Author Topic: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong (Read 5689 times)

mw2016 · « **on:** March 28, 2017, 12:35:32 AM »

I'm going to demonstrate in one simple math calculation why Robert Sungenis's, Fr. Pfeiffer's, and cassini's version of geocentrism is wrong - and simultaneously prove why the flat earth model is correct.

First: All three - Sungenis, Fr. Pfeiffer, and cassini - hold the Bible to be true and correct where it states that the earth DOES NOT MOVE.

See: 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5 Isaiah 45:18.
Since they hold that the earth does not move, this means the earth can neither travel in a circuit around the sun, nor does it rotate on its axis.
However, this creates a little problem: the heliocentric model states that day/night is caused by the earth rotating on its axis. If there is no movement of earth, because it is stationary and unmoving according to the Bible, then this means there can be no rotation.
So only the sun can be in motion.
Therefore, in order for us to have day and night, the sun would have to go around the earth:
ONCE EVERY 24 HOURS.
If you take the figure that Sungenis, Fr. P. and cassini accept for the distance to the sun, of 93 million miles, then one can calculate the distance the sun must travel going around the earth in a single 24 hour day.
If earth is center, and the radius of this circuit (R) is the distance of 93 million miles, we can calculate the circuмference (C).
The equation is C = 2 x pi x R
C = 2 x 3.14 x 93 million miles
C = 584 million miles
584 million miles per day/ 24 hours in a day = 24.3 million MPH (speed of the sun)
Does ANYONE here really believe the sun is moving at an eye-watering speed of 24.3 million MPH around the earth every day?
Because that is what the math gives you, if you partially adhere to the Bible's stationary geocentrism, while simultaneously trying to adhere to NASA and heliocentrism's distance of the sun being 93 million miles from earth.

Therefore, the Bible is correct. The earth is a flat, stationary plain, and the sun is rotating above it in a circuit every 24 hours.

noOneImportant · « **Reply #1 on:** March 28, 2017, 01:07:47 AM »

"Prove":

Nadir · « **Reply #2 on:** March 28, 2017, 01:11:34 AM »

I've not taken much interest in this topic and have not read much of what has been said about it. But I do know that the sun rises approximately every 24 hours period. And depending on the time of the year and the location, for me the sun is visible for anything from 10 to 14+ hours. In other words the sun disappears on a daily basis.

Pardon my ignorance but, earth being the centre of the circle, does the circuмference, and hence the sun, pass below the flat stationary plain which is the earth?

You say the sun is rotating above it in a circuit every 24 hours. Why is it then that the sun disappears from sight?

Quote

Does ANYONE here really believe the sun is moving at an eye-watering speed of 24.3 million MPH around the earth every day?

I tend to take figures like 93,000,000 miles distance from earth to sun with a pinch of salt, and wonder on what premise these statements are made. But I couldn't argue that they are wrong.

Truth is Eternal · « **Reply #3 on:** March 28, 2017, 10:34:32 AM »

Quote from: Nadir on March 28, 2017, 01:11:34 AM

I've not taken much interest in this topic and have not read much of what has been said about it. But I do know that the sun rises approximately every 24 hours period. And depending on the time of the year and the location, for me the sun is visible for anything from 10 to 14+ hours. In other words the sun disappears on a daily basis.

Pardon my ignorance but, earth being the centre of the circle, does the circuмference, and hence the sun, pass below the flat stationary plain which is the earth?

You say the sun is rotating above it in a circuit every 24 hours. Why is it then that the sun disappears from sight?
I tend to take figures like 93,000,000 miles distance from earth to sun with a pinch of salt, and wonder on what premise these statements are made. But I couldn't argue that they are wrong.

The Sun Never Sets On The Flat Earth

SoldierOfChrist · « **Reply #4 on:** March 28, 2017, 12:06:06 PM »

I think 'move' here means change place; not change position. The blood moves through your veins, but when you're standing in place we say that you haven't moved. But blood moved through your veins, your organs might have shifted positions, maybe you even jumped up and down and turned around. There is still a sense in which we could say that you haven't moved.

happenby · « **Reply #5 on:** March 28, 2017, 12:39:51 PM »

Quote from: SoldierOfChrist on March 28, 2017, 12:06:06 PM

I think 'move' here means change place; not change position. The blood moves through your veins, but when you're standing in place we say that you haven't moved. But blood moved through your veins, your organs might have shifted positions, maybe you even jumped up and down and turned around. There is still a sense in which we could say that you haven't moved.

Um. You are kidding right? Changed place/position depends on what is moving. Blood moving through veins actually changes place and the fixed organs are a separate thing entirely. Why do people muddy the water? Look at the sun. Look at the moon. Look at the earth. Read scripture. Wonder what's moving. Come to conclusion. Is it possible that earth moves as you've been told by anti-Catholic establishment? If so, skip philosophic non possibilities and explain why. mw2016's posit here is excellent and demands people take another look at the ridiculous notion that the earth is round with the sun moving 25,000,000 mph in order to make an orbit around earth that is a distant 93,000,000 miles away. Any reasonable person can see that is not possible and should then reconsider scripture's version of God's creation.

happenby · « **Reply #6 on:** March 28, 2017, 01:04:55 PM »

This is big stuff. Robert Sungenis is supposed to be Catholic. Why is he positioning himself to save the pagan heliocentric version of creation? Sungenis' modern take on heliocentrism, that earth is a stationary ball, but sun moves around it in a huge orbit is ridiculous. The ball earth notion is at odds with scripture, gen 1:6-7 and many other passages. Sungenis has been challenged about his errors but won't repent. I was kicked off the Principle FB page for asking a flat earth question. What are they afraid of? If indeed people care to know and bother to think they'd see the sun which is supposed to be 93,000,000 miles away cannot be jetting at 25,000,000 MPH around the non-spinning ball earth. C'mon guys. 25,000,000 miles per hour? I don't know what Sungenis says about how his hanging mid air ball earth hangs there without a foundation, but if earth is fixed and hanging there, and isn't spinning, how does "gravity" work? What is wrong with modern man? Catholics even! People are so destabilized by the chaotic moving foundation they live on, in the heliocentric system they are indoctrinated with, they are no longer able to think.

Excellent mw2016 :applause:

mw2016 · « **Reply #7 on:** March 28, 2017, 01:18:51 PM »

Quote from: SoldierOfChrist on March 28, 2017, 12:06:06 PM

I think 'move' here means change place; not change position. The blood moves through your veins, but when you're standing in place we say that you haven't moved. But blood moved through your veins, your organs might have shifted positions, maybe you even jumped up and down and turned around. There is still a sense in which we could say that you haven't moved.

This is one of the dumber things I have ever read here.
The Bible is literal. It says the "earth does not move from its foundation."
The Bible also says "He who does not eat of My flesh and drink of My blood shall have no life in him."
These are hard teachings - BOTH of them.
The earth DOES NOT MOVE. You have to eat Him if you want to have everlasting life.
The end.

SoldierOfChrist · « **Reply #8 on:** March 28, 2017, 01:52:23 PM »

Lots of things in the Bible are literal but don't mean what you think they mean. The problem is not with the Bible. The problem is with our reading of the Bible. Holy Mother Church tells us how it is to be understood, how it is not to be understood, and where there is room for discussion. If my statement is so "dumb", then please provide me with an intelligent response, containing infallible pronouncements, indicating the faithful are bound to believe it in the sense statedin the original post, and that they are prohibited from believing it in the sense proposed by Sungenis.

mw2016 · « **Reply #9 on:** March 28, 2017, 02:25:20 PM »

Quote from: SoldierOfChrist on March 28, 2017, 01:52:23 PM

If my statement is so "dumb", then please provide me with an intelligent response, containing infallible pronouncements, indicating the faithful are bound to believe it in the sense statedin the original post, and that they are prohibited from believing it in the sense proposed by Sungenis.

It is, de fide, that we are to firstly and always take the literal meaning of any Bible passage. This is also in the writings of ALL the doctors of the Church.
Therefore, when you read the passage the "earth does not move" you are to FIRSTLY interpret it in a LITERAL sense BEFORE any other.
The end.

mw2016 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 28, 2017, 02:31:17 PM »

Psalm 104:5 "Who hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever."

happenby · « **Reply #11 on:** March 28, 2017, 02:40:41 PM »

Quote from: SoldierOfChrist on March 28, 2017, 01:52:23 PM

Lots of things in the Bible are literal but don't mean what you think they mean. The problem is not with the Bible. The problem is with our reading of the Bible. Holy Mother Church tells us how it is to be understood, how it is not to be understood, and where there is room for discussion. If my statement is so "dumb", then please provide me with an intelligent response, containing infallible pronouncements, indicating the faithful are bound to believe it in the sense statedin the original post, and that they are prohibited from believing it in the sense proposed by Sungenis.

The problem with your assessment is that you assume we do not know what the Church has said on this subject. But we do know. The Church has ALWAYS been geocentric flat earth, citing scripture to prove Her position! In fact, during the Galileo Affair St Robert Bellarmine said on the subject of geocentrism vs heliocentrism: “It will not do to say that this is not a matter of faith, because though it may not be a matter of faith ex parte objecti or as regards the subject treated, yet it is a matter of faith ex parte dicentis, or as regards Him who announces it. Thus he who should deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve would be just as much a heretic as a man who should deny the Virgin Birth of Christ, because it is the Holy Spirit who makes known both truths by the mouth of the Prophets and Apostles.”
The Church has two infallible pronouncements on the subject of heliocentrism and as such, that theory is condemned. However, there are excellent Catholic treatises on the subject that refine all points for those interested in delving into the Church's official position. The Theological Status of Heliocentrism
O October 1997 J. S. Daly http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Daly.pdf

IN As for Robert Sungenis' theory, it remains a heliocentric theory with a ball shaped earth.
The The Church has never held this possibility and Sungenis doesn't even try to show She did.
In fact Sungenis looks like he uses 100% pagan sources for his theories as seen here:
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t103-critique-of-robert-sungenis-article-against-flat-earth
t

cassini · « **Reply #12 on:** March 28, 2017, 03:34:41 PM »

Quote from: mw2016 on March 28, 2017, 12:35:32 AM

I'm going to demonstrate in one simple math calculation why Robert Sungenis's, Fr. Pfeiffer's, and cassini's version of geocentrism is wrong - and simultaneously prove why the flat earth model is correct.

First: All three - Sungenis, Fr. Pfeiffer, and cassini - hold the Bible to be true and correct where it states that the earth DOES NOT MOVE.

See: 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5 Isaiah 45:18.
Since they hold that the earth does not move, this means the earth can neither travel in a circuit around the sun, nor does it rotate on its axis.
However, this creates a little problem: the heliocentric model states that day/night is caused by the earth rotating on its axis. If there is no movement of earth, because it is stationary and unmoving according to the Bible, then this means there can be no rotation.
So only the sun can be in motion.
Therefore, in order for us to have day and night, the sun would have to go around the earth:
ONCE EVERY 24 HOURS.
If you take the figure that Sungenis, Fr. P. and cassini accept for the distance to the sun, of 93 million miles, then one can calculate the distance the sun must travel going around the earth in a single 24 hour day.
If earth is center, and the radius of this circuit (R) is the distance of 93 million miles, we can calculate the circuмference (C).
The equation is C = 2 x pi x R
C = 2 x 3.14 x 93 million miles
C = 584 million miles
584 million miles per day/ 24 hours in a day = 24.3 million MPH (speed of the sun)
Does ANYONE here really believe the sun is moving at an eye-watering speed of 24.3 million MPH around the earth every day?
Because that is what the math gives you, if you partially adhere to the Bible's stationary geocentrism, while simultaneously trying to adhere to NASA and heliocentrism's distance of the sun being 93 million miles from earth.

Therefore, the Bible is correct. The earth is a flat, stationary plain, and the sun is rotating above it in a circuit every 24 hours.

Measuring the distance of the sun from the earth and other planets is near impossible without proper instrumentation that Copernicus did not have. 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 the realistic magnitudes for the sun and planets was Domenico Cassini. He estimated the distance of the sun from the earth - now said to be approximately 11,650 earth-diameters – at 10,305 earth-diameters.

‘In 1672 Cassini took advantage of a good opposition of Mars to determine the distance between the Earth and that planet. He arranged for Jean Richer (1630-1696) to make measurements from his base in Cayenne, on the north eastern coast of South Africa, 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 proposed measurements of 92.96 million miles]. ---David Abbot: Astronomers, The Biographical Dictionary of Scientists, Blonde Educational, 1984, p.35.

Does ANYONE here really believe the sun is moving at an eye-watering speed of 24.3 million MPH around the earth every day?

Are you questioning God's ability to move celestial bodies or the universe itself at any speed for that is what your question proposes. Nothing is beyond the ability of God.

The flat-earth proposal depends on the unbelievable idea that all space photography of a curved earth is one of the biggest hoaxes ever, with thousands and thousands of global-earthers conspiring to keep the flat-earth a secret with not one whistler-blower ever to emerge over 50 years. There may well be relative facts that could be used by both FEers and GEers but there is so much (like distances and now speeds) that have to be denied to procure a flat-earth that we are still a million miles away from a proven flat earth. The evidence for a global earth is enough to convince me at any rate that The Child of Prague got it right.

SoldierOfChrist · « **Reply #13 on:** March 28, 2017, 03:53:36 PM »

Haha, yeah. I've heard of "Scientists and engineers for 9/11 truth". Never heard of "Scientists and engineers for flat earth truth". That would really surprise me.

mw2016 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 28, 2017, 03:55:06 PM »

Quote from: SoldierOfChrist on March 28, 2017, 03:53:36 PM

Never heard of "Scientists and engineers for flat earth truth". That would really surprise me.

It's on Mark Sargent's YT channel.

Author Topic: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong (Read 5689 times)

mw2016

Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

noOneImportant

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

Nadir

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

Truth is Eternal

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

SoldierOfChrist

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

happenby

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

happenby

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

mw2016

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

SoldierOfChrist

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

mw2016

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

mw2016

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

happenby

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

cassini

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

SoldierOfChrist

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong

mw2016

Re: Why Sungenis's Geocentrism model is wrong