Re: Stationary Earth

by **strangelove** Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:11 pm

I present this from the book "Galileo was Wrong" by Dr. Robert Sungenis and Dr. Robert Bennett. 650 pgs.

Quote:

One can imagine why many who were looking for proof of a rotating Earth would appeal to the Foucault pendulum. It seems logical to posit that the reason the plane of the pendulum appears to be moving in a circle is that the Earth beneath it is rotating. In other words, the heliocentrist insists that the pendulum's circular motion is an illusion. The pendulum is actually moving back-and-forth in the same plane and the Earth is turning beneath it. Since the Earth is too big for us to sense its rotation, we instead observe the plane of the pendulum rotate. All one need do to prove the Earth is rotating, he insists, is to reverse the roles, that is, imagine the plane of the pendulum is stationary and the Earth beneath it is moving. This particular logic, however, doesn't prove that the Earth is rotating. One can begin the critique by asking this simple question: if the pendulum is constantly swinging in the same plane (while the Earth is rotating beneath it), what force is holding the pendulum in that stationary position? In other words, if the plane of the pendulum is stationary, with respect to what is it stationary? This is understood as an 'unresolved' force in physics. The only possible answer is: it is stationary with respect to the rest of the universe, since it is certainly not stationary with respect to the Earth. With a little insight one can see that this brings us right back to the problem that Einstein and the rest of modern physics faced with the advent of Relativity theory: is it the Earth that is rotating under fixed stars, or do the stars revolve around a fixed Earth? As Einstein said: 'The two sentences: the sun is at rest and the Earth moves, or the sun moves and the Earth is at rest, would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.'

As such, it would be just as logical, not to mention scientifically consistent, to posit that the combined forces of the universe which rotate around the Earth are causing the plane of the pendulum to rotate around an immobile Earth. In other words, in the geocentric model the movement of the pendulum is not an illusion, it really moves. According to Einstein, there is no difference between the two models. Ernst Mach, from whom Einstein developed many of his insights, stated much the same. He writes: 'Obviously, it doesn't matter if we think of the Earth as turning round on its axis, or at rest while the fixed stars revolve round it. Geometrically these are exactly the same case of a relative rotation of the Earth and the fixed stars with respect to one another. But if we think of the Earth at rest and the fixed stars revolving round it, there is no flattening of the Earth, no Foucault's experiment, and so on..'.

Barbour and Bertotti proved that a large hollow sphere (representing the distant star fields) rotating around a small solid sphere inside (modeling the Earth) produced exactly the same pattern of Coriolis and centrifugal forces that are claimed as proof of Earth's spinning in space. If the hollow shell of matter accelerates or rotates, any object inside the shell will tend to be carried along with the acceleration or rotation to some extent. But they note this all-important fact: An object at the center of the hollow sphere will not be affected by the inertial forces. The space around the Earth will exhibit the inertial effects of the distant sphere, but not the Earth itself, if it is centrally located.

From Mach's principle we can conclude that inertia is a universal property, like gravity. But in Mach's principle the conventional interpretation of distant masses as causing inertial effects around the Earth is too restrictive. The cause of inertia could also logically be the properties of the space around each object, modified by the presence of the mass in or around that space. In other words the ether/firmament may be the source of inertia, which causes the gravity and inertial effects on bodies embedded in the ether. The ether's properties are changed by the masses (via feedback), but it is the ether that is the primary or first cause. Linear inertia is the resistance to motion of objects moving linearly caused by the ether drag.

by **strangelove** Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:13 pm

A June 25, 1913 letter from Einstein to Ernst Mach
concerning such forces from a relativistic point of view:

"[Y]our happy investigations on the foundations of mechanics, Planck's
unjustified criticism notwithstanding, will receive brilliant
confirmation. For it necessarily turns out that inertia originates in
a kind of interaction between bodies, quite in the sense of your
considerations on Newton's pail experiment. The first consequence is
on p. 6 of my paper. The following additional points emerge: (1) If
one accelerates a heavy shell of matter S, then a mass enclosed by
that shell experiences an accelerative force. (2) If one rotates the
shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its
center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, that is,
the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around."

by **strangelove** Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:19 pm

The Seasons:

Geocentric explanation - The Sun orbits our Earth yearly on a non-linear but fixed path within the rotating firmament. It spiral-orbits the Earth north-south and clockwise from the Tropic of Cancer to the Tropic of Capricorn in six months and then "alters course laterally" (carried along by the rotating firmament) to spiral-orbit south-north and continues clockwise for the next six months (total of one tropical year). Seasons result from the yearly helical oscillation of the sun's path around the un-tilted stationary Earth.

Stationary Earth - Page 2 Sun-orbit2

by **strangelove** Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:31 pm

~Gospel Break~ study

Psalms

19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth
his handywork.
19:2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth
knowledge.
19:3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
19:4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the
end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
19:5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth
as a strong man to run a race.
19:6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto
the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the
testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
19:8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the
commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
19:9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of
the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
19:10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold:
sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.
19:11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them
there is great reward.
19:12 Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults.
19:13 Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not
have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be
innocent from the great transgression.19:14 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.

Stationary Earth - Page 2 617872

by **strangelove** Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:39 pm

Here are 2 quotes from world class Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, the man who coined the phrase “Big Bang theory”:

"We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance."

"Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is "right" and the Ptolemaic (stationary Earth) theory is "wrong" in any meaningful sense. The two theories...are physically equivalent to one another."

Astronomer Gerardus D. Bouw, Ph.D. wrote:

"...Again, once more for the record: it has been shown at least six different ways this century alone that the equations and physics used by NASA to launch satellites are identical to the equations derived from a geocentric universe. Thus, if the space program is proof of anything, it proves geocentricity and disproves heliocentrism. The evidence for heliocentrism is even weaker than the evidence for evolution "

Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz (of the Lorentz translation equations, foundation of the General Theory of Relativity) noted that:

"Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest..."

- Lorentz’s 1886 paper, “On the Influence of the Earth’s Motion on Luminiferous Phenomena,” in Arthur Miller’s Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, p. 20.

His great contemporary Henri Poincaré confessed:

"A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth's movement. The results were always negative (...) We do not have any means of discovering whether or not we are carried along in a uniform motion of translation..."

Arthur Eddington dared to contemplate that:

"There was just one alternative; the earth's true velocity through space might happen to have been nil."

- Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11, 8,

Wolfgang Pauli admitted:

"The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the earth's motion on physical phenomena allows us to...[Pauli gives up looking for experimental evidence and moves on to the abstract 'escape hatch' theories of Einstein]"

- Wolfgang Pauli, The Theory of Relativity, 1958, p. 4.

Lincoln Barnett agrees:

"No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion."

- Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, 2nd rev. edition, 1957, p. 73.

And one of the chief participants in the experiment that bears his name (Albert A. Michelson), stunned by the results that went counter to his own heliocentric reflex:

"This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation... which presupposes that the Earth moves."

- Albert Michelson (Albert A. Michelson, “The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125)

Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle says:

"Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is "right" and the Ptolemaic theory is "wrong" in any meaningful sense (...) Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published in a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors will turn you down."

From Bernard Jaffe, Michelson and the Speed of Light, 1960, p. 76:

“The data were almost unbelievable… There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest....“This, of course, was preposterous”

“There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun. Thus all Galileo’s discoveries…can be accommodated to the system [in which] the daily rotation of the heavens is communicated to the sun and planets, so that the Earth itself neither rotates nor revolves in an orbit.”

- I. Bernard Cohen, Birth of a New Physics, revised and updated, 1985, p. 78.

by Son of Israel Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:41 pm

Yep.
Remember when the sun stood still? Or when it went "backwards"?!
If God had stopped or reversed the earth, the waters and everything else on the planet would have swept all into utter destruction.
Something else was going on...
That was cool Dad!

by **strangelove** Tue Mar 01, 2011 6:16 pm

Son of Israel wrote:Yep.
Remember when the sun stood still? Or when it went "backwards"?!
If God had stopped or reversed the earth, the waters and everything else on the planet would have swept all into utter destruction.

Hooray! Another Stationary Earther on board! cyclops

Yeah...Joshuas long day is really impossible to explain in a creation where the Earth is spinnin'. It obviously was a real happenin' miracle.

Stationary Earth - Page 2 1

Earth stop thy spin?? I think not!

Ah...Hezekiah's sundial. Another good example:

(Isaiah 38:8) Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.

by **strangelove** Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:14 am

Been slammin the helio's here:

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?49620-Yahoo-News-to-Creationists-You-Lose

Is the thread viewable to guests?

by zone Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:23 pm

Strangelove wrote:Been slammin the helio's here:

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?49620-Yahoo-News-to-Creationists-You-Lose

Is the thread viewable to guests?

yep Doc it is....
you go brutha. study

by **strangelove** Sun May 01, 2011 8:44 pm

Dirac in 1951 published a Letter to Nature titled Is
There an Aether?(2) in which he showed that the objections to an aether posed by Relativity were removed by Quantum Mechanics, and that in his reformulation of electrodynamics the vector potential was a velocity.(3) He concludes the Letter with 'We have now the velocity(2) at all points of space-time, playing a fundamental part in electrodynamics. It is natural to regard it as the velocity of some real physical thing. Thus with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aether'.

An Aether Model of the Universe

by **strangelove** Mon May 02, 2011 10:05 am

"We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance."

- World class astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle (who coined the term 'big bang)

by **strangelove** Mon May 02, 2011 10:56 am

People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations, For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

- George Ellis, a famous cosmologist, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS."

- Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system

"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."

- Max Born said in his famous book,"Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345

by **strangelove** Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:32 am

Biblical debate on Geocentricity here:

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?54728-Biblical-Geocentricity

Shall we let some of the giants have a word?

“When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge.”

“The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe," and if it does not agree it means "No." Probably every theory will someday experience its "No"--most theories, soon after conception.”

“When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity.”

-Albert Einstein (Proponent of general relativity theory)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."

" Plato is my friend - Aristotle is my friend - but my greatest friend is truth."……."Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things."

-Sir Isaac Newton (“describer” of universal gravitation and the three laws of motion)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Accordingly, since nothing prevents the earth from moving, I suggest that we should now consider also whether several motions suit it, so that it can be regarded as one of the planets. For, it is not the center of all the revolutions.”

(So the reason for theorizing that the earth moves is because nothing prevents it? Lol.)

“I can easily conceive, most Holy Father, that as soon as some people (Bible believers) learn that in this book which I have written concerning the revolutions of the heavenly bodies, I ascribe certain motions to the Earth, they will cry out at once that I and my theory should be rejected.”

“So far as hypotheses are concerned, let no one expect anything certain from astronomy, which cannot furnish it, lest he accept as the truth ideas conceived for another purpose, and depart from this study a greater fool than when he entered it.”

- Nicolaus Copernicus (proponent of heliocentric theory)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses.”

“So long as the mother, Ignorance, lives, it is not safe for Science (from his perspective, modern theoretical science and astrology) , the offspring, to divulge the hidden cause of things”

“I demonstrate by means of philosophy that the earth is round, and is inhabited on all sides; that it is insignificantly small, and is borne through the stars.”

(PHILOSOPHY! Not personal, observational, repeatable science. Just musings!)

- Johannes Kepler (proponent of eponymous laws of planetary motion and probable murderer of Tychoe Brahe)

by **strangelove** Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:43 pm

Hey Musker....

This is a really cool online orrery.

http://gunn.co.nz/astrotour/?data=tours/retrograde.xml

When it loads up, zoom right in on the sun and near planets and slow the speed down to almost nothing.

Then click on the 'follow object' drop down list and select earth. You can see it simply switches the central reference point to the earth but all relationships stay the same. Everything is moving exactly how they did before except now the reference is the earth.

You see all the planets are still orbiting the sun same as they were before and the sun is orbiting the earth.

Play around with it its fun!

by MUSKOKAMAN Mon Oct 03, 2011 9:25 pm

Didn't I post earlier under this thread Doc.?

by **strangelove** Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:35 am

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Didn't I post earlier under this thread Doc.?

Huh?

by MUSKOKAMAN Tue Oct 04, 2011 3:37 pm

Thought I put a post in on this thread Doc. oh well musta been at CC anyway I seen your link with the geocentric model and to use the same line of reasoning you did about heliocentricicism "my kids could cook that up on a lappy!

The orbits of The Gas giants are all wrong looks like someone used a spiralograph and went wild with it! Do you remember spiralograph Doc.?

Truthdully since neither one of us personally can corroberate the evidence with anything other than observation and math then truthfully neither of us has a leg to stand on.

I would be very interested in seing your scripture that proves geocentricism is what you say it is brought forth for my review.

Peace and Love Doc. Your 1 in a 1,000,000

by **strangelove** Tue Oct 04, 2011 4:11 pm

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Thought I put a post in on this thread Doc. oh well musta been at CC
anyway I seen your link with the geocentric model and to use the same
line of reasoning you did about heliocentricicism "my kids could cook
that up on a lappy!

Eh? I'm obviously not presenting that simulation as visual truth, you were confused with my position as to what orbits what so I gave you that link to show you.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:The orbits of The Gas giants are all wrong looks like someone used a
spiralograph and went wild with it! Do you remember spiralograph Doc.?

The orbits of all the celestial bodies are EXACTLY THE SAME whether you use the Earth as the central reference point or the sun or ANYTHING. Thats the point. Go ahead and play with that orrery. Put anything you wana as the centre and you will see all the orbits stay the same. Nothing changes, only your stationary reference point. It's called RELATIVE MOTION dude.

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Truthdully since neither one of us personally can corroberate the
evidence with anything other than observation and math then truthfully
neither of us has a leg to stand on.

Well, I can corroborate my model with observation. We SEE the sun and moon and stars orbit the Earth every 24 hours. We FEEL the Earth is motionless. We SEE the direction of the moons orbit is east to west across the sky. If we jump up in the air we DONT land to the west of our jumping position.

YOU on the other hand, claim things that we simply DONT observe. You reverse the direction of the moons orbit. You claim the Earth is spinning and orbiting the sun contrary to ALL observation.

Plus I have REAL scientific proof that the Earth doesnt move but I need you to clarify your position on space before I can bring it forward.

Are you SURE space is a perfect vacuum?

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:I would be very interested in seing your scripture that proves geocentricism is what you say it is brought forth for my review.

I can quite confidently claim that whenever there is any scripture that COULD be referring to the movement / non-movement of the Earth / Sun....its ALWAYS the Earth thats stationary and the sun thats moving. ALWAYS!

Therefore the bible ONLY teaches geocentrism and NEVER heliocentrism.

Therefore the burden of proof is on you as your model defies real observation.

by John Chingford Tue Oct 04, 2011 4:31 pm

Strangelove wrote:If we jump up in the air we DONT land to the west of our jumping position.

Hi Doc

I have a problem with using the above as a reason to back up the argument.

This argument does not prove the Earth does not rotate. If the Earth rotates, then everything rotates within the whole gravity of Earth, including the skies which make up the globe. Just look at Earth from space to see everything that constitutes the Earth. If everything which makes up the globe (including skies and clouds) rotates then gravity would keep everything within the globe (as seen from outer space) in a fixed stationary state BELOW the circumference of all that I mentioned, ie it would seem that the Earth is not moving from our perspective of living ON the Earth, ie when we jump up and down, the air and the ground are moving together, so that we WILL land in the same place. I am not a scientist but that is clear to my rational mind.

I don't know if I have managed to convey properly what is in my mind. I guess your replies will demonstrate whether you have understood or not.

by **strangelove** Tue Oct 04, 2011 4:54 pm

John Chingford wrote:
Strangelove wrote:If we jump up in the air we DONT land to the west of our jumping position.

Hi Doc

I have a problem with using the above as a reason to back up the argument.

This argument does not prove the Earth does not rotate. If the Earth rotates, then everything rotates within the whole gravity of Earth, including the skies which make up the globe. Just look at Earth from space to see everything that constitutes the Earth. If everything which makes up the globe (including skies and clouds) rotates then gravity would keep everything within the globe (as seen from outer space) in a fixed stationary state BELOW the circumference of all that I mentioned, ie it would seem that the Earth is not moving from our perspective of living ON the Earth, ie when we jump up and down, the air and the ground are moving together, so that we WILL land in the same place. I am not a scientist but that is clear to my rational mind.

I don't know if I have managed to convey properly what is in my mind. I guess your replies will demonstrate whether you have understood or not.

Ok so the answer from heliocentrists is that the entire atmosphere and everything in it (birds, bees, clouds, kites, balloons, aeroplanes etc) is magically velcroed to the earth and spins with the earth PERFECTLY in sync with its axial rotation AND reduces its speed as you decrease latitude closer to the poles. This in itself is totally impossible and defies the law of physics.

Where does the atmosphere STOP spinning? At what altitude?

If you were to take a hot air baloon up there and you went through the outer limit of the spinning atmosphere what would happen?

How can the entire atmosphere be spinning one way and yet a kite or pollen can move the other way? Why are we and everything on the earth not dragged in an easterly direction?

Say you have a calm day and then a stormy day and then another calm day. There must be a restoring force (vector field) that produces the calmness. Why are WE (and all material objects on Earth) not effected by this restoring force?

The following link to a geocentric PhD explains the issue in more technical terms:

LINK ::: Heliocentric problem no. 3 - Restoring Forces

by **strangelove** Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:14 pm

(Malachi 4:2) But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.

Do we REALLY want to apply phenomenological language when the bible talks of the sun rising or setting or running around on its circuit?

This is clear prophecy of the Messiah Jesus Christ and talking of his rising LIKE THE SUN.

If the rising of the sun that we witness every morning is merely an ILLUSION, what does it say about this prophecy?

by **strangelove** Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:19 pm

QUOTE~

Professor Eilam Gross of the Weizmann Institute of Science, described the "Big Bang" theory in terms amazingly consistent with the story of the Creation in the Torah and Kabbalah literature.
~
We briefly review the reference to just some of these concepts in the Torah and the Kabbalah:

"The origin of the universe at a single point"

According to the Kabbalah of Ha'ari, the emergence of the worlds began at a single point that occurred after the first "contraction" of the "infinite light" that filled all space prior to the Creation.
According to the Kabbalah, the beginning of the creation of the
physical world was in the formation of the primal material, and
immediately after its formation the dimension of time was created. The
process continued with the formation of the different types of
individual creatures, including the different materials of which they
are composed and time allotted to each of them.

"The ancient light trapped within plasma"

As early as Rashi's commentary of Genesis, we find mention that the
Creator hid the ancient light of the six days of the Creation. Since
then, this light has been referred to in Kabbalah literature as "the
hidden light" (or ganuz). The hidden light is revealed in the teachings
of the Kabbalah and Jewish mysticism to those who learn it, and will be
revealed to all humanity in the future.

"The universe spread out and cooled"

Kabbalah literature explains the interpretation of the name of the Creator,SH-D-I: she'amar le'olamo dai –
He who told the world enough(!). According to Jewish-Kabbalah
tradition about the creation of the world, in the beginning, the
heavens stretched out infinitely, until the Creator told them
"enough"(!) and stopped the spreading of the heavens and the entire
universe – a process parallel to restriction, cooling and gelling.

SOURCE: The big Bang, Kabbalah in the wourld

by **strangelove** Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:19 pm

(Genesis 1:16) And God made two
great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to
rule the night: he made the stars also.

(Genesis 1:17) And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

He SET them. Strongs concordance offers Set (FORTH) as one possible translation of:

נתן
nâthan
naw-than'

So, we know the moon orbits the earth. God SET it forth in its course.

He uses the same word for the SUN TOO!

(Psalms 19:4) Their line is gone out through all
the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a
tabernacle for the sun,

(Psalms 19:5) Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.

(Psalms 19:6) His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

Tell me....is ANYTHING in all the heavens hidden from the heat of the sun?

by **strangelove** Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:49 pm

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth [such as a stationary Earth] if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."

- Leo Tolstoy

by **strangelove** Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:02 pm

I have no doubt....from the established alternations of days and nights, that the course and revolutions of the sun, and moon, and stars, are regulated by the marvellous wisdom of God.

- John Calvin

by **strangelove** Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:07 pm

"The truth is that God states in many places in His Word that the sun is in motion, her circuit resulting in both day and night, and that the world remains both motionless and stationary. Nowhere does God speak to the contrary, ... Since God states it to be so, it is truth and we are to embrace it as truth. Is not God the Creator, maintainer, and governor of all things, who is much better acquainted with His own work than is man with his limited and darkened understanding? Should men not subject their judgment to the very sayings of God? Or should one attempt to bend and twist the clear declarations of God in such a way that they agree with our erroneous thinking? Whatever God declares, also concerning things in the realm of nature, is true. God says that the world is motionless and stationary, being circled by the sun, and thus it is a certain and incontrovertible truth."

- Wilhelmus a'Brakel, The Christian's Reasonable Service. pp. 64-66

by **strangelove** Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:09 pm

"There was mention of a certain astrologer [the sun worshipper Copernicus]
who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and
the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a
ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the
trees were moving.

So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that
others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that
fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even
in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy
Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the
earth [Jos. 10:12].”

- Martin Luther

by **strangelove** Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:07 pm

Governement 'scientific' agencies:

Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Department of Energy
Department of Homeland Security Research
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Communications Commission
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Institutes of Health
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Science Foundation
Patent and Trademark Office
U.S. Geological Survey

by MUSKOKAMAN Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:42 pm

Strangelove wrote:"There was mention of a certain astrologer [the sun worshipper Copernicus]
who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and
the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a
ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the
trees were moving.

So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that
others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that
fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even
in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy
Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the
earth [Jos. 10].”

- Martin Luther

Your using a quote from Martin Luther to bolster your hypothesis The reformationist himself?

A man who couldn't possibly understand the mechanics of the heavens because he was too busy finding heresy in a book and a church that was 1500 years old so he threw out 7 books and called them apochrypha.

which is what you are doing when you throw out the knowledge learned from observation and trial and error of the last 500 years finding conspiracies at every turn rather than accepting the data put forth. It's good to be wary but it can dilude one if ones not careful!

I realise your zeal for God Doc. it's quite apparent

by **strangelove** Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:58 am

MUSKOKAMAN wrote:Your using a quote from Martin Luther to bolster your hypothesis The reformationist himself?

A man who couldn't possibly understand the mechanics of the heavens because he was too busy finding heresy in a book and a church that was 1500 years old so he threw out 7 books and called them apochrypha.

which is what you are doing when you throw out the knowledge learned from observation and trial and error of the last 500 years finding conspiracies at every turn rather than accepting the data put forth. It's good to be wary but it can dilude one if ones not careful!

I realise your zeal for God Doc. it's quite apparent

Dunno what your talking about.

Just showing that respected biblical scholars see the bible as geocentric. Any response to the other posts?

Anything at all?

What do YOU understand about the mechanics of the heavens that Luther and Calvin and world class astronomers like George Ellis and Sir Fred Hoyle have passed over?

Hypothetical science falsely so called maybe?

by Sponsored content