Flat Earth is Going "Mainstream"!

I've never seen a FE explanation for why Polaris can't be seen in the southern hemisphere, also why the stars there circle in the opposite direction to the northern ones circling Polaris. Both are necessary on a spherical Earth, and have no FE explanation.

 

The entire model is nothing more than mathematical garb. And here you are, using mathematics as a means to defend such an absurd claim, that we live on a spinning ball. When in reality what you call observations, suggest otherwise. The same math fits a geo-centric "ball earth" as well. Where it's still a ball, but it's not moving. You know how many different equations one could come up with, if they spent their life doing so?

Copernicus said the sun was only 13 million miles away, and in stating that, he also said that it matters not. The distance to the sun has been changed 3 or more times, 3 for certain. It's called "razzle dazzle", and that is what is being done to anybody that would believe such an absurd claim, through "mathematics". Tell me, what mathematical equation proves your "eyesight"?

Everything has been advanced in technology. Phones, cars, planes, trains, everything but "space". Which has actually gone backwards. The greatest achievement in mankind's history was what 1969?

When the plane was invented, other people and companies starting making them, same with vehicles, phones, and everything else. But space, nothing, not only can we not go back to the moon (they never went in the first place), but they claim they don't have the technology anymore, that they destroyed that technology "and it's a painful process to bring it back".

All the new "space agencies" is a front. They are not privatized, they all share the same symbology, and are of one mind.

 

Speculative men, by the force of genius may invent systems that will perhaps be greatly admired for a time; these, however, are phantoms which the force of truth will sooner or later dispel; and while we are pleased with the deceit, true philosophy with all the arts and improvements that depend on it, suffers. -Chapter 1 Philosophical Discoveries-

The real state of things escapes our observations; or, if it presents itself to us, we are apt either to reject it wholly as fiction, or, by new efforts of a vein ingenuity to interweave it with our own conceits, and labor to make it tally with our favorite schemes. Thus by blending together parts so ill-suited, the whole comes forth an absurd composition of truth and error. These have not done near so much harm as that pride and ambition which has lead philosophers to think it beneath them to offer anything less to the world than a complete and finished system of nature; and in order to obtain this at once, to take the liberty to inventing certain principles and hypothesis from which they pretend to explain all her mysteries." -The Scottish Enlightenment-

"Theories are things of uncertain mode; they depend, in a great measure, upon the humor and caprice of an age, which is sometimes in love with one, and sometimes with another."

The system of Copernicus was admitted by it's author to be merely an assumption, temporary and incapable of demonstration.

"It is not necessary that hypothesis should be true, or even probable, it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation. Neither let anyone, so far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind, lest in case he should adopt for truth, things feigned for another purpose, he should leave this science more foolish than he came. The hypotheses of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypotheses, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena, and not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood". -Copernicus-

The Newtonian and all other "views" and systems have the same general character as the "hypothesis of the terrestrial motion," framed by Copernicus.

"The foundations or premises are always unproved; no proof is ever attempted; the necessity for it is denied; it is considered sufficient that the assumptions seem to explain the phenomena selected. In this way it is that theory supplants theory, and system gives way to system, often in rapid succession, as one failure after another compels opinions to change. Until the practice of theorizing is universally relinquished, philosophy will continue to be looked upon by the bulk of mankind as a vain and mumbling pretension, antagonistic to the highest aspirations of humanity. Let there be a true and practical free-thought method, with sequences as the only test of truth and consistency, and the philosopher may become the Priest of Science and the real benefactor of his species." -Zetetic Astronomy-

 

Well sure, I've used simple mathematics to prove, once again, that your videos are bogus. And I've used simple mathematics and geometry to prove that we are on a sphere.

Are you conceding the Earth is a ball? And of course it is moving.

Lots. And none of them prove the Earth is flat.

So what?

That is a flat out falsehood based upon an out of context statement. The person was referring to the fact that we no longer have the Apollo systems any more. However, the person in that same interview says: But going to Mars should be on of the next series of steps that we will do. The first step should be going back to the moon, for a number of technical reasons and exploration reasons, and they after that Mars, maybe high orbit in the Venus atmosphere, maybe going to Europa ..." For you to assert he or anyone said we can not get back to the moon is simply a flat out falsehood.

Don't you even care about your commandments? Thou shall not bear false witness?

This is all interesting, but I've proved your videos are bogus. I've proved that with simple observations here on Earth, without relying on the thousands of photographs, we can prove that we are on a spinning sphere. You have (once again) utterly failed to to address, much less rebut, the proofs I have presented in detail.

Why have you completely dodge my proofs in my post? Why are you dodging answering the questions?

Honestly, if you have even the slightest understanding of the heliocentric system, you should be able to instantly see the grossly ignorant error the video is making.But apparently you do not see it? Really? Or are you being dishonest with us?

If you deny that the position of Polaris changes geometrically with latitude proves is that the Earth is a sphere, please explain how the position of Polaris could change geometrically with latitude (which again, you have utterly failed to rebut) if the Earth were flat.

Please explain why you cannot see Polaris from the entire Earth if the Earth wax flat. And then explain how you can see the Southern cross from the Southern Hemisphere but nor from more northern latitudes (above 30* N).

And I'll add another, an excellent observation Electron pointed out. If you are in the Northern Hemisphere, you see the stars rotating around Polaris, which is directly above the North Pole, in a counterclockwise rotation. However, if you are in the Southern Hemisphere, when you look up at night, you don't see Polaris. Instead you see the stars rotating around the Southern Cross, above the Southern pole in a Clockwise rotation.

How could stars possible rotate in different directions over the different poles if the Earth were flat?

Another observable proof that the Earth is not flat.

Now, I and others have accused you of simply being a troll. You've claimed that you are interested in learning the truth. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. If that is true, then address the arguments in my post, and explain how they are wrong and do not prove the Earth is indeed a sphere.

 

Don't dodge our questions and arguments with meaningless blather. That's why folks call you a troll.

This is your chance to prove you really are interested in the truth, as you've claimed you are.

 

Agreed, however mathematics does not prove our world, realm, universe, rather it proves mathematics. To answer your question in a manner pleasing to you, I must first adhere to the mathematics, in which I refuse to do, knowing math does not prove the world, realm, or universe in which our reality is. Copernicus himself said so. So your "astronomical priest," agrees with me on this one.

 

I know he is alive because I seen him just the other day at Walmarts. You seen him too?.
And another thing.....The earth is flat as a pancake.

 

They are claiming the next step is the moon for technical reasons, which is understandable given the assumption that the earth is a ball, and deep space travel is even possible. They can claim their gonna go to the moon, but they're not going anywhere. They also know a very keen eye will be set upon them, and is already. It's not going to be as easy to trick us as it was the first time, when they fulfilled the prophecy of the "strong delusion", that will deceive the entire "world". Which it has.

Here are your astronomical priests in which you adhere to. Do you have the ability to see a lie when it is upon you?

 

Is this the behavior that comes with believing earth is a ball?

 

Yes in fact every one can see that you are lying about the earth being flat

 

That is not a belief.

it is reality

 

That is your opinion of reality. And you base it off of something you have never seen.

 

No it is not opinion it is observation of reality and fact which you have not and cannot present any evidence to challenge.

And yes I hav seen it I have looked at the evidence and accepted it unlike you who simply lies about it

 

It's your story, tell it how you want.

 

No it is not mine nor a story it is simple fact which you willfully lie about

 

Interestingly, there have been several scientific experiments which have proven Heliocentricity false. As with other scientific truths which have been hidden and withheld from the public, these experiments are never discussed in the mainstream media. Not one to make statements without providing supporting evidence, here are some examples of said experiments.

[The following is excerpted from The Basic Scientific Arguments for Geocentricity by Malcolm Bowden.]

Most scientists know about the Michelson-Morely experiment – that failed to detect any movement of the earth round the sun. This had to be overcome so the Fitzgerald-Lorentz shortening of the apparatus was proposed, and eventually the paradoxical Relativity Theory was invented by Einstein to overcome this problem. However, there are three other experiments that have been deliberately ignored by universities because they support geocentricity–

(a) The Michelson-Gale experiment (Reference – Astrophysical Journal 1925 v 61 pp 140-5) – This detected the aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth! Thus, the Michelson-Morely experiment detected no movement of the earth around the sun, yet the Michelson-Gale experiment measured the earth’s rotation (or the aether’s rotation around the earth!) to within 2%! This surely speaks volumes for geocentricity.

(b) “Airey’s failure” (Reference – Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35) – Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth’s “speed around the sun”. Airey filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle. [emphasis BiblicalScholarship.net]

(c) The Sagnac experiment (Reference – Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3) – Sagnac rotated a table complete with light and mirrors with the light being passed in opposite directions around the table between the mirrors. He detected the movement of the table by the movement of the interference fringes on the target where they were recombined. This proved that there IS an aether that the light has to pass through and this completely destroys Einstein’s theory of Relativity that says there is no aether. It is for this reason that this experiment is completely ignored by scientists. More recently Kantor has found the same result with similar apparatus.

All these experiments are never taught at universities, so consequently, scientists, including most Christian creationists, are ignorant of this evidence for geocentricity.

As I mentioned above, if such evidence exists that at the very least deserves further consideration, what would be the purpose for withholding this information from the public?

From all indications, there appears to have been and continues to be a group of “scientists” who (have) decided that their heliocentric pronouncements would/will be proved and accepted. They’ve conducted various experiments to prove that the earth moves around the sun. Unsurprisingly, these experiments (have) FAILED–and they knew/know it–but they covered this information up. In their corrupt minds, Heliocentrism had/has to disprove the Bible, no matter what the cost–so instead of being scientific and accepting that the Earth does not move, they decided/decide to hold the truth in unrighteousness. They suppressed/suppress the truth like any liar would. False science could not and can not prove the motion of the earth because it does not move. It is not a planet (“wanderer”). Those early false scientists are the authors of the textbooks that today’s “scientists” and authors consult. The students who have learned from them are worse off than they are (Matthew 23:15) because these students actually believe the Earth moves whereas the original false scientists knew that they were wrong.

For anyone reading this, I realize that these are very strong claims to make. I realize that most will simply dismiss these ideas as barbaric and cave-man “ish.” Only a troglodyte would subscribe to the idea that the sun and stars revolve around a stationary earth, right?

Well, we’re going to examine this issue in more detail over the next several blog entries.

Before dismissing this blog all together, I encourage you to follow along with an open mind. Reserve judgement and when I have presented all of the facts DECIDE FOR YOURSELF.

Over the next few entries, I will look at the following questions:
1) Why does the Earth seem motionless?
2) Why do the Sun and Moon appear to be the same size?
3) Why do the Sun, Moon, and Stars all appear to revolve around a stationary Earth?
4) Why do we never see the rotation of the Moon?
5) Why do the stars appear to be fixed along a celestial sphere?
6) Why can’t I simply hover in a helicopter and wait for the Earth’s rotation to bring my destination to me?
Within this question, there are other related questions:
If the atmosphere is magically velcroed to the Earth and constantly rotates from West to East along with it:

A) How is it that clouds, wind and weather patterns often travel in opposing directions simultaneously?

B) Why don’t East to West traveling planes or projectiles encounter increased resistance?

C) Why can I feel the slightest Westward breeze but not the Earth’s supposed 1,000 mph Eastward spin?

D) If gravitational force is so great to pull the atmosphere together with the Earth then how come little birds and bugs are able to fly?

7) How do Heliocentricist’s account for the Allais Effect and the results of Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale, Airy’s Failure, Sagnac and Kantors experiments proving the aether and a fixed Earth?

1) Why do we never see the rotation of the Moon?

Geocentric View: Because it doesn’t rotate.

Heliocentric View: Both the Moon and the Earth are actually rotating but they are doing so in such a way that from our perspective it seems that neither are. The Earth is spinning East to West at 1,000 mph while orbiting the Sun at 67,000 mph. The Moon is spinning West to East at 10.3 mph while orbiting the Earth at 2,288 mph. These motions/speeds perfectly cancel out so that the Moon always only shows us one side.

“They want you to believe that the Moon’s rotation is perfectly synchronized with its orbit so that’s why we only ever see one side of the Moon, rather than conclude the obvious – that the Moon is simply NOT rotating. Moreover, they had to slow down the Moon’s speed by 58,870 mph AND reverse its direction to West-East to successfully sell their phony heliocentricity system to a gullible public. I don’t think there is one person in many, many thousands – regardless of education – who knows that the Copernican Model had to turn the Moon’s observable direction around and give it a new speed to accommodate the phases and eclipses.” -Marshall Hall

“The Moon presented a special math problem for the construction of the heliocentricity model. The only way to make the Moon fit in with the other assumptions was to reverse its direction from that of what everyone who has ever lived has seen it go. The math model couldn’t just stop the Moon like it did the Sun, that wouldn’t work. And it couldn’t let it continue to go East to West as we see it go, either at the same speed or at a different speed. The only option was to reverse its observed East to West direction and change its speed from about 64,000 miles an hour to about 2,200 miles an hour. This reversal along with the change in speed were unavoidable assumptions that needed to be adopted if the model was to have a chance of mimicking reality.” -Bernard Brauer

2) Why do the stars appear to be fixed along a celestial sphere?

GC: Because they are.

HC: The stars only appear to be fixed along a celestial sphere because they are so incredibly far away. Even after hundreds of millions of miles of our (supposed) orbit around the Sun, the stars appear in the exact same positions at the exact same meridian times because they are many “light-years” away. A light-year is approximately 6 TRILLION miles away and that is why they falsely seem fixed from our faulty perspective.

“Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube and the moment the star appears in the first tube let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the second tube when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the second tube towards the first tube would be required for the star to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results–the star will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube which the difference in position of one yard had previously required. But as no such difference in the direction of the tube is required, the conclusion is unavoidable, that in six months a given meridian upon the earth’s surface does not move a single yard, and therefore, that the earth has not the slightest degree of orbital motion.” -Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy”

3) Why can’t I simply hover in a helicopter and wait for the Earth’s rotation to bring my destination to me?

GC: Because the Earth doesn’t rotate.

HC: Because the Earth’s atmosphere is magically velcroed to the Earth and rotates along with it.

3.5) If the atmosphere is magically velcroed to the Earth and constantly rotates from West to East along with it, then …

A) How is it that clouds, wind and weather patterns often travel in opposing directions simultaneously?

B) Why don’t East to West traveling planes or projectiles encounter increased resistance?

C) Why can I feel the slightest Westward breeze but not the Earth’s supposed 1,000 mph Eastward spin?

D) If gravitational force is so great to pull the atmosphere together with the Earth then how come little birds and bugs are able to fly?

GC: All these questions are moot and irrelevant in the geocentric view.

HC: All of these questions are difficult and my pseudo-scientific heliocentric answers will be implausible and like grasping at straws.

“If the atmosphere rushes forward from west to east continually, we are again obliged to conclude that whatever floats or is suspended in it, at any altitude, must of necessity partake of its eastward motion. A piece of cork, or any other body floating in still water, will be motionless, but let the water be put in motion, in any direction whatever, and the floating bodies will move with it, in the same direction and with the same velocity. Let the experiment be tried in every possible way, and these results will invariable follow. Hence if the earth’s atmosphere is in constant motion from west to east, all the different strata which are known to exist in it, and all the various kinds of clouds and vapours which float in it must of mechanical necessity move rapidly eastwards. But what is the fact? If we fix upon any star as a standard or datum outside the visible atmosphere, we may sometimes observe a stratum of clouds going for hours together in a direction the very opposite to that in which the earth is supposed to be moving. Not only may a stratum of clouds be seen moving rapidly from east to west, but at the same moment other strata may often be seen moving from north to south, and from south to north. It is a fact well known to aeronauts, that several strata of atmospheric air are often moving in as many different directions at the same time … On almost any moonlight and cloudy night, different strata may be seen not only moving in different directions but, at the same time, moving with different velocities; some floating past the face of the moon rapidly and uniformly, and others passing gently along, sometimes becoming stationary, then starting fitfully into motion, and often standing still for minutes together. Some of those who have ascended in balloons for scientific purposes have recorded that as they have rapidly passed through the atmosphere, they have gone though strata differing in temperature, in density, and in hygrometric, magnetic, electric, and other conditions. These changes have been noticed both in ascending and descending, and in going for miles together at the same altitude.” -Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy”

4) How do Heliocentricist’s account for the Allais effect, and the results of Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale, Airy’s Failure, Sagnac and Kantors experiments proving the aether and a fixed Earth?

GC: Yeah, good question.

HC: (silence)

“I don’t argue or enter into debates, because the issue here is exactly what you would bring to the debate, which is the wealth of erroneous information that allowed our situation to become as dire as it is in the first place. Your argument would consist of phony statistics, historical fables, the newspaper’s latest lies, and profit-driven ‘science.’ My argument is simple. Discover who controls everything you’ve been told, only believe what you can verify for yourself through original documentation, science and logic, and then look for a political connection between the sources of all the erroneous information. Find the motives behind the lies. If you did that, there would be no debate, and we would all agree on whose head should roll, as the saying goes.” -Jolly Roger

https://iamtymaximus.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/geocentricity-vs-heliocentricity/

 

You have done this before and failed then as you fail now.

Not one of the experiments you list concerned a flat earth and not one of them proved a flat earth nor did any of them prove earth geocentricity.

The evidence simply proves you wrong and not one shred of evidence challenges the absolute fact that the earth is round.

The experiments you list above do not even come close to doing that.

Try again boy

 

Thank you, for showing your ignorance.

 

We accept the reality in which we are given. Your post here is a prime example. They told you what Columbus did, and you accepted it. They told you earth is a ball and you accepted it. And they did so at a very young age. So young we didn't have the brain to question it, we was still learning the abc's and 123's. The best form of indoctrination is at a young age. Which is why public school is free.

The for corners of the earth, is where the four angels are, blowing and holding back the winds. One doesn't get four corners on a ball. The earth is established, it cannot be moved.

Job 26:10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end

Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?

Job 28:24 For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven;

2 Samuel 22:16 And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the Lord, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.

1 Chronicles 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

10 Say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.

Psalm 93:1 The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Matthew 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Revelation 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

Deuteronomy 4:19 And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.

Psalms 19:
1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
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,
5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
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.

Ecclesiastes 1:5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

12 Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the Lordhearkened unto the voice of a man: for the Lord fought for Israel.

 

Please note that all of these examples are poetic.

Please note that all of these examples you have given are, in ancient Hebrew, poetic forms. They no more describe the actual shape of the earth than Keats 'Ode on a Grecian Urn' compares and contrasts the relative skills of ancient Greek, Roman, and Egyptian potters.

A description of the Earth was neither the intent nor the goal of the poetry in the Old Testament.

 

That is your opinion. And I can respect that. My opinion is that the scriptures in the Bible, The Book of Enoch, The Book of Jasher, do reveal the realm of "earth".

What about when God stopped the sun and moon for Joshua for about a whole day, is that just poetic as well?

The "truth" is within the word. And the word will eventually be revealed for all to see. For instance, let's say hypothetically that the earth is flat. That would mean NASA and governments of the world already know. And the lie would reveal them all, we will know them all "by their fruits". And the entire world would have to change. For the enlightenment of such a lie is so grand, it would have to be the great delusion God sends in the end days on all flesh of the earth, because "they love not the truth".

The great delusion, was the moon landing.

When mentioning that the earth is flat, most will ask, "what difference would it make"? These are of those "who love not the truth". Because they feel "truth" doesn't make a difference.

 

What about it? Do you really think the shape of the planet can provide any real difficulty for the God who by his word set into being the entire universe down to the pattern of the stars in the night skys? Cannot the Being who sat down the very laws governing this universe interfere with them at his whim?

 

God doesn't have to work outside his creation, nor does he lie. If He says he stopped the "sun" and the "moon" for about a whole day, then he stopped them for about a whole day. Which requires the sun and moon to be moving in the first place. The "Helio"centirc model says, the sun is already stopped in relation to the earth, and that it is the earth that is moving.

I spelled heliocentric in the manner above, for the ancient Greek sun God, "Helios". The worship of ancient sun and other gods, is thought by the public to be over with. Yet that is exactly what goes on to this day.

For the entire world "believes" they are in a "Helio"centric world.

 

By the way we do not see the rotation of the moon because it is tide locked to the earth so that the same face always point toward us.
You can't measure the aether flowing past the earth because it doesn't exist.
The best telescopes are mounted on a rotating base If they are going to take pictures of space the speed at which that base moves depends on the latitude of the telescope. The elevation of the Telescope has nothing to do with this. You want to see the earth's movement with your own eyes the best way is to mount a hobby telescope with an attached camera in your back yard preferably somewhere out in the country away from the city lights set your exposure time for about five hours and the stars will resemble lines rather than points.

The heliocentric theory does not claim that the sun is stationary merely the the earth orbits the sun. Sun also moves within the Milky way galaxy. Scientists and God are apparently both aware of this fact. Apparently you aren't. The sun is no more at the center of the universe than is Earth. And given the Hubris with which even the best of Humanity tends at times to operate, I see no reason why a rational God would place us in such a position. We are more than egotistical enough as is

 

No, I was talking about the first heliocentric model, that stated the sun is stationary completely. They didn't have the spiral model at that time, yet was able to convince people anyways.