore, in order to know the position P, the definition of an appropriate frame to which these spatial coordinates refer is of primary importance. Due to the nature of the rotational motions of the Earth and to other geodynamic phenomena, a rigorously defined, Earth-fixing coordinates system at the degree of accuracy of our current observational capabilities is not presently available.’   

‘Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say:
Behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us.’

A simple study of the subject, however, as Ecclesiastes 1:10 tells us,  seems to show us they were a people who had knowledge far greater than we would expect such an ancient race to have.
‘The perimeter of the Great Pyramid’s base is 3,023.16 feet and its height is 481.3949 feet…’ Now consider these calculations:
(1) Perimeter of 3,023.16 feet ÷ 5280 (feet per mile) = 0.572568181 miles multiplied by 43,200 = 24,734.94545 miles circuмference.
(2) Height of 481.3949 feet multiplied by 43,200 = 20796259.68 feet
÷ 5280 multiplied by 2 = 7877.71099 (the Earth’s diameter) multiplied by (3.14) = 24,748.55897 miles circuмference.

The Great Pyramid maths show, 24,734 miles is the distance around the equator, and 24,748 miles is the distance from pole to pole, then this shows us their Earth is a prolate - not an oblate - spheroid, not flattened at the poles but slightly elongated, with the equatorial circuмference 13.5 miles shorter than the polar circuмference, that is, slightly egg-shaped. Coincidentally, this is the general shape the Cassinis found and published in 1720.

As for the shape of the flat-Earth science, I do not know, I presume it is flat and they have a different way to confirm it.