Has Cassini-Huygens spacecraft earth flyby in 1999 disproven geocentrism


I was in prison during that time, so my news access was limited.

This is what I wrote to NASA, and I write it here to fellow/former fellow geocetrics, mainly.

Possible proof?
lördag 5 februari 2005 09:20
Från: “Hans Georg Lundahl” <…>
Till: “Robert Sungenis” <…>

If earth is stationary, it ought to remain at the origo of the flight of a rocket (the spiral movement of which is explained by influence of dayly movement of universe around earth). If it be moving around sun, it ought to return to it only once a year.

a) is there any evidence from NASA as to which is the case?
b) is it reliable?
c) presuming it to be as in first case, how do heliocentrics account for it?
d) presuming it to be as in second case, how do you account for it?

If you have already answered this question on your page, pls send link as to correct part of it.

Cassini-Huygens seems to have maybe some relevance, but not sure whether it is for flight being too curved anyway for any conclusions to be drawn or for heliocentrism and earth rotating around the sun.


a) 321 views, no reply so far
b) got no reply from NASA either.


[quote="hansgeorg, post:2, topic:278294"]
a) 321 views, no reply so far
b) got no reply from NASA either.


What is that you expect a non-scientist/non-astronomer to say?


Who says everyone here is neither astronomer nor amateur astronomer, neither scientist nor amateur scientist?

Excubitor was on one or more of geocentricity threads, now he is blocked. One Cassini was too and is no longer to be found.

If you want to watch my earlier (and sometimes their earlier) takes on geocentricity, have a look at my list of Catholic Answers threads:


This thread [S]will be[/S] has been added to that page of thread lists.


[quote="hansgeorg, post:2, topic:278294"]
a) 321 views, no reply so far
b) got no reply from NASA either.


As charitably as possible:

Geo-centrism is a load of bunk. It has been discussed here before, to death, and pursuing it further is fruitless.


[quote="didymus, post:5, topic:278294"]
As charitably as possible:


I am replying with real charity.

[quote="didymus, post:5, topic:278294"]
Geo-centrism is a load of bunk.


Your saying so does not prove it so.

[quote="didymus, post:5, topic:278294"]
It has been discussed here before, to death, and pursuing it further is fruitless.


I linked to those earlier discussions, and it was not Geocentrism that died.


Now I am charitably offering up a chance to kill it - if that is possible - by arguments drawn from recent spacecraft.

Or was.

Cassini-Huygens has not been following a straight line from earth outward. It can therefore not be optically checked if earth has been staying or not in the origo of that theoretically possible straight line, since that straight line is not the line Cassini-Huygens has been pursuing - as far as heliocentric diagrams go.

But you might know some other argument from spacecraft?

However, I did come up with a reading of Joshua 10 that could make sense if heliocentric cosmography were true. Without watering down Biblical Inerrancy.


What about aberration observed from Mars?

I only know that parallax has not been observed from Mars, at least not unless they are hiding observations actually contradicting heliocentrism, so heliocentrism has not been confirmed by an independent look at proxima Centauri from Mars: according to what I have been told, proxima Centauri is “standing still” because instruments on Mars are not finetuned enough to detect whatever corresponds to the 0.76 angular seconds* of back and forth each year as seen from earth.

What about whatever corresponds to the 20 or so angular seconds** of aberration? Has there been an observation from Mars confirming or invalidating the interpretation given by scientists that this is due to light’s finite speed in concurrence with earth’s annual movement?

  • 0° 00’ 00.76"
    **c. 0° 00’ 20"


Geocentrism again? Really?


I work for a large car company, and every once in a while I get an email from someone who has loony ideas about secret carburetors or magnetic fuel-molecule-alignment gizmos that will provide a hundred miles per gallon on a '70's Monte Carlo. The fact that I have a degree in engineering and 20 years of experience in engine design and development, and that at best they have a Popular Mechanics understanding of thermodynamics (meaning, almost no understanding at all), means nothing to them. No matter what I say they're gonna be sure that there's a vast conspiracy against them, and replying to them is a complete waste of my time.

Geocentrism is like that.



DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.