Thoughts on geocentrism

It's been a while since I've used this particular blog, what with the goings-on in Majors' School and all.

A long-time friend recently posted an article about Galileo, who recanted his heliocentric astronomy theories in the face of a tortuous death at the hands of the Catholic church.  Four centuries later, believe it or not, in this day and age there are actually people who still believe in a flat earth.  Others still believe the earth is round, but fixed in space with the universe revolving around it.

That article sparked a memory of a site I found once:  fixedearth.com.   The site is poorly designed and full of rhetoric -- the author thinks that all science is basically a Kabbalah-based conspiracy.  He also believes that almost everything we need to know about the universe is in the verses of the Bible.  Here is a brief summary of his main "scientific" points:

1.  Earth is the center of the universe, and does not move.
2.  The universe revolves around the earth once each day.
3.  The size of the universe is much smaller than scientists would have us believe.

However, I notice some potentially fatal flaws in this reasoning -- so, out of curiosity, I emailed the guy.  Here's how it went:

Me -- "...let's consider Pluto, which you accept is 3.67 billion miles from Earth.  That means the diameter of its orbit is 7.34 billion miles, making its speed 266,840 miles per second -- still 1.4 times faster than light speed, assuming my simple math is correct.  Isn't this the fatal flaw in your logic?  How can a planet travel faster than light speed?  And if the math used to reach my conclusion is 'occult math' and therefore in error, then how do we determine the correct formula to determine Pluto's speed?

"I would [also] like to know ... how can you reject all other scientific assertions, yet accept measurements within our known solar system, that ostensibly come from the same kabballist methods?"

"There is more about your logic that still puzzles me.  On the one hand, you state "

Scripturally, as we shall see, the stars are in the 3rd Heaven of the firmament."

Yet on another page, you state that half of the 12,000 stars we can see aren't stars at all but reflections of the 6,000 stars that are visible with the naked eye.  However, doesn't the Bible simply call stars as "stars,"  and not reflections?   If the Bible calls them stars, then that's what they are -- nothing more, nothing less.

"Here is yet another conundrum.  If Venus and Saturn are the only planets mentioned in the Bible, then where did the other six come from?  Wouldn't Saturn be the outer edge of the 2nd heaven?  What about nebulae?  I have seen certain nebulae within my own telescope, yet they are not mentioned in the Bible.  Did I imagine them?"

 

His reply --

 

"The whole geocentrism concept has been buried under almost five centuries of the work of Satan's best liars and frauds from the secretive Pharisee Religion's Christ-hating Talmudist and Kabbalist Rabbinate.  Any challenge seems ridiculous, but geocentrism is the God's Truth and it's coming, like it or not.

"Your universe size is very insightful to have been arrived at so quickly.  That figure would barely work.  I think between six and eight billion is what is required to accommodate the huge New Earth and New Heavens promised in the Scriptures.  All the figures are given in the first of seven "Size and Structure of the Universe According to the Bible and Non-theoretical Science" essays.  Scroll down about 35% and look for numbers 1-6 on this subject.
http://www.fixedearth.com/Size%20and%20Structure%20Part%20I.htm

"The 4th and 6th of that series will answer a lot for you too.  #4 is listed under "Star Trails..." in Subject Area #1 at the bottom of www.fixedearth.com.  The others are in Subject Areas #5 & #8, I believe.....

 

"Don't get too hooked on the speed of light limitation.  That is theory, of course, and lately challenged widely.  However, the real universe's extremities can get around within that limitation."

 

I admit I haven't yet reviewed the references in his response from his site, but I just might.  His answer was, predictably, full of rhetoric while not addressing actual answers to the problem with his logic -- the quintessential, "Biblical hand-wave" of logic that is so prevalent in dicsussions such as these.

 

And, also typical that he subjectively chooses which facts fit his theory.