Geocentrism: why doesn't it just die and be done with?

[excubitor]

Well I finally got around to producing my diagram which shows that the earth is in the centre of the universe with the sun orbitting the earth.

Now I am not a scientist, but I present here an argument that most junior school students could grasp.

This argument rests on the plainly observed fact that the north celestial pole does not change its position through the course of the year. Men since the dawn of time have navigated by finding the North star Polaris and they can be certain in which direction North is. Polaris is North no matter where you are in the Northern hemisphere all year round. Winter, Summer, Spring or fall. The same holds true in the Southern hemisphere. By drawing a line from the Southern cross to the pointers we can locate the south celestial pole at any time during the year, Winter, Summer, Spring or fall. So all through the year both the North and the South celestial poles are in alignment with the earths north and south pole.

Now let’s have a look at my diagrams.

The sketch on the left shows the earth in its position in the centre of the universe with the north pole, south pole, north celestial pole and south celestial pole in alignment. The outer circle with crosses on it represents the celestial sphere and the constellations. Next we put the sun in a yearly orbit around the earth. The earth in this scenario is stationary and its poles remain in perfect alignment with the celestial poles.

Now look at diagram 2. We are going to put the sun in the centre. Now look what happens when we put the earth circling the sun throughout the course of the year. Can you make the south and north pole line up with the north and south celestial pole for the whole year?

No you cannot.

So I have clearly demonstrated that the earth is in the centre of the universe and that the sun is orbiting the earth just as the church taught, just as King Solomon stated in the scriptures, just as all natural observation and common sense indicates.

Nor do you need a degree to understand it. You don’t have to break your brain.
AND you are blessed to have excubitor to explain it to you because nobody else in all of your years of education ever did. Nor did anyone explain it to me. I had to figure it out for myself. Which is not a difficult intellectual exercise for those who have the freedom and liberty of thought to resist the powerful zeitgeist of modern scientism.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

http://i56.tinypic.com/54hpcm.jpg

:bigyikes:

 

[hansgeorg]

This argument rests on the plainly observed fact that the north celestial pole does not change its position through the course of the year. Men since the dawn of time have navigated by finding the North star Polaris and they can be certain in which direction North is. …

Now look at diagram 2. We are going to put the sun in the centre. Now look what happens when we put the earth circling the sun throughout the course of the year. Can you make the south and north pole line up with the north and south celestial pole for the whole year?

No you cannot.

Sorry to be a wet blanket “on my own team”.

BUT:
a) very little angular distance between celestial pole and polar star suffices for navigation, even if no distance at all might be better. Polaris is 0°45’ wayward, acc. to French wiki,
b) as said it is a question of angular distance: and if polaris is very far away it is not impossible that the distance evens out very nearly all of the parallax (I have seen on French wiki a parallax measured or estimated to 7. something “milliarseconds” and on English wiki a distance triangulated to 132 parsec - sun itself is the star which according to heliocentrics has a parallax of full circle per annum).

This is a repetition of St Robert Bellarmine’s argument but ignoring that observations have meanwhile changed, in part due to better observations. In part. It seems the “parallax” of Polar star might be less than some negative parallaxes, thus even according to heliocentrics “within error margin”.

1838 a parallax, so called, was observed.

My point is that it might be the star itself moving, moved by an angel, even as some stars have even greater non-circular, linear movements, known by astronomers as “proper movements” as if the circular ones were parallactic. 200 stars each year move between 1" and 10", which, like “aberration” so called (not ascribed to proper movement any more than parallax) is greater than the greatest parallax.

Also, if “parallaxes” are not so, totally possible on a geocentric view, the stars being closer or further away is possible.

I will try again to post this diagram:



Failed again?

Try to open with link to image instead: LINK

 

[buffalo]

Interesting…

Huge Magnetic Bubbles May Churn at Solar System’s Edge

The edge of the solar system is a turbulent place, filled with a roiling sea of huge magnetic bubbles, new research suggests.
The find, made with the help of observations from NASA’s venerable Voyager probes, shakes up prevailing views of the solar system’s outer reaches. And it shows that this region, once thought to be a relatively firm shield against interstellar particles such as galactic cosmic rays, is actually more of a porous membrane.
“We will have to change our view of how the sun interacts with particles, fields and gases from other stars,” Arik Posner, a Voyager program scientist at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C., told reporters Thursday.
Not smooth, but bubbly

Read more: foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/10/huge-magnetic-bubbles-may-churn-at-solar-systems-edge/#ixzz1Osf7vM9z

Read more: foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/10/huge-magnetic-bubbles-may-churn-at-solar-systems-edge/#ixzz1OseosbNm

 

[DavidPalm]

Not smooth, but bubbly

I could use a bit of bubbly right about now

 

[buffalo]

I could use a bit of bubbly right about now

 

[hansgeorg]

I think it’s particularly relevant that Sungenis said the Church already looked over Galileo Was Wrong and refused to give it an imprimatur because they didn’t really consider it to be a theological work (here).

Wikipedia covered it and Sungenis said it was all accurate. It’s worth reading. Here

I looked it up. The actual wording of the bishop was waffly. He enumerated some theological types of work in which imprimatur is no longer necessary but recommended. And said Sungenis’ work was not quite that.

He did not specifically say in so many words that Sungenis’ work does not touch the Bible at all (so as to need totally non-cleric reviews ratyher than imprimaturs) or touched it in such a way as to be heretical.

Thank you for the links!

 

[hecd2]

So I have clearly demonstrated that the earth is in the centre of the universe and that the sun is orbiting the earth just as the church taught, just as King Solomon stated in the scriptures, just as all natural observation and common sense indicates.

Nor do you need a degree to understand it. You don’t have to break your brain.
AND you are blessed to have excubitor to explain it to you because nobody else in all of your years of education ever did. Nor did anyone explain it to me. I had to figure it out for myself. Which is not a difficult intellectual exercise for those who have the freedom and liberty of thought to resist the powerful zeitgeist of modern scientism.

Congratulations on identifying a proof that the earth is at the centre of the universe. It’s amazing that scientists haven’t noticed that. You must be one smart cookie.

I have a couple of questions:

1. What are the short radial lines that you have drawn through the earth in the diagram on the right meant to represent?
2. Why have you drawn the stars at about the distance of Mar’s orbit when the closest star, Proxima Centauri, on the scale of your diagram would be 4.2 miles or ~260,000 times further away

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[excubitor]

Congratulations on identifying a proof that the earth is at the centre of the universe. It’s amazing that scientists haven’t noticed that. You must be one smart cookie.

I know you are being facetious, but thankyou anyway. I have been independently tested as being in the top 5 percentile of the population in numerical and spatial reasoning, I have a degree in Business and have worked as a computer software developer for 20 years.

I am certainly not a genius, but I am not not stupid either.

I have a couple of questions:

1. What are the short radial lines that you have drawn through the earth in the diagram on the right meant to represent?

These represent the axis of the earth and my attempts to line it up to the north and celestial pole, which of course cannot be done in the heliocentric model. This demonstrates that in the heliocentric model the celestial poles would change throughout the year.

1. Why have you drawn the stars at about the distance of Mar’s orbit when the closest star, Proxima Centauri, on the scale of your diagram would be 4.2 miles or ~260,000 times further away

Alec
evolutionpages.com

In fact my map would have to be the size of Los Angeles to properly represent the heliocentric model. I am not trying to say in my diagram that the stars are as close as Mars, obviously even in a geocentric model it is not possible to draw the cosmos in scale. But that is the profound difference between the geocentric model and the heliocentric model. The geocentric model can be drawn at any scale and it will still work, on account of the earth being in the centre of the universe. Whereas the heliocentric cosmos cannot be drawn at all unless you have a piece of paper the size of America.

This is why maps of the cosmos after Copernicas DROPPED THE STARS altogether. Before Copernicas the whole universe was always drawn. After Copernicus we only ever see the solar system drawn, which is a new concept invented to support the heliocentric view of the cosmos.

Here is the geocentric model of the universe by Tycho Brahe http://www.astroportal.sk/astro_gallery/images/008_ss_Tycho Brahe.jpg

In modern diagrams the stars are never included with the sun, moon, planets and earth because they just don’t fit any more. They have to be moved out of our minds and thoughts by placing them at impossibly vast distances away. Effectively removing them from consideration. So everything about the stars indicate that we are in the centre of the universe and only by moving them to outrageous distances from the earth can the notion of a non-geocentric universe be even contemplated.

In fact, there is no evidence that Proxima Centauri is 39,734,219,300,000 kms away
39 trillion kilometres. That’s about 260 thousand times further away than our sun.
No evidence at all. All calculations of the distance are made on the assumption that the earth is being displaced by 300 million kilometres during the course of the year. So how do we know that the earth is orbitting the sun? Because Proxima Centauri is 39 trillion kilometres away. And how do we know that Proxima Centauri is 39 trillion kilometres away. Because the earth is displaced by 300 million kilometres during the year and the parallax of the star is so tiny that therefore Proxima Centauri must be 39 trillion kilometres away.

That’s circular reasoning. That’s not evidence.

Just be aware folks that if Proxima Centauri is not 39 trillion kilometres away but is in fact more Proxima than scientists are telling you, then the earth is most mathematically certain and without any equivocation or doubt, the centre of the universe.

Therefore I challenge the scientific community to provide independent evidence that Proxima Centauri is 39 trillion kilometres away which does not rely upon the unproven assumption that the earth is orbiting the sun.

 

[Rick09]

I looked it up. The actual wording of the bishop was waffly. He enumerated some theological types of work in which imprimatur is no longer necessary but recommended. And said Sungenis’ work was not quite that. He did not specifically say in so many words that Sungenis’ work does not touch the Bible at all (so as to need totally non-cleric reviews ratyher than imprimaturs) or touched it in such a way as to be heretical.
Thank you for the links!

You’re welcome, Hans. But that wasn’t quite the point.

The point was that Galileo Was Wrong was judged by the Church to not really be a theological work, per se. I didn’t say that the Church judged that it “does not touch on the Bible at all.” But as it was judged by the Church to not really be a theological work, that just further undermines the idea that it’s some sort of definitive theological/canonical treatment of the issue. And it raises additional questions about how Sungenis could earn a PhD in theology with it if it’s not really a theological work, per se.

 

[Rick09]

As this thread seems to be spent of anything really new or particularly interesting, I want to make sure that I’m clear on one thing before leaving. Of all the dubious or false things that Catholics of various stripes believe out there, I think geocentrism is pretty harmless. And actually, there’s a part of me that genuinely finds the thinking and impulse behind it to be very touching in a way (as I said to excubitor earlier). No one will ever go to hell just for being a geocentrist.

My problem is with what geocentrists are too often willing to do and say in promoting geocentrism. That is where the real danger exists. Either they’re right, or the Bible is wrong. Dangerous. There’s a conspiracy in the Church to hide the truth of geocentrism from Catholics. Dangerous. The popes and bishops of the last 300 years have been cowardly, inept and/or dishonest for not teaching geocentrism. Dangerous. Telling people that they’re heretics unless they’re geocentrists. Dangerous.

This way of thinking is dangerous to souls, and that’s what I’m critical of. But is geocentrism itself a danger to souls? Nah. Maybe a bit silly, but not dangerous. And I think most people should admit that they really don’t know enough about science to say the answer is “obvious.” The science involved is pretty complex stuff. And that’s exactly why the vast majority of us rely on trustworthy, competent people in this area. And the people the geocentrists bring forth just give evidence of being particularly trustworthy and competent, imo.

Again, though, that being said, compared to the other extreme that relegates the Bible to mere mythology, I’ll take the geocentrists any day.

 

[Rick09]

As this thread seems to be spent of anything really new or particularly interesting, I want to make sure that I’m clear on one thing before leaving. Of all the dubious or entirely false things that Catholics of various stripes believe out there, I think geocentrism is pretty harmless. And actually, there’s a part of me that genuinely finds the thinking and impulse behind it to be very touching in a way (as I said to excubitor earlier). No one will ever go to hell just for being a geocentrist.

My problem is with what geocentrists are too often willing to do and say in promoting geocentrism. That’s where the real danger exists, imo. Either they’re right, or the Bible is wrong. Dangerous. There’s a conspiracy in the Church to hide the truth of geocentrism from Catholics. Dangerous. The popes and bishops of the last 300 years have been cowardly, inept and/or dishonest for not teaching geocentrism. Dangerous. Telling Catholics that they’re heretics unless they’re geocentrists. Dangerous.

This way of thinking is dangerous to souls, and that’s what I’m critical of. But is geocentrism itself a danger to souls? Nah. Maybe a bit silly, but not dangerous. And I think most people should admit that they really don’t know enough about science to say the answer is “obvious.” The science involved is pretty complex stuff. And that’s exactly why the vast majority of us rely on trustworthy, competent people in this area. And the people the geocentrists bring forth just don’t give evidence of being particularly trustworthy and competent, imo.

Again, though, that being said, compared to the other extreme that relegates the Bible to mere mythology, I’ll take the geocentrists any day.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I will repeat my rationale. **Because we are in the moving frame of reference of the universe, it is not possible for us to determine the absolute motion of any object within the universe. **The only way to determine the absolute motion of any object within the moving frame of reference is to be standing in a static position outside the moving frame of reference. This is a basic principle of physics. And the only person who has ever been outside the universe is God. This makes it a matter of divine revelation, and not of natural science. And God has revealed through the scriptures, through the sacred tradition, and through the rulings of the church, that the earth IS NOT MOVING and is at the centre of the universe with all the heavens going about it.

So, which is it? Our eyes deceive us because we’re moving, or we’re not moving?

God also reveals Himself through nature – through a highly ordered universe that, from the smallest scale to the grandest, shows us there is great power and majesty behind it. He has gifted us with a (limited) ability to decode His creation; to determine much of its inner workings to the extent that we can extrapolate others. The fact that Creation behaves the way it does is a testament to God’s greatness, and that we can decipher ANY of it, let alone so much, is a testament to His generosity and desire for us to come to know Him.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Rick09]

As this thread seems to be spent of anything really new or particularly interesting, I want to make sure that I’m clear on one thing before leaving. Of all the dubious or entirely false things that Catholics of various stripes believe out there, I think geocentrism is pretty harmless. And actually, there’s a part of me that genuinely finds the thinking and impulse behind it to be very touching in a way (as I said to excubitor earlier). No one is in danger of eternal hell-fire just for being a geocentrist.

My problem is with what geocentrists are too often willing to do and say in promoting geocentrism. That’s where the real danger exists, imo. Either they’re right, or the Bible is wrong. Dangerous. There’s a conspiracy in the Church to hide the truth of geocentrism from Catholics. Dangerous. The popes and bishops of the last 300 years have been cowardly, inept and/or dishonest for not teaching geocentrism. Dangerous. Telling Catholics that they’re heretics unless they’re geocentrists. Dangerous.

This way of thinking and behaving is dangerous to souls, and that’s what I’m critical of. But is geocentrism itself a danger to souls? Nah. Maybe a bit silly, but not dangerous. And I think most people should admit that they really don’t know enough about science to say the answer is “obvious.” The science involved is pretty complex stuff. And that’s exactly why the vast majority of us rely on trustworthy, competent people in this area. And the people the geocentrists bring forth just don’t give evidence of being particularly trustworthy and competent, imo.

Again, though, that being said, compared to the other extreme that relegates the Bible to mere mythology, I’ll take the geocentrists any day.

 

[excubitor]

So, which is it? Our eyes deceive us because we’re moving, or we’re not moving?

God also reveals Himself through nature – through a highly ordered universe that, from the smallest scale to the grandest, shows us there is great power and majesty behind it. He has gifted us with a (limited) ability to decode His creation; to determine much of its inner workings to the extent that we can extrapolate others. The fact that Creation behaves the way it does is a testament to God’s greatness, and that we can decipher ANY of it, let alone so much, is a testament to His generosity and desire for us to come to know Him.

Peace,
Dante

I don’t understand your question. Our eyes do not deceive us. To our eyes it appears that the heavens are moving and we are stationary. That is the truth of the matter. You say that God reveals himself through nature. If that is so, then why has he orchestrated this monstrous deception. Allowing all of Israel including the prophets and King Solomon, Christ and the apostles and all the generations of the church up until the 1700’s only to have the truth revealed by scientists with their sophisticated equipment and techniques .

Not one of us has the ability to verify the calculations and observations of the scientists. We are expected to simply believe them on faith.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I don’t understand your question. Our eyes do not deceive us. To our eyes it appears that the heavens are moving and we are stationary. That is the truth of the matter. You say that God reveals himself through nature. If that is so, then why has he orchestrated this monstrous deception. Allowing all of Israel including the prophets and King Solomon, Christ and the apostles and all the generations of the church up until the 1700’s only to have the truth revealed by scientists with their sophisticated equipment and techniques .

Not one of us has the ability to verify the calculations and observations of the scientists. We are expected to simply believe them on faith.

The problem is that, if you reject the conventional notions of how the universe behaves, you reject a huge portion of physics – even things that explain how and why things work the way they do on earth, not the least of which are things like gravitation, momentum, the Doppler effect, and so on. These are things we can observe at work in our back yards, but you’re saying they cannot be applied to our observations of the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe.

Moreover, we can observe objects that are so far away that, were they to orbit the earth, would need to travel faster than the speed of light.

Also, your point God “orchestrating a monstrous deception” ignores that mankind wandered in spiritual ignorance until God revealed Himself. His creation revealed to us enough that we knew to look for Him, and so civilizations around the world developed vast and varied pantheons of gods. It took centuries to create the Chosen People, and more to bring human history to the point at which it was ready for the Messiah, and still more have passed to bring the gospel to much of the world. If it suits God’s plan to allow Divine Revelation to work with human history, why cannot our understanding of His creation develop over time, too?

Finally, if it were necessary to our salvation for us to believe in a geocentric universe, it would be in the deposit of faith. Instead, the Church has backtracked from judging such matters – even leaving open the possibility that evolution theory can be compatible with the faith. Why not just trust in Her wisdom?

Peace,
Dante

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Picking up from where I left off on p.g 26 #376. Hope people will take the time to read it. I will try this coming week to add more to this discussion, but first off, I’d like to share something beautiful with everyone.

From Zenit Net - The World Seen From Rome:
*Blesses Astronauts, Praises Their Courage

VATICAN CITY, MAY 22, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI held an historic teleconference over the weekend with the crew of the International Space Station, during which he asked five questions, praised the astronauts for their courage and extended to them his apostolic blessing.

During the 20-minute teleconference, which took place on the occasion of the last mission of the shuttle Endeavour, the Holy Father could see the 12 American, Italian and Russian astronauts on a large screen television in the Foconi Room of the Vatican Library. The crew aboard the space station could only hear the Pope.

Accompanying the Pontiff were Enrico Saggese, president of the Italian Space Agency, Thomas Reiter, Director of Human Spaceflight and Operations at the European Space Agency, and General Giuseppe Bernardis of the Italian Air Force. The call was coordinated by the Johnson Space Center and Houston, with the help of the Vatican and the European Space Agency.

The Pope was originally scheduled to address the crew earlier this month, but the Endeavour’s launch was pushed back twice before the shuttle finally took off last Monday for a 16-day mission.

The Holy Father addressed in particular shuttle commander Mark Kelly, whose wife, Representative Gabrielle Giffords, is recovering from a gunshot wound to the head, and Italian Paolo Nespoli, whose mother died during the current mission.

Benedict XVI told the crew that he was grateful for the “extraordinary opportunity” to speak with them, and briefly offered a short reflection before asking the astronauts a series of questions.
“Humanity is experiencing a period of extremely rapid progress in the fields of scientific knowledge and technical applications. In a sense, you are our representatives,” he said, “spear-heading humanity’s exploration of new spaces and possibilities for our future, going beyond the limitations of our everyday existence.”

“We all admire your courage,” the Pontiff continued, “as well as the discipline and commitment with which you prepared yourselves for this mission. We are convinced you are inspired by noble ideals and that you intend placing the results of your research and endeavors at the disposal of all humanity and for the common good.”

In his first question, the Pontiff asked if the astronauts “ever wonder about the way nations and people live together down here, or about how science can contribute to the cause of peace?”
Kelly answered, “We fly over most of the world and you don’t see borders, but at the same time we realize that people fight with each other and there is a lot of violence in this world and it’s really an unfortunate thing.”

Teamwork
Benedict XVI asked in another question what is the “most important messages you would like to convey” upon returning to earth.

Mike Finchke of the United States reflected that he’d like let “the young people know that there is a whole universe for us to go explore. And when we do it together, there is nothing that we cannot accomplish.”

The Holy Father asked the Italian astronaut Roberto Vittoria, who brought a bronze medal given to him by the Pope to the Space Station, if the astronauts reflect during their mission “on the origins and on the destiny of the universe and humanity.”

“Believers often look up at the limitless heavens and, meditating on the Creator of it all, they are struck by the mystery of His greatness,” the Pontiff stated. “In the midst of your intense work and research, do you ever stop and reflect like this – perhaps even to say a prayer to the Creator?”

Vittori responded: "To work as an astronaut on the shuttle Soyuz of the Station, is extremely intense. But we all have an opportunity, when the nights come, to look down on Earth: our planet, the blue planet, is beautiful. …]

“When we have a moment to look down, beauty which is the three-dimensional effect of the beauty of the planet is capturing our heart, is capturing my heart. And I do pray: I do pray for me, for our families, for our future.”*
zenit.org/article-32640?l=english

Hope everyone has a nice weekend. Peace be with you.

 

[excubitor]

The problem is that, if you reject the conventional notions of how the universe behaves, you reject a huge portion of physics – even things that explain how and why things work the way they do on earth, not the least of which are things like gravitation, momentum, the Doppler effect, and so on. These are things we can observe at work in our back yards, but you’re saying they cannot be applied to our observations of the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe.

Not necessarily. There are many variations of geocentrism. There are geocentrists who have reconciled the conventional theories to the geocentric model. They believe in all of those things you mentioned here and even believe in a super enormous universe.

Of course there are geocentrists like me who have rejected the conventional theories of gravity, doppler, inertia, super enormous universe, parallax etc. which are all just theories and are all unproven.
Nor are geocentrists the only ones challenging the conventional model of the universe. Please research the electric universe or plasma cosmology for a very credible alternative to the conventional mode.

Also, your point God “orchestrating a monstrous deception” ignores that mankind wandered in spiritual ignorance until God revealed Himself. His creation revealed to us enough that we knew to look for Him, and so civilizations around the world developed vast and varied pantheons of gods. It took centuries to create the Chosen People, and more to bring human history to the point at which it was ready for the Messiah, and still more have passed to bring the gospel to much of the world. If it suits God’s plan to allow Divine Revelation to work with human history, why cannot our understanding of His creation develop over time, too?

I’m glad that you bring up the matter of divine revelation. The scriptures are divine revelation and they clearly show that the earth is not moving and that the sun and stars move around the earth. Therefore it is illicit to come up with any theory which is opposed to that view. To propose theories which contradict divine revelation is an utter waste of time. God never overturns his revelation to introduce something entirely different. He always builds upon the foundation of what he laid before and fills in all of the details.
Also you have no evidence that we are understanding the creation better than King Solomon did. In fact we have a period of astonishing ignorance where people even believe that the creatures were not created out of nothing each after its own kind, but that they evolved out of inferior life forms.

All true knowledge builds upon what is revealed by the scriptures and the church. God revealed to Solomon and to the apostles that the earth was not moving and that the sun and stars were moving.

Finally, if it were necessary to our salvation for us to believe in a geocentric universe, it would be in the deposit of faith. Instead, the Church has backtracked from judging such matters – even leaving open the possibility that evolution theory can be compatible with the faith. Why not just trust in Her wisdom?

Peace,
Dante

I have never stated that it is necessary to our salvation to believe in a geocentric universe. What I said was that it is injurious to the faith to believe in a geocentric universe. In fact, that is what the church, in her wisdom, stated in the papal condemnation of Galileo.

It is true that the church permits belief in the heliocentric/acentric model. But permission of belief is a long way to endorsement of belief, and it is still many times further away from abrogation of the dogmatic, declarative and defined statements of heresy laid against that doctrine by the church, in her wisdom, in the 1600’s.

 

[excubitor]

Moreover, we can observe objects that are so far away that, were they to orbit the earth, would need to travel faster than the speed of light.

In fact, what you don’t understand is that if red shift is a true measure of distance then it turns out that the objects in the hubble deep space field are retreating away from us faster than the speed of light, so do not try to argue that adopting the conventional model you will avoid these kinds of problems.

In most geocentric models the stars and planets are embedded in an aether like substance. The scripture calls this the firmament. The firmament in the scripture is described as being beaten out or laid out over the earth like a metal is beaten out over a base object. The stars themselves do not move at all but are moved by the rotating aether in which they are embedded. So whereas we know (although modern science is now questioning this also) that light cannot travel faster than the current speed of light, we do not know enough about the aether to say that it cannot rotate in excess of the speed of light in speed. Personally, I believe that it is an astonishing miracle, but that’s no big deal because to believe in the conventional model is also to believe in an astonishing miracle. Just read up on how science believes that the earth started rotating. Utter nonsense and make believe. Its like reading a fairy story. Its no greater miracle for the universe to be rotating than it is for the earth to be rotating.

 

[excubitor]

Personally, I am so disenchanted with modern science that I basically don’t believe any of it. I don’t believe the lieing scientists. I only believe what I can observe with my own eyes, figure out with my own mind, and what is shown by divine revelation in the scriptures and by the church. However I would not like my rejection of modern science to be a stumbling block to those who are impressed by it and believe the various ideas and theories of scientists. So if you fall into that camp then Sungenis has a model which uses the principles of general relativity to cater for all these scientific theories and ideas as well.

Here is his explanation for this phenomenon. [Sungenis rotating universe](http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:QNfeUWWfG44J:www.catholicintl.com/qa/Questions%20251-275.pdf+speed+of+light+"rotating+universe"&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESguZWSISprKpDC(name removed by moderator)Qa1Df9gcuJ6d15qftop1QhVdVO0fY0FZK85Z4DLBtE7hmU5Sk9ziI7BUDbjc-DrXUbDQKHWkRsa2I8gZ70MT2MiJBA2a_sUjYeS-Yf57vSzdi9WVpSHvxh&sig=AHIEtbQH7Hq3z-aYNz0MnsYnwwBq_OqNzQ&pli=1)

Another common objection to placing the Earth in the center of our local system is
that it would also need to be in the center of the universe, and thus, it would be
impossible for the stars, being so far away, to revolve around the Earth on a daily
basis, since they would be required to travel faster than the speed of light to
complete their daily trek. As with all the objections in this section, we will answer
them in more detail in later chapters, but for now we can respond in two ways. First,
even assuming for the sake of argument that geocentrism holds that the stars travel
faster than light (which it does not); still, those who base their objections on the
tenets of modern science have little room to mount criticism. As a popular scientist
explains for the novice, in Relativity theory:

…it is permissible to assume that the Earth is a nonrotating frame of reference. From
this point of view, the stars will have a circular velocity around the Earth that is
much greater than the speed of light. A star only ten light-years away has a relative
velocity around the Earth of twenty thousand times the speed of light. (Martin
Gardner, Relativity Explosion, 1976, p. 68).

A more technical book on Relativity written for the scientist admits the same:
Relative to the stationary roundabout [the Earth], the distant stars would
have…linear velocities exceeding 3 × 108 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity
of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction…that the velocities of all
material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u <
c = 3 × 108 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the
General theory, it is possible to choose local reference frames in which, over a
limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a
reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c…. If gravitational fields are present
the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value
depending on the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the rotating
roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous
values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for
the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 × 108 m/sec under these conditions. (An
Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, William Geraint Vaughn Rosser, 1964, p. 460.
W. G. V. Rosser, Ph.D. was the senior lecturer in Physics at Exeter University).
Einstein himself admitted this very principle:

In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of
relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes
one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to
which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A
curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of
light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the
special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special
theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only
so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the
phenomena (e.g., of light). (Albert Einstein, Relativity: The Special and the General
Theory, authorized translation by Robert W. Lawson, 1961, p. 85).

Hence, according to Einstein’s own words, a limitation on the speed of light is only
true when gravity does not affect the light, or, as a corollary point, variations in the
gravitational field will allow variations in the speed of light. Since in a rotating
universe the gravitational force increases in proportion to the radial distance from
Earth, consequently, the farther the distance, the faster light will be able to travel.