Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Jitpring on April 15, 2011, 09:57:06 PM
-
I just came across this fascinating item:
http://www.amazon.com/Galileo-Was-Wrong-Church-Right/dp/0977964000/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t
Notice how dogmatic are the negative reviews.
At any rate, if you're a geocentrist, indicate it like so:
:applause:
If not, like so:
:facepalm:
-
I shall forego your choices and tell you I am a geocentrist...as it is the only truly reasonable position to hold.
-
I shall forego your choices
I understand. This is yet another sign of the radical independence and awesome power of your gamma-charged brain. I salute you, sir. Keep it up.
-
I shall forego your choices
I understand. This is yet another sign of the radical independence and awesome power of your gamma-charged brain. I salute you, sir. Keep it up.
:laugh2:
I shall do the only sensible thing, taking this as a compliment. Godspeed to you and yours, amigo...
-
What's wrong with heliocentric-ism? I personally think it's great symbolism; the sun is Jesus Christ, and the Earth, us. We are dependent on Him and our lives revolve around Him whether we like it or not.
But to be honest I don't really know which view to hold as I've never studied it for myself. I know that I'm not going to seem very creditable if I start rambling that the Sun revolves around the Earth if I don't have any evidence to back it up.
-
I find this very interesting.
I would like to know what the posters here on this Forum think regarding this topic.
-
I personally haven't done research enough to have an opinion either way. As of now I can only rely on my beautiful secular scholastic brainwashi- I mean studies!
I'm open to either quite frankly.
As a related subject, and not trying to hijack this but I believe its appropriate (I hope the OP doesn't mind) I've never forgotten about this society: http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/ I'm bummed. They had a webpage I remember seeing in college for their Lancaster, Ca. location that I used to help write a paper (I remember I wasn't very charitable towards their ideas). I always remember that they wouldn't accept phone calls... or something like that.. but that they would be willing to meet at most any college campus for debate! That's never left my mind for some reason lol
Also as a side note, here are some quotes from the reviews of the book I found amusing and entertaining... but more than anything, I found them ironic... lets see if you agree as to why...:
"i weep for the fate of humanity seeing this kind of books published and even accepted."
"It just asks people to squint their eyes and pretend things are different than they really are."
"These people are seriously a danger to the education of future generations.."
""There's a sucker born every minute"" (in the case of the seculars... I say, "some times two!")
"the future of humanity is now officially looking more and more like "Idiocracy" than I ever thought possible. "
-
I used to identify myself as Geocentrist, just for radicalism's sake, but really can't imagine the sun with it's gravitational pull revolving around the Earth. Maybe I'm just too brainwashed, I don't know.
While I may not really believe in Geocentrism scientifically, I do believe in it spiritually. This world is where God chose to become man and where salvation history plays out. All things that matter are HERE!
I know the Church has ruled that the Earth is the center of the universe, and there is no evidence to the contrary. But regarding weather or not the earth revolves around the sun or not, who should I believe, the Church who has been the sanctuary of science and learning throughout it's existence, or the speculative professor who thinks he's descended from apes?
I really need to read much more deeper into the subject than what I have.
-
Yes, I'm a metaphysical geocentrist. Physically, I haven't looked into it, nor am I really qualified. The CD-ROM I linked to might be very interesting on this front. But I don't think I'll buy it. Our salvation doesn't depend on knowing this information.
-
If you read Isaac Newton's Principia you can see that already at that time the speed of light had been calculated and the distance of the earth to the sun.
-
Is there ANY conspiracy theory or contrarian historical/ scientific view you do NOT take, GV?
It seems you are eager to run down any slipperly slope imaginable.
-
Is there ANY conspiracy theory or contrarian historical/ scientific view you do NOT take, GV?
It seems you are eager to run down any slipperly slope imaginable.
Galileo was condemned as a heretic by the Church for being a heliocentrist, then many years later John Paul II said the Church was wrong to condemn him.
Hmm, I wonder who is more trustworthy...
-
I am a geocentrist for 2 reasons.
1). I do not experience heliocentrism, and,
2). it was pretty well defined as a dogma by the Magisterium at the time of Galileo.
-
The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.
The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html
-
Were those infallible statements?
Why or why not?
-
I shall forego your choices and tell you I am a geocentrist...as it is the only truly reasonable position to hold.
Niribu's hypothetical path is based on an orbit around the sun in full compliance with heliocentrism.
That's what happens when you adopt all contrarian views without discernment. Aleniation and non-sense. Sorry buddy, you need a bit of tough love.
-
:facepalm:
My general response as requested at the beginning of this tread, not a response to Cupertino's post.
-
So, nobody wants to touch that docuмent from the Holy Office, eh?
The old adage is true! Opinion trumps fact every time.
-
:applause:
-
Spork,
That's one of the coolest names and avatars I've ever seen. Props, yo.
-
Indeed it is, and a great avatar.
-
The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.
The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html
Interesting...
I believe 100% in geocentrism.
-
:facepalm:
I believe that a inertial frame of reference in which all things revolve about the Earth is perfectly valid but then I believe the same of any point in four-dimensional space. I do not, however, believe that the model of Brahe, or any other model depicting the Earth in a fixed position in absolute space, is correct.
-
Mr. Sungenis shows how the neo-Tychonic model of the universe is the same as that of heliocentrism. Also, he shows the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that the earth is absolutely motionless. Are you going against them or against Trent for that matter?
-
Both S & E are in motion. There is no physical center of U
-
roscoe, so you're a relativist? :facepalm: Then you go simply against Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, the Council of Trent, etc. Sungenis has thoroughly blasted relativity in his great scientific work.
-
Sungenis believes S rev around E. Sungenis denies Newtons theory of Gravity. Sungenis does not know that in truth, Galileo was condemned for his atomic quantum physical theories as much as for the 2 out of 3 false astronomical articles of Copernicus
All modern satellite communications are based on the idea that E rev around S. The fact that they work is proof that Copernicus was at least correct in one article of the 3 that comprise his system--- that E rev around S.
http://www.firstjesuits.wordpress.com
-
The Copernican idea that E rev around S is used in his Pruthenic tables--- which reckonings are incorporated into the Gregorian Calendar. IOW-- Pope Gregory XIII had no prob with the idea that E rev around S.
If anyone has the work of Benedict XV (15?) on this subject pls post.
-
So you believe atheistic scientists over the Church Fathers, Trent, Scripture, and evidence that Earth is at the center of the universe? Figures, since you always seemed to be an oddball here. Believing an occultist over the Church Fathers is very unbecoming of a Catholic. You don't understand that Sungenis uses Newton to support geocentrism. You haven't even read Sungenis or read him very superficially. In any event, the official 1633 condemnations of Galileo are sufficient for me over a mere layman's opinion like yours. Geocentrism is Church doctrine which has never been overturned and believed for at least 1800 years.
-
The Copernican idea that E rev around S is used in his Pruthenic tables--- which reckonings are incorporated into the Gregorian Calendar. IOW-- Pope Gregory XIII had no prob with the idea that E rev around S.
If anyone has the work of Benedict XV (15?) on this subject pls post.
Only because it didn't go to the critical issue it became in the early 1600s. In any case, Trent condemned going against the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
-
Copernicus was a scientist but not an Atheist-- Have U read his letter to Pope Paul III?
Trent was a thing of the past by the time the Gregorian Calendar is put into use. If Pope Gregory is going against Church Fathers, it is news to moi.
I do not deny that the Earth is the center of U--- in a spiritual sense.
-
Gregory XIII didn't suspect anything concerning Copernicus' real intentions. And the fact remains: by stating the earth is not the physical center of the universe, you go against the Fathers of the Church and thus against Trent, which condemned going against the unanimous consent of the Fathers. All the Fathers were geocentrists. There is no use going around that! Trent a thing of the past?! Only a Modernist would use such a phrase to deprecate the Church Fathers!!
And Copernicus wasn't a true scientist; most of his "observations" were in fact ripped from ancient Greek geocentrists and heliocentrists. ANd he attacks the Church Fathers, and not even citing a passage of theirs to support his heterodox (and heretical) position.
-
I would advise reading the letter of Copernicus to Pope Paul III. After reading it U may want to reevaluate your assertion that he was not a true scientist. What exactly were his 'real intentions'?
2 of the 3 parts of Copernican Doctrine have indeed been proven false. One part( E rev around S) has been proven true. The entire satellite communication system in use today is based on the idea that E rev around S. The fact that it works is proof that Copernicus was right on one count.
If U have not read the letter of Copernicus to Paul III, U are quite uneducated with respect to this topic.
-
I would also advise reading von Pastor's volume( I think it is 25 or so) on the Reorganisation of the Calendar.
-
Why don't read actually read Copernicus' work concerning his system instead of just a letter? In there, he attacks the Church Fathers for being uneducated, just as you have done here against me. And I see you keep avoiding the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers concerning the DOCTRINE of geocentrism. Einstein and other reputed physicists has admitted there has been no proof of earth going around the sun. In you I see the arrogance of heliocentrists. Why don't you actually read recent scientific articles that show the earth to be really at the center of the universe, confirming the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers (even though atheistic scientists deny it)?
Let's see: Church Fathers vs. Pastor and Copernicus. I say: CHURCH FATHERS and Trent and St. Robert Bellarmine!!
BTW, Pope Paul III didn't ask for heliocentrism on Copernicus' part; all he asked was to fix the calendar.
-
Again--- the idea that E rev around S is used in the reckonings of the Pruthenic Tables of Copernicus. These ARE INCORPORATED INTO THE GREGORIAN CALENDAR OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Something tells moi that u have not read the letter of Copernicus to Paul III
-
All this fixation on mathematics and non-magisterial letters!! This tells me you don't care about the teaching of Trent or the Church Fathers or St. Robert Bellarmine. It also tells me you ignore what modern astronomers and physicists admit: that heliocentrism is only preferred not proven. The letter to Paul III only presented heliocentrism as a hypothesis, not proven fact, which was condemned by Urban VIII. You can't get around that. All your red herrings would obscure this fact!
-
BTW wise guy-- I ACTUALLY HAVE read De Revolutionibus. I happen to be holding my copy of the 1999 Easton Press edition in my hands. U will find in the book a copy of the letter of Copernicus as well as an intro by AM Duncan and forward by Robert De Kosky. I suspect I am the only member of the Forum who has actually read it.
I would venture to say that U have not read any of this nor von Pastor on the reorganisation of the Calendar. I think Wikipedia has the Gregory XIII volume online.
I have never said that Copernicus spoke in any other than hypothetical terms & I am quite familiar with Bellarmine as well.
If U have been following my remarks, I do not believe in heliocentrism.
-
BTW wise guy-- I ACTUALLY HAVE read De Revolutionibus. I happen to be holding my copy of the 1999 Easton Press edition in my hands. U will find in the book a copy of the letter of Copernicus as well as an intro by AM Duncan and forward by Robert De Kosky. I suspect I am the only member of the Forum who has actually read it.
I would venture to say that U have not read any of this nor von Pastor on the reorganisation of the Calendar. I think Wikipedia has the Gregory XIII volume online.
I have never said that Copernicus spoke in any other than hypothetical terms & I am quite familiar with Bellarmine as well.
If U have been following my remarks, I do not believe in heliocentrism.
You could have fooled me. I call your ideas heliocentrism, since you believe the sun to have finished its orbit not in a day, but 200+ million years (if you believe modern "science"), and also because you believe the earth still goes around the sun. And also you seem to believe that fraud, Einstein. Sungenis also read that book of Copernicus, and he also saw it full of obfuscations and downright praise for the Greek heliocentrists; not a word of interpretation of the Church Fathers, except one Church Father, deprecating him and implicitly all the others.
I need not read anything except the Church Fathers and the official condemnations of 1633, condemning the idea that the earth is revolving around the sun and that the sun is immovable as heresy. Unless you believe the Pope and the Holy Office did wrong to condemn it, since you believe geocentrism to be only scientific opinion. In which case, there is nothing else to say, except you prefer Copernicus (and everyone following him) to the unanimous Scriptural interpretation of the Church Fathers (and modern findings confirming it, such as the concentric distribution of quasars and microwave radiation from the earth). I see in all your posts an intellectual arrogance.
-
I believe that the sun is in motion. If U want to call this heliocentrism be my guest. Until U actually read Copernicus, U are not qualified to comment.
Your conception that he is not a real scientist is a joke. He was a Catholic & this puts him above non- Catholic astronomers.
-
Copernicus is very involved in the re-organisation of the Calendar & U as a Catholic should have a great respect for his work. He knew that there were problems with his theory & submitted everything to the Popes authority.
He is one of the great men of history & an example of how the minds of the Church lead the world.
-
The Church condemned heliocentrism as a heresy. It's as simple as that.
-
Copernicus, a great mind? Spare me! He made a total of 20 or so observations of the stars and planets; the rest, he took willy-nilly from minds greater than he, such as the ancient Greek astronomers, both geo- and helio-. He preferred the sun-worshipping helios. As for his claim that his epicycles were less than Ptolemy's, that is a lie. Ptolemy had only 40, Copernicus had 48. Copernicus lied about Ptolemy, saying Ptolemy's system had 80 eipcycles.
-
The above coming from someone who has not even read Copernicus.
-
Good thread.
Even got a rise out of roscoe calling another member here a "wise guy".
-
Even the stellar parallax can be solved by Ptolemy. In fact, all Galilean astronomy does is to claim the observation/ effect is perception, an illusion of parallax. Completely unprovable.
One can predict future and past celestial positions with either model, it's not as though Ptolemy couldn't do what any astronomical model needs to do.
-
Copernicus, a great mind? Spare me! He made a total of 20 or so observations of the stars and planets; the rest, he took willy-nilly from minds greater than he, such as the ancient Greek astronomers, both geo- and helio-. He preferred the sun-worshipping helios. As for his claim that his epicycles were less than Ptolemy's, that is a lie. Ptolemy had only 40, Copernicus had 48. Copernicus lied about Ptolemy, saying Ptolemy's system had 80 eipcycles.
Thanks for all the info you have shared about this topic. I'm learning a lot from it.
:applause:
-
No, contra Sungenis, the Church does not regard geocentrism as a dogma. That this is the mind of the Church can be proved in many ways, the shortest is from this Encyclical letter of Pope Benedict XV.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xv/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_ben-xv_enc_30041921_in-praeclara-summorum_en.html
The Holy Father says,
If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ.
It is evident that the "earth being the centre of the universe as at one time was thought" is at best an open question, by no means whatsoever to be imagined as a dogma on the same level as the other facts of history mentioned above such as the creation, fall, redemption, passion and death of Christ.
I don't think Sungenis, or even his disciples for that matter, are of bad will, just simply mistaken on this point. At least as far as I know he goes about it the right way, trying to make his case to Rome, rather than anathematizing the lay faithful who disagree with him.
-
I think it would be best if they keep their opinions to themselves or work on convincing physicists rather than layfolk who cannot understand the argument either way.
-
A quick question for the geocentrists here: how do you go about teaching the Ptolemaic system to your children? Just curious.
-
The above coming from someone who has not even read Copernicus.
Message to the 3 that have given a thumbs down to this post--- QVP has admitted not reading Copernicus.
-
It might be worth pointing out that modern astronomy isn't exactly heliocentric as such.
Both Galilean and Ptolemaic models are incomplete according to modern astronomy.
Both the earth and sun spin around a common center of mass (called the barycenter [sp?]), as if you were to hold hands with someone and spin (leaning outward).
That being said, both are 'models' and astronomers I believe are pretty hohum about either. Whatever explains observations in the least complicated mathematics is pretty much what they'll use.
-
The current model modern geocentrists use is the neo-Tychonic model, after Tycho Brahe.
As for me not reading Copernicus, roscoe, I admit I don't care to, since Mr. Sungenis read it himself and even saw some of the original Latin copies. Also, you don't dispute the fact that Copernicus praised the sun-worshipping heliocentrists in his book. I will also say Mr. Sungenis has studied this topic for more than 20 years, and has kept up-to-date with studies in astronomy and physics. He knows what he's talking about.
-
No, contra Sungenis, the Church does not regard geocentrism as a dogma. That this is the mind of the Church can be proved in many ways, the shortest is from this Encyclical letter of Pope Benedict XV.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xv/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_ben-xv_enc_30041921_in-praeclara-summorum_en.html
The Holy Father says,
If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ.
It is evident that the "earth being the centre of the universe as at one time was thought" is at best an open question, by no means whatsoever to be imagined as a dogma on the same level as the other facts of history mentioned above such as the creation, fall, redemption, passion and death of Christ.
I don't think Sungenis, or even his disciples for that matter, are of bad will, just simply mistaken on this point. At least as far as I know he goes about it the right way, trying to make his case to Rome, rather than anathematizing the lay faithful who disagree with him.
Is the unanimous consent of the Fathers concerning the immobility of the earth and the orbit of the sun mistaken? Is Holy Scripture mistaken when it states the sun and moon stayed still when Joshua commanded both to stop? Is the 1633 condemnation of Galileo mistaken?
BTW, this encyclical was used to exonerate Dante and his works, not to be a treatise on cosmology or the such. And also this hardly constitutes even authoritative teaching, compared to the 1633 condemnation.
-
The current model modern geocentrists use is the neo-Tychonic model, after Tycho Brahe.
As for me not reading Copernicus, roscoe, I admit I don't care to, since Mr. Sungenis read it himself and even saw some of the original Latin copies. Also, you don't dispute the fact that Copernicus praised the sun-worshipping heliocentrists in his book.
I DEFINETLY dispute that Copernicus ' praised the sun-worshipping heliocentrists'.
Could U pls provide evidence where Copernicus ' praised the sun-worshipping heliocentrists'.
I can't wait for the answer to this considering QVP has not even read De Revolution.
I would imagine that Sungenis use of Newton to show S rev around E is hilarious.
-
No, contra Sungenis, the Church does not regard geocentrism as a dogma. That this is the mind of the Church can be proved in many ways, the shortest is from this Encyclical letter of Pope Benedict XV.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xv/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_ben-xv_enc_30041921_in-praeclara-summorum_en.html
The Holy Father says,
If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ.
It is evident that the "earth being the centre of the universe as at one time was thought" is at best an open question, by no means whatsoever to be imagined as a dogma on the same level as the other facts of history mentioned above such as the creation, fall, redemption, passion and death of Christ.
I don't think Sungenis, or even his disciples for that matter, are of bad will, just simply mistaken on this point. At least as far as I know he goes about it the right way, trying to make his case to Rome, rather than anathematizing the lay faithful who disagree with him.
Is the unanimous consent of the Fathers concerning the immobility of the earth and the orbit of the sun mistaken? Is Holy Scripture mistaken when it states the sun and moon stayed still when Joshua commanded both to stop? Is the 1633 condemnation of Galileo mistaken?
BTW, this encyclical was used to exonerate Dante and his works, not to be a treatise on cosmology or the such. And also this hardly constitutes even authoritative teaching, compared to the 1633 condemnation.
And what about Fatima, 1.917?
The dance of the Sun...
-
BTW--- I agree that the 1633 condemnation of Galileo is correct.
-
The current model modern geocentrists use is the neo-Tychonic model, after Tycho Brahe.
As for me not reading Copernicus, roscoe, I admit I don't care to, since Mr. Sungenis read it himself and even saw some of the original Latin copies. Also, you don't dispute the fact that Copernicus praised the sun-worshipping heliocentrists in his book.
I DEFINETLY dispute that Copernicus ' praised the sun-worshipping heliocentrists'.
Could U pls provide evidence where Copernicus ' praised the sun-worshipping heliocentrists'.
I can't wait for the answer to this considering QVP has not even read De Revolution.
I would imagine that Sungenis use of Newton to show S rev around E is hilarious.
Dedication to Paul III, De Revolutionibus, and Chapter 5, Whether Circular Motion Belongs to the Earth. Perhaps, you should read Kuhn's translation from the Latin rather than your defective edition. I read the relevant excerpts from Mr. Sungenis' book. And you don't dispute the fact that Copernicus, despite being a canon, doesn't cite the Church Fathers.
As for Mr. Sungenis, he shows Newton didn't teach S revolved around E or vice-versa, but that both revolved around the center of mass. For the geocentrist, he considers the whole mass of the universe, not just the sun, earth, and planets, but everything else; the center of mass, thus, is the earth, and thus supporting the Church Fathers.
-
Since u have not read ANY( much less the Easton press that I have) edition of De Revolution there is No Way U can tell if mine is 'defective'.
Where can I find Kuhn's translation? --- and what is it going to tell us?
-
QVP, I suggest not wasting your time arguing with someone who is high on weed. That might explain why he's a poor debater.
-
As for me not reading Copernicus, roscoe, I admit I don't care to, since Mr. Sungenis read it himself and even saw some of the original Latin copies. Also, you don't dispute the fact that Copernicus praised the sun-worshipping heliocentrists in his book.
The Forum is awaiting proof as to where Copernicus ' praised the sun-worshipping heliocentrists'.
-
Have you guys heard of Fernand Crombette and his writings? Very cool
:applause:
-
So, I'm going to risk the flurry of downvotes and ask the supporters of the neo-Tychonian model if a mathematical form of it exists and where it can be found if it does. I'd definitely like see if it's falsifiable and test it if possible.
Also, I've been doing a fair amount of research today, partly out of curiosity and partly because acrid sanctimony just doesn't sit well with me, and I've found something that I consider to be a little odd. It seems but there's one important correction needs to be made to the pro-GC argument, as it seems to have been making the rounds for years, probably of the oft-quoted 'The Earth's Movement and the Ultramontane Defence of Them' written by an English priest named William Walter Roberts. In it, Roberts alludes to a bull by Alexander VII called Speculatores domus Israel, attached to the promulgation of the Index and which has been touted as an infallible condemnation of heliocentrism. This is something that I've seen repeated and copied dozens of times in hundreds of articles. Roberts, it seems, didn't have the luxury of the internet because Speculatores domus Israel is a bull announcing papal visitations of all churches in the city of Rome by HH Clement VIII in 1592, some 24 years before the 1616 showdown between Galilei and Bellarmino. It's a little troubling, guys, when I have to dig up these kinds of facts in a book about Caravaggio. Know what I mean?
A link to two copies for sale on AbeBooks, for anyone that thinks I'm full of it: http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&tn=speculatores+domus+israel
-
Sungenis doesn't use Fr. Roberts to say the condemnations were infallible, although he does use him to show how bankrupt Catholic apologetics in trying to explain it away. He just maintains the condemnations have never been rescinded, despite appearances to the contrary. And, yes there is a mathematical model of the neo-Tychonic system of geocentrism. Sungenis puts it in his CD.
And most scientists agree, mathematically speaking, the geocentric and heliocentric models are the same, just the point of reference is different.
-
Sungenis doesn't use Fr. Roberts to say the condemnations were infallible, although he does use him to show how bankrupt Catholic apologetics in trying to explain it away. He just maintains the condemnations have never been rescinded, despite appearances to the contrary. And, yes there is a mathematical model of the neo-Tychonic system of geocentrism. Sungenis puts it in his CD.
Is there anywhere where it's publicly available for free? Because I'm unwilling to pay good money on a brand of science that I consider two steps above phrenology and five steps above tasseomancy.
-
And most scientists agree, mathematically speaking, the geocentric and heliocentric models are the same, just the point of reference is different.
I noticed that you snuck this addition in while I was replying. This sounds oddly like relativistic frames of reference, which is what these scientists are agreeing with. They, unlike geocentrists, do not require or even consider possible an absolute frame of reference. I sometimes wonder if its the gears of the cosmos I hear, or merely the grinding of axes.
-
Mr. Sungenis has studied these issues for about 20 years, so he definitely knows what he's talking about, especially with the Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale, and the Dayton experiments, which didn't prove the Earth moved at 30 km/sec (hr?), among other things.
There is no axe to grind. There is only the teaching of the Catholic Church, even if not infallible. The condemnations of the earth being mobile around the sun, and the sun immobile have never been overturned.
-
There is no axe to grind. There is only the teaching of the Catholic Church, even if not infallible. The condemnations of the earth being mobile around the sun, and the sun immobile have never been overturned.
Can I ask if the underlined portion is a concession or merely a rhetorical condition?
-
Neither I nor Mr. Sungenis have said it was infallible. But we do say going against the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers goes against Trent, which condemned this idea. If you want to say it is a concession, go right ahead. But I, for one, never maintained it was strictly speaking infallible.
Still, whether it is infallible or not is a red herring. The question is has the teaching ever been rescinded? The answer is a resounding NO!
-
Neither I nor Mr. Sungenis have said it was infallible. But we do say going against the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers goes against Trent, which condemned this idea. If you want to say it is a concession, go right ahead. But I, for one, never maintained it was strictly speaking infallible.
Still, whether it is infallible or not is a red herring. The question is has the teaching ever been rescinded? The answer is a resounding NO!
Just establishing who contends what. Now, do you take the list of quotes that appear on the scripturecatholic page concerning geocentrism to be those fulfilling the condition of "unanimous consent" of the patristic Fathers required by the canons of Trent?
-
I am a geocentrist. It makes perfect sense if you ask me. Galileo Was Wrong is a very convincing book.
-
JohnGrey, ScriptureCatholic shows just a few. Mr. Sungenis quotes a lot more, and St. Robert Bellarmine and Urban VIII considered it unanimous as well. Thus, the 1633 condemnations. Both considered heliocentrism bad doctrine.
-
JohnGrey, ScriptureCatholic shows just a few. Mr. Sungenis quotes a lot more, and St. Robert Bellarmine and Urban VIII considered it unanimous as well. Thus, the 1633 condemnations. Both considered heliocentrism bad doctrine.
Bad doctrine aside, I agree with them. The sun obviously isn't immovable.
-
They also considered the Earth moving around the sun bad doctrine as well. Because then, among other things, how are you to read Josue concerning his ordering the sun and moon to stay still?
-
They also considered the Earth moving around the sun bad doctrine as well. Because then, among other things, how are you to read Josue concerning his ordering the sun and moon to stay still?
Phenomenologically, as permitted by HH Leo XIII and HH Pius XII. But one argument at a time. We don't need to ignite the Hexameron debate when we have so full a plate already.
-
They also considered the Earth moving around the sun bad doctrine as well. Because then, among other things, how are you to read Josue concerning his ordering the sun and moon to stay still?
Phenomenologically, as permitted by HH Leo XIII and HH Pius XII. But one argument at a time. We don't need to ignite the Hexameron debate when we have so full a plate already.
Permission of Popes do not include ignoring condemnations of heliocentrism.
-
They also considered the Earth moving around the sun bad doctrine as well. Because then, among other things, how are you to read Josue concerning his ordering the sun and moon to stay still?
U are correct in that the 1633 condemnation considers E rev around S as bad 'doctrine'. It is only the trouble maker Galileo that demands that Copernicanism be accepted as 'doctrine'. Copernicus spoke hypothetically & The Church had no problem with that.
It was bad 'doctrine at the time as there was no scientific proof. However because of Newton & Bradly this does now exist. Church prohibitions on discussing Copernicanism are gradually lifted in 1758 & I believe in 1835. Anyone who says otherwise( & has not even read De Rev) is being disingenuous. The condemnation would have never been imposed but for Galileo who many suspect was the agent of Sarpi in some way.
But then again Galileo would have eventually gotten in trouble over his atomist physical theories. This may even be the real reason he is brought b4 INQ a second time.
Sungenis attempt using Newton to show that S rev around E must be hilarious.
-
Wrong, roscoe. Science does not trump theology, which you are definitely implying, even going against the unanimous consent of the Fathers. As late as the early 1800s, the Catholics who published Newton's work still stated they upheld the decrees of the Popes against heliocentrism.
And you obviously don't get it concerning Newton; no use repeating what I said before, except you're wrong concerning Newton. His laws don't contradict geocentrism at all, despite what you imply. Fred Hoyle, Stephen Hawking, and others admit geocentrism has never been really disproven, unlike such armchair scientists like you and a certain person in another forum.
Provide these proofs that the 1633 condemnations were lifted. And not just hearsay. I dare say won't find it; in fact, if you care to read Sungenis' book, he shows there to be no such lifting.
-
Geocentrism is the truth.
Traditional Catholics should stop compromising.
The Bible, the Fathers of the Church, etc. favour Geocentrism.
A bunch of modernists and heretics and roscoe, do not.
I will stay with the Catholic side, and the Faith.
By the way, St. Robert, who is a Doctor of the Church, tells us that Geocentrism is de fide.
So be a Geocentrist, and stay Catholic.
The Noted Sedevacantist writer, John Daly, has written a brilliant treatment of the theological truth of Geocentrism.
It contains very good scientific arguments proving Geocentrism.
It also contains very good theological arguments proving Geocentrism.
Read John Daly’s brilliant treatment of the subject for FREE on the link below:
http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Daly.pdf
-
The 1633 restrictions on Copernicanism are removed in 2 steps. I believe the yrs are 1758 & 1835. If I don't find a source first, someone else will.
-
because of Newton
Read Newton:
Centrum systematis mundane quiescere. Hoc ab omnibus consessum est, dum aliqui terram, alii solem in centro systematis quiescere contendant. Videamus quid inde sequatur.
That the center of the system of the world is immovable: this is acknowledged by all, although some contend that the earth, others that the sun, is fixed in that center.
(Isaac Newton: Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Book 3: The System of the World, Proposition X, Hypothesis I.)
-
I have a question. When you guys say that the Earth is immovable, are you saying that it's not rotating, or do you just mean that it's not moving around the sun?
P.S. I don't know if this is a stupid question or not, lol. This debate is new and strange to me.
-
Fred Hoyle, Stephen Hawking, and others admit geocentrism has never been really disproven
Yes, experts say, that the earth appears to be at the center of the universe. And they admit, that their "science" is based on an ideological choice:
Stephen Hawking said:
...all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe......There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too.....We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe.
(Stephen Hawking “A Brief History of Time” 1988 p.42. Citation copied from: galileowaswrong.blogspot.com (http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.com/2010/11/afterthoughts-on-geocatcon-i-dr-robert.html))
Here some more of the same book in German:
All diese Indizien sprechen dafür, daß das Universum aus jeder Blickrichtung, die wir wählen, gleich aussieht, und legen uns auf den ersten Blick nahe, daß wir einen besonderen Standort im Universum innehaben. Vor allem könnte es so scheinen, als befänden wir uns im Mittelpunkt des Universums, da uns die Beobachtung zeigt, daß sich alle anderen Galaxien von uns fortbewegen. Es gibt jedoch noch eine andere Erklärung: Das Universum könnte auch von jeder anderen Galaxis aus in jeder Richtung gleich aussehen. Dies war, wie erwähnt, Friedmanns zweite Annahme. Wir haben keine wissenschaftlichen Beweise für oder gegen sie. Wir glauben einfach aus Gründen der Bescheidenheit an sie: Es wäre höchst erstaunlich, böte das Universum von anderen Punkten als der Erde aus betrachtet einen Anblick, der von dem sich uns offenbarenden Bild abwiche. In Friedmanns Modell bewegen sich alle Galaxien direkt voneinander fort. Die Situation entspricht weitgehend dem gleichmäßigen Aufblasen eines Luftballons, auf den man Punkte gemalt hat. Während der Ballon sich ausdehnt, wächst der Abstand zwischen jedem beliebigen Punktepaar, ohne daß man einen der Punkte zum Zentrum der Ausdehung erklären könnte. Ferner bewegen sich die Punkte um so rascher auseinander, je weiter sie voneinander entfernt sind. Entsprechend ist auch in Friedmanns Modell die Geschwindigkeit, mit der zwei Galaxien auseinander driften, der Entfernung zwischen ihnen proportional. Deshalb sagt das Modell voraus, daß auch die Rotverschiebung einer Galaxis direkt proportional irher Entfernung von uns sein muß, was sich genau mit Hubbles Beobachtungen deckt.
(Stephen Hawking, "Die Illustrierte Kurze Geschichte der Zeit", Rowohlt 1988, Kapitel 3 "Das expandierende Universum", Seite 56.)
Edwin Hubble said:
The assumption of uniformity has much to be said in its favour. If the distribution were not uniform, it would either increase with distance, or decrease. But we would not expect to find a distribution in which the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions. Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance.
(Edwin Hubble: "The Observational Approach to Cosmology", online at caltech.edu (http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/Hubble3_2.html).)
The departures from uniformity are positive; the numbers of nebulae increase faster than the volume of space through which they are scattered. Thus the density of the nebular distribution increases outwards, symmetrically in all directions, leaving the observer in a unique position. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity.
(Edwin Hubble: "The Observational Approach to Cosmology", online at caltech.edu (http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/Hubble3_6.html).)
-
St.Robert Bellarmine helps us understand the prudence and care with which we should approach this question.
I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown to me . . . . and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers.
Now, all of this is clearly not the way of speaking of something that is truly de fide, or which beyond all dispute is proved as belong to the deposit of revelation either from sacred Scripture or sacred Tradition. Can anyone imagine this illustrious Doctor of the Church saying, "If someone demonstrated that Jesus did not rise from the dead etc"? So, it must be concluded that Geocentrism is not considered as indisputably of the faith.
Yet, it is perhaps, from a theological standpoint, the more probable opinion, and therefore not to be abandoned until an actual demonstration has been produced to the contrary. In this light, I think the Holy Inquisition's condemnation is also understandable, because so long as the theory remained doubtful and was not actually and exactly proven, presenting it publicly as a fact could be legitimately proscribed.
St.Augustine, another bright light among the Doctors, long ago gives us an important rule in interpreting sacred Scripture, that we do not impose what the Church does not impose, we do not require confessions that the Church does not require, lest perhaps, both by introducing our own opinions, we introduce the divine faith to the scorn and derision of unbelievers, or even hinder the conversion of prospective converts through the stumbling block of requiring from them a profession of what does not pertain to the faith.
-
The Earth is at the center of the Universe.
Catholics should not compromise over these important matters.
-
Provide these proofs that the 1633 condemnations were lifted. And not just hearsay. I dare say won't find it; in fact, if you care to read Sungenis' book, he shows there to be no such lifting.
von Pastor v25 pg 300
...' Small importance attaches, therefore, to the FACT that only since 1835, when a new edition of the index was published, the name of Copernicus NO LONGER FIGURES IN THAT LIST, since his system had long ago prevailed even in Catholic schools.
Far more momentous than the measures thus taken against Galileo & the work of Copernicus was the general prohibition of all writings in support of the new system of the universe. This prohibition remained in the volume of the Index UNTIL 1758.
Acc to von Pastor, Sungenis is wrong.
Benedict XV.......' and though this Earth on which we live may not be the center of the Universe as it was one time thought....'
-
In truth, von Pastor's comprehension of Copernicanism is somewhat confusing. Only one article( E rev around S) of the doctrine had prevailed in Catholic schools. The Sun being fixed & in center of the Universe is of course wrong.
von Pastor also confuses the terms rotation & revolution in at least one place.
-
Provide these proofs that the 1633 condemnations were lifted. And not just hearsay. I dare say won't find it; in fact, if you care to read Sungenis' book, he shows there to be no such lifting.
von Pastor v25 pg 300
...' Small importance attaches, therefore, to the FACT that only since 1835, when a new edition of the index was published, the name of Copernicus NO LONGER FIGURES IN THAT LIST, since his system had long ago prevailed even in Catholic schools.
Far more momentous than the measures thus taken against Galileo & the work of Copernicus was the general prohibition of all writings in support of the new system of the universe. This prohibition remained in the volume of the Index UNTIL 1758.
Acc to von Pastor, Sungenis is wrong.
Benedict XV.......' and though this Earth on which we live may not be the center of the Universe as it was one time thought....'
My apologies as there should be a close quote punctuation after the words UNTIL 1758 indicating that these are the words of von Pastor & not moi.
-
I think the main reason why I do not consider myself a geocentrist can be summed up by this post I swiped from someone at another Catholic forum that shall remain nameless (Google it if you wish):
The biggest problem with geocentrism has to do with gravity. For example, look at the Ptolemaic system. The epicycles that each planet would move on are untenable according to Newton's theory of gravity, as there are no masses in the center of these so called epicycles that would cause there motion. Likewise the ptolemaic model has the problem of causing the planets to speed up, slow down, and even move backwards. And though it is true that the speed of a planet during its revolution does change, since its distance from the Sun is not constant and thus the speed cased by the Sun's gravitational force is not constant, it is not nearly as pronounced as the Ptolemaic system would hold. It may be true that the ptolemaic system is mathematically equivalent to the copernican system, but from the viewpoint of the force of gravity it is untenable. The Tychonic system is perhaps a better system as ot does not have the ptolemaic problem of the planets moving backwards (such a thing is reduced to a matter of observation, rather than physical fact). However it fails to provide a reason for why the Sun, massive as it is, should have all of the myriad planets, including mighty Jupiter and Saturn, revolver around it but then have it revolve around a planet as tiny as Earth. Again, all three systems are mathematically equivalent, but when one takes into account gravity the heliocentric model comes to seem more consistent. (emphasis mine)
This is not to say that I think the geocentrists/Tychonians are wrong as such. Indeed, there really is no way of proving that they, or the heliocentrists for that matter, are either right or wrong using empirical evidence alone. But, for all intents and purposes, the heliocentric model appears to be not only simpler to understand, but also more plausible, at least if we focus on the purely natural (disregarding for the moment the passages in Sacred Scripture which seem to support a geocentric model of the universe, but which could be explained in a heliocentric light, at least, if the Church in the few centuries before Vatican II can be believed).
So, like I said before, it all comes down to what I'm going to teach my children. There's no point in adopting a position on something unless you're sure enough about it that it's something that you would teach your children, or at least that's how I look at it. In my case, I think I would teach them the heliocentric model, but explain to them that it is possible that the universe could be geocentric instead.
-
lefebvre_fan, it is an illusion that you believe, that the heliocentric system is simpler than the geo. Anyways, most honest scientists admit they only prefer heliocentrism to geocentrism, not that it has been proven.
The argument you quote is a red herring. The geocentrist takes into account all the mass of the universe, and using Newton, the earth is the center of mass of the whole universe. Also, the geoncetrists' belief is in the unanimous consent of the Fathers of the CHurch, who all considered it a matter of doctrine, not mere scientific opinion.
-
Science has shown that Both E & S are in motion.
Our Sun is the center of its own (solar) system. This does not make it the center of universe.
At the time of Galileo, the nature of our solar system was unknown. It is early in the 18th century when the term 'solar system' first appears in print.
-
Provide these proofs that the 1633 condemnations were lifted. And not just hearsay. I dare say won't find it; in fact, if you care to read Sungenis' book, he shows there to be no such lifting.
von Pastor v25 pg 300
...' Small importance attaches, therefore, to the FACT that only since 1835, when a new edition of the index was published, the name of Copernicus NO LONGER FIGURES IN THAT LIST, since his system had long ago prevailed even in Catholic schools.
Far more momentous than the measures thus taken against Galileo & the work of Copernicus was the general prohibition of all writings in support of the new system of the universe. This prohibition remained in the volume of the Index UNTIL 1758.
Acc to von Pastor, Sungenis is wrong.
Benedict XV.......' and though this Earth on which we live may not be the center of the Universe as it was one time thought....'
Who do I do believe: von Pastor, who had access to dated docuмents, or Sungenis, who has specialized in this type of research? I'll go with Sungenis, who has written a 2-volume work on the whole issue, completely refuting von Pastor, and puttinginto true context Pope Benedict XV's encyclical, which doesn't even touch upon Galileo's condemnation; that statement is a mere opinion, not even magisterial like Pope Urban VIII's. Removing Copernicus and Galileo from the Index DOES NOT EQUATE TO RESCINDING the 1633 CONDEMNATIONS AT ALL!
-
Science has shown that Both E & S are in motion.
Our Sun is the center of its own (solar) system. This does not make it the center of universe.
At the time of Galileo, the nature of our solar system was unknown. It is early in the 18th century when the term 'solar system' first appears in print.
You're believing atheistic scientists, is all I can say. You're so enamored of them, that in your eyes, they can tell no lies! The scientists have not proven by any means that E moves. In fact, honest scientists admit no experiment has proven the E to be in motion, like Einstein!
-
lefebvre_fan, it is an illusion that you believe, that the heliocentric system is simpler than the geo. Anyways, most honest scientists admit they only prefer heliocentrism to geocentrism, not that it has been proven.
The argument you quote is a red herring. The geocentrist takes into account all the mass of the universe, and using Newton, the earth is the center of mass of the whole universe. Also, the geoncetrists' belief is in the unanimous consent of the Fathers of the CHurch, who all considered it a matter of doctrine, not mere scientific opinion.
OK then, YOU try explaining to children how the geocentric model works, because I know I certainly can't! Let's see, the sun, moon and stars revolve around the earth, and the planets revolve around the sun. OK, sounds simple enough, so...wait, there's stellar parallaxes to account for. Hmm, OK then, so the stars must revolve around the Sun instead...err, this is starting to look pretty strange...
(I'm sure I'm not even taking into account half of the adjustments that must be made to the model in order to account for all of the observable phenomena in the universe.)
-
lefebvre_fan, it is an illusion that you believe, that the heliocentric system is simpler than the geo. Anyways, most honest scientists admit they only prefer heliocentrism to geocentrism, not that it has been proven.
The argument you quote is a red herring. The geocentrist takes into account all the mass of the universe, and using Newton, the earth is the center of mass of the whole universe. Also, the geoncetrists' belief is in the unanimous consent of the Fathers of the CHurch, who all considered it a matter of doctrine, not mere scientific opinion.
OK then, YOU try explaining to children how the geocentric model works, because I know I certainly can't! Let's see, the sun, moon and stars revolve around the earth, and the planets revolve around the sun. OK, sounds simple enough, so...wait, there's stellar parallaxes to account for. Hmm, OK then, so the stars must revolve around the Sun instead...err, this is starting to look pretty strange...
(I'm sure I'm not even taking into account half of the adjustments that must be made to the model in order to account for all of the observable phenomena in the universe.)
Honest scientists admit both the heliocentric and the geocentrist systems are equilvalent, just different points of reference. Even physics classes admit there is no difference between the two models.
-
Science has shown that Both E & S are in motion.
Our Sun is the center of its own (solar) system. This does not make it the center of universe.
At the time of Galileo, the nature of our solar system was unknown. It is early in the 18th century when the term 'solar system' first appears in print.
You're believing atheistic scientists, is all I can say. You're so enamored of them, that in your eyes, they can tell no lies! The scientists have not proven by any means that E moves. In fact, honest scientists admit no experiment has proven the E to be in motion, like Einstein!
It is the experiment of James Bradly combined with Newton that proves E to rev around S.
I cannot recall using any atheist to show E rev around S, but here we have the spectacle of QVP using Einstien( unless I am mistaken, he was an atheist antichrist Judaix) to allegedy show that E is fixed. :roll-laugh1:
-
Geocentrists could use any of those atheists/Arian scientists to show geocentrism hasn't been disproven at all. Newton and Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Edward Hubble, all admit geocentrism hasn't been disproven, but they promote the other system, since they feel uncomfortable being smack in the center because then they are forced to the fact of the Creator God, the God of heaven and earth, something you completely fail to see, seeing you say dogma changes (i.e., Church condemns heliocentrism to Church approves heliocentrism).
-
Geocentrists could use any of those atheists/Arian scientists to show geocentrism hasn't been disproven at all. Newton and Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Edward Hubble, all admit geocentrism hasn't been disproven, but they promote the other system, since they feel uncomfortable being smack in the center because then they are forced to the fact of the Creator God, the God of heaven and earth, something you completely fail to see, seeing you say dogma changes (i.e., Church condemns heliocentrism to Church approves heliocentrism).
Pls show where I have said that The Church approves heliocentism.
-
Geocentrists could use any of those atheists/Arian scientists to show geocentrism hasn't been disproven at all. Newton and Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Edward Hubble, all admit geocentrism hasn't been disproven, but they promote the other system, since they feel uncomfortable being smack in the center because then they are forced to the fact of the Creator God, the God of heaven and earth, something you completely fail to see, seeing you say dogma changes (i.e., Church condemns heliocentrism to Church approves heliocentrism).
It is by mistake that I gave the above post an approval-- my apologies.
-
Geocentrists could use any of those atheists/Arian scientists to show geocentrism hasn't been disproven at all. Newton and Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Edward Hubble, all admit geocentrism hasn't been disproven, but they promote the other system, since they feel uncomfortable being smack in the center because then they are forced to the fact of the Creator God, the God of heaven and earth, something you completely fail to see, seeing you say dogma changes (i.e., Church condemns heliocentrism to Church approves heliocentrism).
Now, be honest. Scientists don't promote either one because both systems have their practical applications. Since they support General Relativity, they correctly accept that all inertial frames are valid. It is the geocentrists that demand a single, absolute, preferred frame in which the Earth is at the center and unmoving. Heliocentrism is no more true than geocentrism, if in fact relativity is correct, because in such a universe, nothing can be said to be at absolute rest, that is, from every inertial frame of reference.
-
Now, be honest. Scientists don't promote either one because both systems have their practical applications. Since they support General Relativity, they correctly accept that all inertial frames are valid. It is the geocentrists that demand a single, absolute, preferred frame in which the Earth is at the center and unmoving. Heliocentrism is no more true than geocentrism, if in fact relativity is correct, because in such a universe, nothing can be said to be at absolute rest, that is, from every inertial frame of reference.
That is not simply true. All scientists who have fame promote heliocentrism as correct and geocentrism wrong. Not all scientists are General Relativitists; there are Special Relativists, Newtonians, and all sorts. Yes, geocentrists (at least Catholic and Protestant ones) demand a single absolute preferred frame because it is according to Scripture and the Church Fathers. I scorn both kinds of relativity, but I don't mind using their arguments to show geocentrism is not wrong.
-
QVP has still not responded to my question. How is it that my Easton Press edition of Revolutions is 'defective'? Did someone explain this to U in some way? Apparently U have not read any version at all. Pls enlighten us. :confused1:
-
Your detestation of Copernicus is a joke because he always submitted his ideas to the Pope for approval. He was never by any means a rebel. Jansen also was not a rebel because he submitted his ideas to the Pope for approval. This is left out of Augistinius when it is published after he died by Antoine Arnoud(sp?)
-
Now, be honest. Scientists don't promote either one because both systems have their practical applications. Since they support General Relativity, they correctly accept that all inertial frames are valid. It is the geocentrists that demand a single, absolute, preferred frame in which the Earth is at the center and unmoving. Heliocentrism is no more true than geocentrism, if in fact relativity is correct, because in such a universe, nothing can be said to be at absolute rest, that is, from every inertial frame of reference.
That is not simply true. All scientists who have fame promote heliocentrism as correct and geocentrism wrong. Not all scientists are General Relativitists; there are Special Relativists, Newtonians, and all sorts. Yes, geocentrists (at least Catholic and Protestant ones) demand a single absolute preferred frame because it is according to Scripture and the Church Fathers. I scorn both kinds of relativity, but I don't mind using their arguments to show geocentrism is not wrong.
Well, it seems odd to me that the same scientists that you quote so freely (Hawking, etc.) should at the same time espouse that heliocentrism is a preferred frame of reference. You seem to have a lot of quotes handy, so can you provide some?
And since you scorn relativity, can you provide me with answers to following questions:
1.) What is the basic mechanism for the force, universally known as gravity, in the geocentric model?
2.) How does that force simultaneously anchor all visible material in the known universe, even supermassive objects, while not squashing us flat here?
3.) Pursuant to the previous question, what is the mathematical expression by which we may calculate the attraction of this attractive force with respect to distance?
4.) What is the mediator/propagator of this force? Is it particle or energy? If the latter, in what part of the electromagnetic spectrum does it reside? If the former, is it detectable? If so, is it classifiable as part of the standard model? What are its constituent parts? Does it have mass at all? If so, what is the proposed mass in eV (I presumed it would be over a GeV)?
We'll start with those questions and branch out. In the meantime, I'm really not at all for giving Bob Sungenis any money, so I propose that he, Bennett and whomever else has any skin in the game publish a complete mathematical model (or so complete as they have managed to make it) for review by other physicists. If they're really looking to educate people, that's the best way I can think of.
-
JohnGrey, why do I have to present all that to you, just because you don't want to give money to Sungenis? It seems to me you just want me to hash out the whole 2-volume work which has reams of info. It is not for nothing Sungenis studied 20 years. Unfortunately I can't paste and copy the quotes, only typing them out by looking from the pdfs I got from him.
But I'll give you something. Watch these videos, if you have 2+ hours (I also suggest roscoe to do the same).
The Coming Scientific Revolution Parts II and III
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U49_IzLeEo4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMr8lb2tYvo
As for you, roscoe, it seems your edition has not cited the sun-worshipping heliocentrist praise by Copernicus. I already gave you the citations and you seem to have not found them.
If by then, you both are unconvinced, there's nothing more I can say. And you can have the final word if you want.
BTW, your first question is very ridiculous, since not even Newton or Einstein knew the mechanism of gravity for their systems. They gave us mathematical models; that's all!
-
JohnGrey, why do I have to present all that to you, just because you don't want to give money to Sungenis? It seems to me you just want me to hash out the whole 2-volume work which has reams of info. It is not for nothing Sungenis studied 20 years. Unfortunately I can't paste and copy the quotes, only typing them out by looking from the pdfs I got from him.
But I'll give you something. Watch these videos, if you have 2+ hours (I also suggest roscoe to do the same).
The Coming Scientific Revolution Parts II and III
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U49_IzLeEo4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMr8lb2tYvo
As for you, roscoe, it seems your edition has not cited the sun-worshipping heliocentrist praise by Copernicus. I already gave you the citations and you seem to have not found them.
If by then, you both are unconvinced, there's nothing more I can say. And you can have the final word if you want.
BTW, your first question is very ridiculous, since not even Newton or Einstein knew the mechanism of gravity for their systems. They gave us mathematical models; that's all!
The first video isn't working and second one is about the early interferometry experiments by M-M and Dayton Miller (at least in the 15 minutes I could stomach). Miller as much admitted himself later that there were thermal effects that skewed a good portion of his data, not to mention the fact that in using his final interferometer in trying to prove an aether drift, he got two nearly diametrically opposed results for the direction of Earth's absolute motion.
In fewer words, I'm not interested in rhetoric about the atheist science conspiracy or a history lesson. I want expressions. Give me something testable. You state above that Newton and Einstein just gave mathematical models; that's what I'm asking for. If you can't get them to, Sungenis can, or Bennet, or Tom DeLano, or someone can. I want to put an end to this debate, at least from the standpoint of science.
-
-
All I see, JohnGrey, is that your bias is towards modern science in opposition to at least 1500 years of the Church teaching geocentrism. Standpoint of science? In the end, as you admit, according to relativity, both heliocentrism and geocentrism cannot be disproven. In the end, it is a matter of philosophy: whether I believe the earth is not just the spiritual, but also physical center of the universe because Our Lord came down into the womb of the Blessed Virgin, or that the earth is no place special and thus just in a remote place, spinning aimlessly. This is my last post on the subject; if you want to be truly open, get yourself a decent priced book from Sungenis (if you don't want the 2-volume work), otherwise no matter for me.
-
All I see, JohnGrey, is that your bias is towards modern science in opposition to at least 1500 years of the Church teaching geocentrism.
You're very correct that I'm biased, though not in favor of heliocentrism or geocentrism or joviocentrism or any other centrism demanding an absolute inertial frame of reference. I do, however, have a bias in favor of people who make assertions and back them up with verifiable data, and against people who make assertions, say they have the data, and never produce it.
Standpoint of science? In the end, as you admit, according to relativity, both heliocentrism and geocentrism cannot be disproven.
Hey, I've never made assertions to the contrary, and neither has any reputable, peer-reviewed physics model produced after 1950 that I've ever seen. The only one demanding absolute space and motion is you, big guy.
In the end, it is a matter of philosophy: whether I believe the earth is not just the spiritual, but also physical center of the universe because Our Lord came down into the womb of the Blessed Virgin, or that the earth is no place special and thus just in a remote place, spinning aimlessly. This is my last post on the subject; if you want to be truly open, get yourself a decent priced book from Sungenis (if you don't want the 2-volume work), otherwise no matter for me.
Then make it a matter of philosophy/theology and frame it as such. Don't spout pseudo-scientific dribble and expect to be taken seriously on that account. If your dignity as a human being is so wrapped up in whether the stars all revolve around little ol' us, that's entirely your affair. For me, I'm gratified enough that the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity abased Himself to take on flesh and live as and amongst us, and that He paid the price for our first father's rebellion that we might be reconciled to Him. That no other creature in all creation can make such a boast is more than enough for me. And that's my last word on it.
-
JohnGrey, why do I have to present all that to you, just because you don't want to give money to Sungenis?
As for you, roscoe, it seems your edition has not cited the sun-worshipping heliocentrist praise by Copernicus. I already gave you the citations and you seem to have not found them.
If by then, you both are unconvinced, there's nothing more I can say. And you can have the final word if you want.
No need to be condescending.
The phoney Sungenis charges mucho $ for his sophistry. I'll never buy from him.
QVP still does not get that Copernicus was not a heliocentrist. He knew there was something wrong with his doctrine. And indeed S is not fixed nor in the center of U, but lacking proof, he spoke hypothetically and he freely submitted his research to the Church he was part of. BTW-- he he had a doctorate in canon law.
Your continued scorn my edition of Revolutions is a joke as U have not read any edition at all.
Nor has there been any 'citations' posted allegedly showing what I cannot imagine.
:smoke-pot:
-
Now, be honest. Scientists don't promote either one because both systems have their practical applications. Since they support General Relativity, they correctly accept that all inertial frames are valid. It is the geocentrists that demand a single, absolute, preferred frame in which the Earth is at the center and unmoving. Heliocentrism is no more true than geocentrism, if in fact relativity is correct, because in such a universe, nothing can be said to be at absolute rest, that is, from every inertial frame of reference.
That is not simply true. All scientists who have fame promote heliocentrism as correct and geocentrism wrong. Not all scientists are General Relativitists; there are Special Relativists, Newtonians, and all sorts. Yes, geocentrists (at least Catholic and Protestant ones) demand a single absolute preferred frame because it is according to Scripture and the Church Fathers. I scorn both kinds of relativity, but I don't mind using their arguments to show geocentrism is not wrong.
Well, it seems odd to me that the same scientists that you quote so freely (Hawking, etc.) should at the same time espouse that heliocentrism is a preferred frame of reference.
.
It sure is odd as is the theory that Newton can be used to show S rev around E. :roll-laugh1:
-
I wonder why Belloc has not posted in this topic? He is a supporter of Sungenis & has been quite active here as of late. :confused1:
-
Copernicus only theorised what Galileo demanded to be doctrine. It is only the latter that can be described as a 'sun-worshipping heliocentrist'. It is interesting that Sungenis & his cohorts seem to use the same methods as Galileo. I guess Bob is an earth-- worshipping geocentrist hippie.
BTW-- Benedict XV(?15) speaks as does Copernicus....... it MAY be true that E rev around S.
I find the other assertions of Benedict in his Dante Encyclical re: astronomy to be interesting as well. Those do seem modernist. .
-
JohnGrey, why do I have to present all that to you, just because you don't want to give money to Sungenis?
As for you, roscoe, it seems your edition has not cited the sun-worshipping heliocentrist praise by Copernicus. I already gave you the citations and you seem to have not found them.
If by then, you both are unconvinced, there's nothing more I can say. And you can have the final word if you want.
No need to be condescending.
The phoney Sungenis charges mucho $ for his sophistry. I'll never buy from him.
QVP still does not get that Copernicus was not a heliocentrist. He knew there was something wrong with his doctrine. And indeed S is not fixed nor in the center of U, but lacking proof, he spoke hypothetically and he freely submitted his research to the Church he was part of. BTW-- he he had a doctorate in canon law.
Your continued scorn my edition of Revolutions is a joke as U have not read any edition at all.
Nor has there been any 'citations' posted allegedly showing what I cannot imagine.
:smoke-pot:
Would better be worded..... Copernicus was not a heliocentrist per se.
I read the review of JG regarding the alleged 'citations' posted by QVP :roll-laugh1:
-
Upon reading through my Easton Press edition again, there is apparently some confusion re: the Prutenic tables.
I believe that I have referenced von Pastor in the past to show that these are of Copernican origin.
Acc to De Kosky the tables are an idea of Erasmus Rhienhold who used the theory of planetary longitudes found in Book 5 of Revolutions as the basis for his-- Rheinholds-- Prutenic( Prussian) tables.
-
And acc to De Kosky the theory of longitudes in Bk 5 ignores the idea of a moving E.
-
I just came across this fascinating item:
http://www.amazon.com/Galileo-Was-Wrong-Church-Right/dp/0977964000/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t
Notice how dogmatic are the negative reviews.
At any rate, if you're a geocentrist, indicate it like so:
:applause:
If not, like so:
:facepalm:
The title of this book (which I have not read) is GALILEO WAS WRONG / THE CHURCH WAS RIGHT.
Unable to comprehend the significance of the title, the critical reviews plunge immediately into a 'scientific' defence of heliocentrism and a ridicule of the very notion of geocentrism. Indeed Jitpring, you did exactly the same thing, bring it down to whether one is a geocentrist or a heliocentrist. Just look above and there you have it.
On a Catholic forum like this, one would have thought the most important aspect of such a title is the assertion THE CHURCH WAS RIGHT. As a Catholic I was reared to believe the Church does not does not indulge in pert, frivolous, or erroneous decrees when deciding on matters of faith or morals, and what the Bible says is a matter of faith. I was reared to believe the gates of Hell will never prevail. I was reared to believe God protects His Church from such errors.
I was also taught that the Devil is capable of deceiving the whole world. But like most Catholics I never really thought about his role on earth. Oh yes, he tempts us to sin in many ways. That's personal I thought, and it doesn't go much further than that. But I have since learned that everything and everyone that harms Catholic faith is PLANNED TO DO SO BY THE DEVIL.
Later I heard about the Galileo case. I read how the Church defended the biblical interpretation of passages describing the order of the world, a geocentric interpretation held by all the Fathers, even in the catechism of Trent. I was very surprised and puzzled to read the Church got it wrong in this case but then accepted all the reasons why it really didn't matter that it got things wrong in this ONE case. Thereafter I was never comfortable with this ERROR hanging over the Catholicism I was led to believe in.
At the age of 50 I finally had time to study the case. Where to start to understand where the truth might lie?
For any wishing to follow my trail, I suggest you start with what is called the M&M experiment in 1887. It showed the earth was not orbiting the sun. For 17 years physicists tried to explain away this geostatic result. They could not. Then came Albert Einstein. To get the earth moving again he admitted science cannot prove whether the earth orbits the sun, or whether the sun orbits the earth, but then produced a theory that got the earth orbiting again.
This was a pivotal moment in the history of the CHURCH. I showed science never proved the geocentric interpretation of the Fathers wrong. Those Catholics aware of this admittance by physicists could have then corrected the history of the Catholic Church.
But none did. Why?
Because it showed the 1741-1835 U-turn was the greatest loss of faith right up to the top, the papacy itself, since the Church was founded. Moreover, science as a means to truth had overtaken revelation as a means to truth. Remember, by then Genesis had been shown to be literally crazy with its geocentric creation 6000 years ago and a world-wide flood. What churchmen, under such circuмstances, would put faith before science then or now, and risk the inevitable mockery from academics of every kind and the media publicity that would result from it? Robert Sungenis's book does so and see what mockery it gets. Martyrdom would have been a more preferable choice than such intellectual derision, and that is why they ignored and will continue to ignore the truth for the preferred ‘scientific’ view then and even now, no matter the truth. And it was this transfer of faith that led an army of Catholic apologists to deny the Church its INFALLIBILITY. Were it not on record, a Catholic would not believe it.
But that meant the lie had now to be defended by churchmen to preserve the the recovered reputation of the Church after the 1741-1835 U-turn. To read Pope John Paul II trying to defend Galileo was right is pathetic.
So, with the dogs in the street aware that science cannot prove heliocentrism, Catholics now have a choice. They can place their faith in heliocentrism or they can place their faith in the Church, as Cardinal Bellarmine did. Remember, Catholics believe other things from the Scriptures that science will say is impossible, such as a Virgin Birth. To God, all things are possible. What we see - a geocentric world - is but a thought for God to create as depicted in Genesis.
Alas, for most, they are unable to choose. For 300 years now, so certain are we that the earth spins and orbits the sun like a planet, nobody needs or wants proof or verification for it anymore. Even now, any suggestion that the universe could be geocentric and geostatic always generates curious incredulity followed by derision and laughter. Even being asked to entertain the idea is a challenge to one’s intellectual ego, like being asked to believe the earth is flat. Thus, like a magic spell, the Hermetic cosmology has a grip on the human mind in the same manner as addictive illusionary substances have on the drug-addict. Yes, this belief system, long implanted into the minds of mankind, is now virtually impossible to break free from, as most of you readers are no doubt already experiencing. To demonstrate this hold, I refer to Stephen Hawking’s Brief History of Time, the book released on ‘April fools day’ 1988, the one millions bought.
‘We may have no idea what Professor Hawking does – but everyone knows it is damned clever stuff. So dauntingly clever that I suspect a hefty percentage of the 25 million copies of his book A Brief History of Time, still remain unopened since it came out. But the sales prove we are, in theory anyway, hungry to learn about his heroic search for the so-called Theory of Everything that will explain once and for all the universe and its purpose.’
The above review of the play ‘God and Stephen Hawking’ illustrates the heliocentric magic to perfection. As with Satan’s inducement to Adam that he could know all things like God, Hawking, a professed atheist, invited onto the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome in 1986, is now promoted as the guru to follow. With no idea what he ‘does,’ and without understanding what he writes, Hawking and his ilk are held in awe by the Press, the public, even popes in Rome, for their ‘truths.’ ‘Cleverness’ is now classed as ‘stuff’ that cannot be understood, which from a convincing, propaganda and financially rewarding point of view, is indeed very ‘clever.’
Finally, all human beings are geocentrists. we all live in a geocentric world with the sun, moon, planets and stars doing what we see them doing. To be a heliocentrist is all in the mind, it is a mind-game created I believe by the Devil. It is an act of magic, getting people to reject what they see for a theory that denied the truth of what they see.
-
Finally, all human beings are geocentrists. we all live in a geocentric world with the sun, moon, planets and stars doing what we see them doing. To be a heliocentrist is all in the mind, it is a mind-game created I believe by the Devil. It is an act of magic, getting people to reject what they see for a theory that denied the truth of what they see.
Great post, cassini.
:applause:
-
What is disappointing, though, is the Catholics who raise "geocentrism" to the level of infallible dogma.
-
Since nothing disproves geocentricity, especially if the Universe is flat, I am happy to believe
God created the entire Universal Heavens hanging there stars and planets
its center Earth for us.
-
What is disappointing, though, is the Catholics who raise "geocentrism" to the level of infallible dogma.
One of the most successful 'excuses' used after the infamous U-turns in the history of Catholicism, nay, the only such U-turn in the history of the Church, was/is the rejection of the doctrine of geocentrism based on its NON-INFALLIBILITY. In other words, this papal decree defining 'formal heresy' was a REFORMABLE one, just as during the REFORMATION Protestants ignored other doctrines as reformable. This excuse was I believe, the first move into MODERNISM in the Church. Indeed so useful was the 'infallible ploy' that it led directly to the structure of the modernist Church we find today. Here is another who used the non-infallible excuse for modernist purposes:
'The upset caused by the Copernican system thus demanded epistemological reflection on the biblical sciences, an effort which later would produce abundant fruit in modern exegetical works and which has found sanction and a new stimulus in the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum of the Second Vatican Council.' --- Pope John Paul; II 1992.
But back to Thomas's disappointment. Why do some of us consider the 1616 papal decree an infallible dogma? Now the problem with such statements is that few know what this particular geocentric 'infallibility' actually means. It playes on the ignorance that infallibility means ex cathedra or Council definitions. It ignores the ordinary infallibility of the Church that since 1741-1835 never gets a look in - except that is at VATICAN I. You see Modernism thrives on this selective interpretation of infallibility, the one even 'traditional' Catholics hold on to to protect them from having to believe the earth is not the footstool of the Lord.
Does a papal decree confirmed twice (in 1633 and 1820) by the Church as NOT REFORMABLE (before Vatican I defined the term INFALLIBLE) not qualify as infallible? Can a papal decree defining formal heresy NOT BE INFALLIBLE? If it can, then the Church is as Protestant as the Protestant Church is.
In 1870, the First Vatican Council defined the dogma of ‘the infallible “magisterium” of the Roman Pontiff,’ that is, its guaranteed freedom from error and binding for all time. This resurrected the question of the status of Pope Paul V’s 1616 decree. Up to then there were different opinions as to the decree’s ‘infallibility,’ with theologians saying it was and others saying it was not. But after the U-turn Copernican apologists claimed the decree was always ‘reformable’ which suggested of course it was never infallible, which in turn asserts it had no divine guarantee of ultimate truth and not forever binding. Once the popes agreed that the 1616 papal decree was proven wrong by science (which it wasn't), theologians had no choice but to deny any trace of infallibility was involved, whether it was infallibly decreed or not. Indeed, such a denial was unprecedented, and was it not for the offered and accepted proofs for a fixed sun/moving earth solar system, surely no denial or challenge to the immutability and infallibility of the 1616 papal decree would ever have arisen. As it turned out, one by one the council’s teachings seemed to confirm the authority of the Church of 1616 and 1633 to judge the case as it did. For example, under ‘Faith and Reason,’ it anathematised the idea that the meaning of dogmas can change with the progress of science, an important aspect of the Galileo case. Then the Council reinforced the Church’s right and obligation to condemn false philosophy as well as false theology and interpretations contrary to any decreed or differing from the unanimous teaching of all the Fathers. In the Council’s teaching on Faith, we find the following:
‘Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition. And those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.’ (Denz. 1792)
Under ‘Revelation’ Vatican I teaches:
‘But since the rules which the holy Synod of Trent salutarily decreed concerning on the interpretation of Divine Scripture in order to restrain impetuous minds, are wrongly explained by certain men, We renewing the same decree, declare this to be its intention: that in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the instruction of Christian Doctrine, as must be considered as the true sense of Sacred Scripture which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, whose office it is to judge concerning the true understanding and interpretation of Sacred Scripture; and, for that reason, no one is permitted to interpret Scripture itself contrary to this sense, or even contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.’ (Denz. 1788)
‘By dogma in the strict sense is understood a truth immediately revealed by God which has been proposed by the teaching authority of the Church to be believed as such. Vatican Council I explains: ‘All these things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the word of God written or handed down and which are proposed for our belief by the Church either in a solemn definition or in its ordinary and universal authoritative teaching. Two factors or elements may be distinguished in the concept of dogmas.
(1) An immediate Divine Revelation of the particular dogma, i.e., the Dogma must be immediately revealed by God either explicitly or inclusively and therefore be contained in the sources of revelation.
(2) The promulgation of the Dogma by the teaching authority of the Church. This implies not merely the promulgation of the Truth, but also the obligation of the part of the faithful of believing the truth. The promulgation of the Church may be made either in an extraordinary manner through a solemn decision of faith made by the Pope or a General Council or through the ordinary and general teaching power of the Church.’ --- Ludwig Ott: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Mercier Press, Cork Ireland, 1954.
Do these conditions not cover the anti-Copernican decrees? Of course they do, as Pope Urban VIII judged in 1633. Finally the Council dogmatised ‘the infallible “magisterium” of the Roman Pontiff.’ It began by stating that this freedom from error has been ‘proven true by actual results, since in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved untainted and holy doctrine celebrated.’ Following this, under ‘Arguments from the assent of the Church,’ came the following:
‘The Roman Pontiffs, moreover, according to the condition of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling ecuмenical councils… sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by employing other helps which divine providence supplied, have defined that those matters must be held which with God’s help they have recognised as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition. For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might forcefully set it out…’ --- Vatican I (1869-1870) (Denz. 1836.)
Again we could ask, surely one such ‘other help’ was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office, created by popes to assist them in questions of serious heresy? It was the Pope as Prefect of this Holy Office who in effect defined and condemned the heresy of a fixed sun/moving earth because it contradicts a revelation of Scripture and the Fathers interpretation of those passages. Accordingly, no Peter can reject a dogma already defined, such as geocentrism, and introduce a new doctrine like Copernicanism, can he?
Finally, we see then how THE LIE (that science proved the 1616 decree false) fooled Catholics, even popes, into denying the conditions of the dogma of infallibility before AND AFTER Vatican I. We see how Modernism came in on the back of all the REFORMS brought about by the LIE. That is the importance of the Galileo case and yet tradotional Catholics today still think it was only about whether the earth orbits the sun or whether the sun orbits the earth.
-
The Popes cannot delegate their infallibility to the Inquisition. I spent some time looking some time back, and there is no such "1616 Papal Decree", only a pronouncement of the Roman Inquisition.
-
Since nothing disproves geocentricity, especially if the Universe is flat, I am happy to believe
God created the entire Universal Heavens hanging there stars and planets
its center Earth for us.
Please be more specific in terms of what you're construing as geocentrism and the evidences for and against. Formal or classical geocentrism, whether classical or Tychonian, as I've stated repeatedly, demands an absolute frame of reference. There is no current support of that beyond certain fringe aetherists.
-
Since nothing disproves geocentricity, especially if the Universe is flat, I am happy to believe
God created the entire Universal Heavens hanging there stars and planets
its center Earth for us.
Please be more specific in terms of what you're construing as geocentrism and the evidences for and against. Formal or classical geocentrism, whether classical or Tychonian, as I've stated repeatedly, demands an absolute frame of reference. There is no current support of that beyond certain fringe aetherists.
Leading Astronomers have admitted that they base their "science" on an ideological choice (see quotes some pages back). So their "science" is the "science" of a corrupt society.
As far as I now, today, unfortunately, there is no well developed theory of celestial mechanics acceptable to Catholics.
Falsificationists would want to see a better model before rejecting the current false model. Catholics have no reason not to reject a bad model without being able to provide a better one.
-
The Popes cannot delegate their infallibility to the Inquisition. I spent some time looking some time back, and there is no such "1616 Papal Decree", only a pronouncement of the Roman Inquisition.
Well now, another disappearing act in the Church. Denzinger gives us about 20 decrees of the same Holy Office but the only one actually defining formal heresy is missing. Yet history records:
On the 5th March 1616, the Congregation of the Index published the condemnations, under orders from Pope Paul V:
‘Since it has come to the knowledge of the above-named Holy Congregation that the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether opposed to the divine Scripture, on the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun, —which Nicolas Copernicus in his work De Revolutionibus Orbium cœlestium, and Didacus a Stunica in his commentary on Job, teach, … therefore, lest an opinion of this kind insinuate itself further to the destruction of Catholic truth, this Congregation has decreed that the said books be suspended till they are corrected; but that the book of Father Paul Antony Foscarini the Carmelite be altogether prohibited and condemned, and all other books that teach the same thing; as the present decree respectively prohibits, condemns, and suspends all.’
Is that not a decree issued by the Pope?
Was Cardinal Bellarmine also acting out an illusion Thomas?
Galileo remained in Rome for a time after the judgement. One can only imagine the dilemma he now found himself in. Soon after he was recalled to Florence, but before he went he asked Cardinal Bellarmine for an affidavit confirming that he had not been put on trial in Rome, nor had he been made abjure any guilt, a disgrace he could not have lived down at the time. Cardinal Bellarmine of course understood and obliged, giving Galileo the following letter on May 26, 1616:
‘We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, having heard that it is calumniously reported that Signor Galileo Galilei has in our hand abjured, and has also been punished with salutary penance, and being requested to state the truth as to this, declare that the said Signor Galileo Galilei has not abjured, either in our hand or the hand of any other person here in Rome, or any where else, so far as we know, any opinion or doctrine held by him; neither has any salutary penance been imposed upon him, but only the declaration made by the Holy Father, and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, has been intimated to him, wherein it is set forth that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus… 26th day of May 1616.
Il medesimo di sopra,
ROBERTO CARD. BELLARMINO.’
It is here in this letter that we find evidence that Cardinal Bellarmine was not the tyrant some in history have made him out to be. We have evidence to show he attributed the decrees to the highest authority. He certainly did not regard it as a simple congregational judgement as the apologists would soon argue. On the contrary, in this certificate he ascribed it exclusively to the Pope himself as Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition and named the Congregation of the Index as the mere medium of its publication. The certificate also shows that Galileo did not defend the heresy when meeting with Cardinal Bellarmine and Fr de Lauda. Had it been otherwise, or had de Lauda’s caution been signed by Bellarmine, the scrupulously just Bellarmine could not have issued the above letter.
And the final proof that the Church did hold the 1616 decree was a papal decree came in 1820.
The Status of the 1616 Decree from the records of the Holy Office from Maurice A. Finocchiaro's Retrying Galileo. Olivieri is speaking for the Holy Office here.
Olivieri’s last presentation is perhaps the most instructive of all, for in it he confirms the authority of the 1616 decree.
Olivieri: ‘In his “motives” the Most Rev. Anfossi puts forth “the unrevisability of pontifical decrees.” But we have already proved that this is saved: the doctrine in question at that time was infected with a devastating motion, which is certainly contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, as it was declared.’
Notice Olivieri does not argue that the decrees against a fixed sun and moving earth were not ‘irreversible pontifical decrees’. No he does not, the reverse in fact, for he confirms that the 1616 decree was papal and of a kind that could not be reversed.
Finocchiaro comments:
‘This reply is interesting. Insofar as it spoke of unrevisability rather than infallibility, it was dealing with a more manageable concept. Moreover, it seems to presuppose that there was a papal decree against the earth’s motion, and so Olivieri’s criterion for a papal decree seems less stringent than those prevailing today. He seems to regard a papal decree as one which the pope made while discharging his official functions, such as being president of the Congregation of the Holy Office; examples of such decrees would be Paul V’s decision that [a fixed sun was formally heretical] and that the earth’s motion was contrary to Scripture (endorsed at the Inquisition meeting of 25 February and 3 March 1616) and Urban VIII’s decision that Galileo be condemned (reached at the Inquisition meeting of 16 June 1633). Although Olivieri’s criterion was probably historically correct, it is important to point out that the definition of a papal decree ex cathedra was undergoing some evolution…’
Finocchiaro uses the wrong word here, for the law of God does not ‘evolve’, that is ‘change’ from one meaning to another. The Vatican Council of 1870 merely dogmatised what was already the law for papal acts. What the Fathers of the council did was clarify the conditions for a pope’s extraordinary infallibility but it also reiterated that the Church has an ordinary infallibility that extends to defined disclosures of revelation in the Scriptures.
So here in 1820 the Holy Office once again agrees the 1616 decree was papal and irreversible, just as it did in 1633. Now it seems to us that a papal decree that is irreversible must by inference be infallible in some way. In justice it must be so, for the Church could not claim divine assistance if an ‘immutable’ papal decree defining and declaring a truth revealed in Scripture, could later be considered erroneous and false, let alone proven to be so. The concept for Catholicism is absurd.
-
Leading Astronomers have admitted that they base their "science" on an ideological choice (see quotes some pages back).
Which quotes? This thread is replete with quotes. Most taken out of context, but that rarely matters to rhetoricists.
So their "science" is the "science" of a corrupt society.
Spare me the admonitions about the atheistic science conspiracy.
As far as I now, today, unfortunately, there is no well developed theory of celestial mechanics acceptable to Catholics.
For philosophical reasons, not because the existing model is without merit.
Falsificationists would want to see a better model before rejecting the current false model. Catholics have no reason not to reject a bad model without being able to provide a better one.
That's kinda the way science works. For something to be valid (you notice I do not say certain, as scientific certainty is quite a bit more rigorous in requirements that other types), it must conform to all experimental data within the specified degree of error attributed to the experiment's methodology, and it must be capable of making testable predictions. That's why the entire field of geocentric cosmology and creationist biology, geology, etc. cannot be construed as science. It approaches the collection of data from the standpoint of "the answer must be ______, look for data that supports it."
-
Leading Astronomers have admitted that they base their "science" on an ideological choice (see quotes some pages back).
Which quotes? This thread is replete with quotes. Most taken out of context, but that rarely matters to rhetoricists.
Well, I can find them for you: 3rd post, page 17:
[...] experts say, that the earth appears to be at the center of the universe. And they admit, that their "science" is based on an ideological choice:
Stephen Hawking said:
...all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe......There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too.....We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe.
(Stephen Hawking “A Brief History of Time” 1988 p.42. Citation copied from: galileowaswrong.blogspot.com (http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.com/2010/11/afterthoughts-on-geocatcon-i-dr-robert.html))
Here some more of the same book in German:
All diese Indizien sprechen dafür, daß das Universum aus jeder Blickrichtung, die wir wählen, gleich aussieht, und legen uns auf den ersten Blick nahe, daß wir einen besonderen Standort im Universum innehaben. Vor allem könnte es so scheinen, als befänden wir uns im Mittelpunkt des Universums, da uns die Beobachtung zeigt, daß sich alle anderen Galaxien von uns fortbewegen. Es gibt jedoch noch eine andere Erklärung: Das Universum könnte auch von jeder anderen Galaxis aus in jeder Richtung gleich aussehen. Dies war, wie erwähnt, Friedmanns zweite Annahme. Wir haben keine wissenschaftlichen Beweise für oder gegen sie. Wir glauben einfach aus Gründen der Bescheidenheit an sie: Es wäre höchst erstaunlich, böte das Universum von anderen Punkten als der Erde aus betrachtet einen Anblick, der von dem sich uns offenbarenden Bild abwiche. In Friedmanns Modell bewegen sich alle Galaxien direkt voneinander fort. Die Situation entspricht weitgehend dem gleichmäßigen Aufblasen eines Luftballons, auf den man Punkte gemalt hat. Während der Ballon sich ausdehnt, wächst der Abstand zwischen jedem beliebigen Punktepaar, ohne daß man einen der Punkte zum Zentrum der Ausdehung erklären könnte. Ferner bewegen sich die Punkte um so rascher auseinander, je weiter sie voneinander entfernt sind. Entsprechend ist auch in Friedmanns Modell die Geschwindigkeit, mit der zwei Galaxien auseinander driften, der Entfernung zwischen ihnen proportional. Deshalb sagt das Modell voraus, daß auch die Rotverschiebung einer Galaxis direkt proportional irher Entfernung von uns sein muß, was sich genau mit Hubbles Beobachtungen deckt.
(Stephen Hawking, "Die Illustrierte Kurze Geschichte der Zeit", Rowohlt 1988, Kapitel 3 "Das expandierende Universum", Seite 56.)
Edwin Hubble said:
The assumption of uniformity has much to be said in its favour. If the distribution were not uniform, it would either increase with distance, or decrease. But we would not expect to find a distribution in which the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions. Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance.
(Edwin Hubble: "The Observational Approach to Cosmology", online at caltech.edu (http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/Hubble3_2.html).)
The departures from uniformity are positive; the numbers of nebulae increase faster than the volume of space through which they are scattered. Thus the density of the nebular distribution increases outwards, symmetrically in all directions, leaving the observer in a unique position. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity.
(Edwin Hubble: "The Observational Approach to Cosmology", online at caltech.edu (http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/Hubble3_6.html).)
It is also worth noting that Hubble for quite some time rejected Einsteins theories. He finally gave in when he realized that only Einstein could appease the "intolerable", "unwelcome" observational facts, which indicate, that the earth is in a favoured position.
So their "science" is the "science" of a corrupt society.
Spare me the admonitions about the atheistic science conspiracy.
I am not talking about conspiracy. The above quoted astronomers openly declare their ideological choice. Please also note, what Romano Amerio, Vat. II peritus, wrote in his book "Iota Unum" about contemporary science:
In any event, we have two condemned propositions: Catholicism is compatible with modern civilization (Pius IX) and Catholicism is incompatible with true science (Pius X). From a comparison of the two condemnations, it becomes clear that modern civilization and true science do not correspond. While the Church distinguishes between modern civilization and true science, she does not cease condemning the spirit of the age. There can be knowledge which is true in a civilization which is false, but it is then garbed in a false spirit of which it must be stripped, by a kind of reclaiming action, so that it can be reclothed in the truth which is found in the Catholic system ...
Iota Unum on sspxasia.com (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/books/Iota_Unum/chp_02.htm#s12)
Conclusion: 1.) Renowned astronomers admit that the current model is based on an ideological choice. This choice is Friedmanns zweite Annahme (Friedmanns second assumption), which is the so called Copernican Principle, that reads: "The Church is wrong" (see Wikipedia: In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle, named after Nicolaus Copernicus, states that the Earth is not in a central, specially favored position.) Stephen Hawking says: We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty. Edwin Hubble basically says: We believe it, because we could not tolerate, that the Church is right.
2.) Renowned astronomers admit that there are observational facts suggesting geocentrism.
-
Since nothing disproves geocentricity, especially if the Universe is flat, I am happy to believe
God created the entire Universal Heavens hanging there stars and planets
its center Earth for us.
Please be more specific in terms of what you're construing as geocentrism and the evidences for and against. Formal or classical geocentrism, whether classical or Tychonian, as I've stated repeatedly, demands an absolute frame of reference. There is no current support of that beyond certain fringe aetherists.
Aside from “current support” and all that, the idea of a central point existing in space makes no sense on principle. Such a point would have the qualities of Being (e.g. complete rest), and can only exist spiritually - in the material world, at best, analogically, which is to say relatively.
-
Since nothing disproves geocentricity, especially if the Universe is flat, I am happy to believe
God created the entire Universal Heavens hanging there stars and planets
its center Earth for us.
Please be more specific in terms of what you're construing as geocentrism and the evidences for and against. Formal or classical geocentrism, whether classical or Tychonian, as I've stated repeatedly, demands an absolute frame of reference. There is no current support of that beyond certain fringe aetherists.
Aside from “current support” and all that, the idea of a central point existing in space makes no sense on principle. Such a point would have the qualities of Being (e.g. complete rest), and can only exist spiritually - in the material world, at best, analogically, which is to say relatively.
The doctrine of geocentrism has HELL at the centre of the earth, the centre of the world, the furthest place from heaven.
There you are Graham, the spititual/material place you speak of.
-
Since nothing disproves geocentricity, especially if the Universe is flat, I am happy to believe
God created the entire Universal Heavens hanging there stars and planets
its center Earth for us.
Please be more specific in terms of what you're construing as geocentrism and the evidences for and against. Formal or classical geocentrism, whether classical or Tychonian, as I've stated repeatedly, demands an absolute frame of reference. There is no current support of that beyond certain fringe aetherists.
Aside from “current support” and all that, the idea of a central point existing in space makes no sense on principle. Such a point would have the qualities of Being (e.g. complete rest), and can only exist spiritually - in the material world, at best, analogically, which is to say relatively.
The doctrine of geocentrism has HELL at the centre of the earth, the centre of the world, the furthest place from heaven.
There you are Graham, the spititual/material place you speak of.
So, from this I am to infer that you believe that Hell, rather than molten metal, is at the center of the Earth? In such a model, by what mechanism is Earth's magnetosphere generated? Static electricity from angel's wings?
-
Leading Astronomers have admitted that they base their "science" on an ideological choice (see quotes some pages back).
Which quotes? This thread is replete with quotes. Most taken out of context, but that rarely matters to rhetoricists.
Well, I can find them for you: 3rd post, page 17:
[...] experts say, that the earth appears to be at the center of the universe. And they admit, that their "science" is based on an ideological choice:
Stephen Hawking said:
...all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe......There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too.....We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe.
(Stephen Hawking “A Brief History of Time” 1988 p.42. Citation copied from: galileowaswrong.blogspot.com (http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.com/2010/11/afterthoughts-on-geocatcon-i-dr-robert.html))
Here some more of the same book in German:
All diese Indizien sprechen dafür, daß das Universum aus jeder Blickrichtung, die wir wählen, gleich aussieht, und legen uns auf den ersten Blick nahe, daß wir einen besonderen Standort im Universum innehaben. Vor allem könnte es so scheinen, als befänden wir uns im Mittelpunkt des Universums, da uns die Beobachtung zeigt, daß sich alle anderen Galaxien von uns fortbewegen. Es gibt jedoch noch eine andere Erklärung: Das Universum könnte auch von jeder anderen Galaxis aus in jeder Richtung gleich aussehen. Dies war, wie erwähnt, Friedmanns zweite Annahme. Wir haben keine wissenschaftlichen Beweise für oder gegen sie. Wir glauben einfach aus Gründen der Bescheidenheit an sie: Es wäre höchst erstaunlich, böte das Universum von anderen Punkten als der Erde aus betrachtet einen Anblick, der von dem sich uns offenbarenden Bild abwiche. In Friedmanns Modell bewegen sich alle Galaxien direkt voneinander fort. Die Situation entspricht weitgehend dem gleichmäßigen Aufblasen eines Luftballons, auf den man Punkte gemalt hat. Während der Ballon sich ausdehnt, wächst der Abstand zwischen jedem beliebigen Punktepaar, ohne daß man einen der Punkte zum Zentrum der Ausdehung erklären könnte. Ferner bewegen sich die Punkte um so rascher auseinander, je weiter sie voneinander entfernt sind. Entsprechend ist auch in Friedmanns Modell die Geschwindigkeit, mit der zwei Galaxien auseinander driften, der Entfernung zwischen ihnen proportional. Deshalb sagt das Modell voraus, daß auch die Rotverschiebung einer Galaxis direkt proportional irher Entfernung von uns sein muß, was sich genau mit Hubbles Beobachtungen deckt.
(Stephen Hawking, "Die Illustrierte Kurze Geschichte der Zeit", Rowohlt 1988, Kapitel 3 "Das expandierende Universum", Seite 56.)
Edwin Hubble said:
The assumption of uniformity has much to be said in its favour. If the distribution were not uniform, it would either increase with distance, or decrease. But we would not expect to find a distribution in which the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions. Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance.
(Edwin Hubble: "The Observational Approach to Cosmology", online at caltech.edu (http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/Hubble3_2.html).)
The departures from uniformity are positive; the numbers of nebulae increase faster than the volume of space through which they are scattered. Thus the density of the nebular distribution increases outwards, symmetrically in all directions, leaving the observer in a unique position. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity.
(Edwin Hubble: "The Observational Approach to Cosmology", online at caltech.edu (http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/Hubble3_6.html).)
It is also worth noting that Hubble for quite some time rejected Einsteins theories. He finally gave in when he realized that only Einstein could appease the "intolerable", "unwelcome" observational facts, which indicate, that the earth is in a favoured position.
So their "science" is the "science" of a corrupt society.
Spare me the admonitions about the atheistic science conspiracy.
I am not talking about conspiracy. The above quoted astronomers openly declare their ideological choice. Please also note, what Romano Amerio, Vat. II peritus, wrote in his book "Iota Unum" about contemporary science:
In any event, we have two condemned propositions: Catholicism is compatible with modern civilization (Pius IX) and Catholicism is incompatible with true science (Pius X). From a comparison of the two condemnations, it becomes clear that modern civilization and true science do not correspond. While the Church distinguishes between modern civilization and true science, she does not cease condemning the spirit of the age. There can be knowledge which is true in a civilization which is false, but it is then garbed in a false spirit of which it must be stripped, by a kind of reclaiming action, so that it can be reclothed in the truth which is found in the Catholic system ...
Iota Unum on sspxasia.com (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/books/Iota_Unum/chp_02.htm#s12)
Conclusion: 1.) Renowned astronomers admit that the current model is based on an ideological choice. This choice is Friedmanns zweite Annahme (Friedmanns second assumption), which is the so called Copernican Principle, that reads: "The Church is wrong" (see Wikipedia: In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle, named after Nicolaus Copernicus, states that the Earth is not in a central, specially favored position.) Stephen Hawking says: We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty. Edwin Hubble basically says: We believe it, because we could not tolerate, that the Church is right.
2.) Renowned astronomers admit that there are observational facts suggesting geocentrism.
Please don't think I've ignored you. The post is just taking a while to write.
-
Since nothing disproves geocentricity, especially if the Universe is flat, I am happy to believe
God created the entire Universal Heavens hanging there stars and planets
its center Earth for us.
Please be more specific in terms of what you're construing as geocentrism and the evidences for and against. Formal or classical geocentrism, whether classical or Tychonian, as I've stated repeatedly, demands an absolute frame of reference. There is no current support of that beyond certain fringe aetherists.
Aside from “current support” and all that, the idea of a central point existing in space makes no sense on principle. Such a point would have the qualities of Being (e.g. complete rest), and can only exist spiritually - in the material world, at best, analogically, which is to say relatively.
The doctrine of geocentrism has HELL at the centre of the earth, the centre of the world, the furthest place from heaven.
There you are Graham, the spititual/material place you speak of.
So, from this I am to infer that you believe that Hell, rather than molten metal, is at the center of the Earth? In such a model, by what mechanism is Earth's magnetosphere generated? Static electricity from angel's wings?
‘And that great dragon was cast down, the ancient serpent, he who is called the devil and Satan, who leads astray the whole world; and he was cast down to the Earth and with him his angels were cast down.’ ---(Apoc. 16:9).
‘Hell’, a place as well as a state, according to mediaeval tradition, created by God for Satan and those who reject Him for whatever reason, from hatred to apathy, lies in the very centre of the earth, the furthest place from heaven. St Cardinal Robert Bellarmine wrote:
‘The last is natural reason. There is no doubt that it is indeed reasonable that the place of devils and wicked damned men should be as far as possible from the place where God, angels and blessed saints will be forever, the abode of the blessed (as our adversaries agree) in heaven, and no place further removed from heaven than the centre of the earth.’
The body, blood, soul and divinity of God? You have got to be kidding, where did the bread go?
John, obviously science is your first religion.That is what keeps all Copernicans in their place. That is magic.
-
‘And that great dragon was cast down, the ancient serpent, he who is called the devil and Satan, who leads astray the whole world; and he was cast down to the Earth and with him his angels were cast down.’ ---(Apoc. 16:9).
You'll notice that it says "to" and not "into". Just pointing it out, since you ascribe to absolute, literalistic interpretation of all of Scripture.
‘Hell’, a place as well as a state, according to mediaeval tradition, created by God for Satan and those who reject Him for whatever reason, from hatred to apathy, lies in the very centre of the earth, the furthest place from heaven.
St Cardinal Robert Bellarmine wrote:
‘The last is natural reason. There is no doubt that it is indeed reasonable that the place of devils and wicked damned men should be as far as possible from the place where God, angels and blessed saints will be forever, the abode of the blessed (as our adversaries agree) in heaven, and no place further removed from heaven than the centre of the earth.’
And because he is a Doctor of the Church, his Aristotelean conception of physical science, which says one can arrive at any truth simple through logical exercise without any verification, should be granted infallibility? I wasn't aware that such a concession is granted to a Doctor.
The body, blood, soul and divinity of God? You have got to be kidding, where did the bread go?
Apples and oranges. It's de fide that the accidents of bread and wine remain, in essence it's unverifiable by material science. Hence, MYSTERIUM FIDEI, no? I believe this without hesitation.
John, obviously science is your first religion.That is what keeps all Copernicans in their place. That is magic.
On the contrary, my first and only religion is that of the Roman Church. You and I just have very different conceptions of where science fits in. You seem to view it as some kind of hustle, and that everyone that subscribes to it is, on some level, trying to tear down the Church. You seem to believe that God gave us our senses to understand the world, and our reason that we may be tempted to disbelief. I, and others like me, recognize that science, even the science of those personally antagonistic to Christ and his Church, need not be false, just as in the case those heathens of false religions that abide by precepts that are in compliance with natural law. Simply because they do not perceived the Author in the truth, it avails them little. We believe that God gave us our senses to recognize those fundamental laws by which He has built and sustained His creation, and reason, that we might understand it.
By your conception, the Bible should be sufficient to understand all things in nature. Then how does it explain electromagnetism? The wave-particle duality of light? Quantum entanglement? I've read it front to back, and I'v yet to find anything on those, or thousands of other topics of science. Then should I not hang the placard "believes in magic" around your neck, as you seem so ready to do to me? Who appeals to magic more freely? The one seeking to understand how something works or the one determined not to?
-
Has Cassini read Copernicus?
It is heretical to assert that science is at odds with Scripture & Tradition of The Church.
-
Has Cassini read Copernicus?
It is heretical to assert that science is at odds with Scripture & Tradition of The Church.
Just to make sure, I'll quote Romano Amerio again:
In any event, we have two condemned propositions: Catholicism is compatible with modern civilization (Pius IX) and Catholicism is incompatible with true science (Pius X). From a comparison of the two condemnations, it becomes clear that modern civilization and true science do not correspond. While the Church distinguishes between modern civilization and true science, she does not cease condemning the spirit of the age. There can be knowledge which is true in a civilization which is false, but it is then garbed in a false spirit of which it must be stripped, by a kind of reclaiming action, so that it can be reclothed in the truth which is found in the Catholic system ...
Iota Unum on sspxasia.com (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/books/Iota_Unum/chp_02.htm#s12)
-
Has Cassini read Copernicus?
It is heretical to assert that science is at odds with Scripture & Tradition of The Church.
Hi Roscoe, you first. Yes, I have read Copernicus. I'll bet I know more about him than anybody on this forum. If you want to take your question further, please do.
As regards asserting 'science' is heretical and that science is at odds with Scripture & Tradition of The Church, well that depends on what one calls science. Take for example acoustics, bacteriology, cardiology, dendrology, ecology, floristry, gastronomy, horticulture, immunology, kinetics, lepidopterology, mechanics, neurology, odontology, papyrology, quinology, reflexology, spermology, toxicology, urology, vinology, xylology, zoology and all in between. They are sciences that examine what is, so cannot be heretical and cannot be opposed to the Catholic faith.
The only 'sciences' that can be heretical are those that rely on theories, assumptions, hypotheses, presumptions, conjectures, suppositions and guesses.
-
Cassini( unless I am mistaken this is the name of a spacecraft) seems somewhat conceited when proclaiming that he knows more about Copernicus than anyone in the Forum. How much further can the question go? I am confused as to what this may mean. Either he has read it or not.
I did not assert that science is heretical & at odds with Scripture & Tradition. It seems to moi that this is the theory of Cassini.
Pls give opinion on what Benedict XV(15?) means when he says
.....' If the progress of science showed later that the conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number & course of the planets & stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves & governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove ; and although this earth on which we live may not be the center of the universe as was one time thought......'.
-
Has Cassini read Copernicus?
It is heretical to assert that science is at odds with Scripture & Tradition of The Church.
Just to make sure, I'll quote Romano Amerio again:
In any event, we have two condemned propositions: Catholicism is compatible with modern civilization (Pius IX) and Catholicism is incompatible with true science (Pius X). From a comparison of the two condemnations, it becomes clear that modern civilization and true science do not correspond. While the Church distinguishes between modern civilization and true science, she does not cease condemning the spirit of the age. There can be knowledge which is true in a civilization which is false, but it is then garbed in a false spirit of which it must be stripped, by a kind of reclaiming action, so that it can be reclothed in the truth which is found in the Catholic system ...
Iota Unum on sspxasia.com (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/books/Iota_Unum/chp_02.htm#s12)
If I am reading the above correctly, it is being asserted that Pius has stated that Catholicism is incompatible with true science.
Could a source for this pls be provided?
-
‘And that great dragon was cast down, the ancient serpent, he who is called the devil and Satan, who leads astray the whole world; and he was cast down to the Earth and with him his angels were cast down.’ ---(Apoc. 16:9).
You'll notice that it says "to" and not "into". Just pointing it out, since you ascribe to absolute, literalistic interpretation of all of Scripture.
‘Hell’, a place as well as a state, according to mediaeval tradition, created by God for Satan and those who reject Him for whatever reason, from hatred to apathy, lies in the very centre of the earth, the furthest place from heaven.
St Cardinal Robert Bellarmine wrote:
‘The last is natural reason. There is no doubt that it is indeed reasonable that the place of devils and wicked damned men should be as far as possible from the place where God, angels and blessed saints will be forever, the abode of the blessed (as our adversaries agree) in heaven, and no place further removed from heaven than the centre of the earth.’
And because he is a Doctor of the Church, his Aristotelean conception of physical science, which says one can arrive at any truth simple through logical exercise without any verification, should be granted infallibility? I wasn't aware that such a concession is granted to a Doctor.
The body, blood, soul and divinity of God? You have got to be kidding, where did the bread go?
Apples and oranges. It's de fide that the accidents of bread and wine remain, in essence it's unverifiable by material science. Hence, MYSTERIUM FIDEI, no? I believe this without hesitation.
John, obviously science is your first religion.That is what keeps all Copernicans in their place. That is magic.
On the contrary, my first and only religion is that of the Roman Church. You and I just have very different conceptions of where science fits in. You seem to view it as some kind of hustle, and that everyone that subscribes to it is, on some level, trying to tear down the Church. You seem to believe that God gave us our senses to understand the world, and our reason that we may be tempted to disbelief. I, and others like me, recognize that science, even the science of those personally antagonistic to Christ and his Church, need not be false, just as in the case those heathens of false religions that abide by precepts that are in compliance with natural law. Simply because they do not perceived the Author in the truth, it avails them little. We believe that God gave us our senses to recognize those fundamental laws by which He has built and sustained His creation, and reason, that we might understand it.
By your conception, the Bible should be sufficient to understand all things in nature. Then how does it explain electromagnetism? The wave-particle duality of light? Quantum entanglement? I've read it front to back, and I'v yet to find anything on those, or thousands of other topics of science. Then should I not hang the placard "believes in magic" around your neck, as you seem so ready to do to me? Who appeals to magic more freely? The one seeking to understand how something works or the one determined not to?
Wow John, what a lot to reply to. Wish I knew how to box separate points, but I do not.
To begin with, you seem to be trying to undermine the traditional place of Hell, at the centre of the earth. This puts you up as a critic of Scripture and the private revelations of God to Sister Mary of Jesus, better known as Mary of Agreda (1602-1665). Sister Mary began recording these secret insights, dictated, she said, to her by the Virgin Mary herself in 1637, a mere four years after Galileo’s trial wherein the formal heresy of a fixed sun and moving earth was condemned by popes of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Her three volume work is entitled; ‘The Mystical City of God’ or ‘The Divine History and Life of the Virgin Mother of God.’ These insights of Mary of Agreda, whose body lies incorrupt in the Agreda Franciscan Monastery in Spain, have received approbations from many popes throughout history as a mode of greater understanding of Catholic faith completely in line with the teaching of the Church.
Here is a relevant chapter of her book:
'In this fifth decree the creation of the angelic nature which is more excellent and more like unto the spiritual being of the Divinity was determined upon, and at the same time the division or arrangement of the angelic hosts into nine choirs and three hierarchies was provided and decreed.…To this instant belongs also the predestination of the good, and the reprobation of the bad angels. God saw in it, by means of his infinite science, all the works of the former and of the latter and the propriety of predestinating by his free will and by his merciful liberality, those that would obey and give honour, and of reprobating by his justice those who would rise up against his Majesty in pride and disobedience on account of their disordered selflove. In the same instant also was decreed the creation of the empyrean heaven, for the manifestation of his glory and the reward of the good; also the earth and the heavenly bodies for the other creatures; moreover also in the centre or depth of the earth, hell, for the punishment of the bad angels….'
And another:
'God created the earth co-jointly with the heavens in order to call into existence hell in its centre; for, at the instant of its creation, there were left in the interior of that globe, spacious and wide cavities, suitable for hell, purgatory and limbo. And in hell was created at the same time material fire and other requisites, which now serve for the punishment of the damned.'
And now the Scriptures:
Gospel according to St Matthew 12-40
'For even as Johnas was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the Earth.'
Ephesians 4:9, says of Jesus: "Now this; "he ascended," what does it mean but that he also first descended first into the LOWER PARTS OF THE EARTH."
I could go on and on, but for Copernicans, it is all 'apples and oranges.'
As regards your reference to your adherence to science, what you really mean is your devotion to science and those theories, assumptions, hypotheses, presumptions, conjectures, suppositions and guesses that claim scientific truth..
-
Cassini( unless I am mistaken this is the name of a spacecraft) seems somewhat conceited when proclaiming that he knows more about Copernicus than anyone in the Forum. How much further can the question go? I am confused as to what this may mean. Either he has read it or not.
I did not assert that science is heretical & at odds with Scripture & Tradition. It seems to moi that this is the theory of Cassini.
Pls give opinion on what Benedict XV(15?) means when he says
.....' If the progress of science showed later that the conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number & course of the planets & stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves & governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove ; and although this earth on which we live may not be the center of the universe as was one time thought......'.
Domenico Cassini was the last great geocentrist Catholic astronomer. He was also a measurer who worked for popes. He discovered secrets of the heavens that were ignored by science because they did not fit in with the heliocentric fraud. It is an honour to make his name known.
Why Roscoe is it 'CONCEIT' to profess I know more about Copernicus than anyone on this forum? It happens to be a subject I have studied for many years. How many others have put in such study? No one, you need a reason and I had one. There are a million subjects that I know little about. But I do not consider it conceited if somebody says they know more about any of these subjects. I stay away from commenting on subjects I know little about. You asked me if I read Copernicus. That was more than a question, that was trying out a 'put-down.' I answered it as it deserved.
Presumably you had something in mind when you asked that question, like 'don't you know Copernicus said this or that, or showed this or that etc.. The questions about Copernicus have given rise to a book, so there is a lot. For example, where did Copernicus get his heliocentrism from? What was that heliocentrism? Who helped him publish his long abandoned De revolutionibus? Did he write the preface to his book? Did he agree with it?
Benedict XVI is a modernist personified. He is most famous for his book IN THE BEGINNING where he gives a novel evolutionary meaning to ORIGINAL SIN, nothing to do with a personal sin of Adam and Eve.
In the above passage he continues the fraud that credits SCIENCE with showing (proving) the doctrine of geocentrism was a myth but that does not mean that God did not activate a Big Bang and an evolution of the universe that includes a heliocentric earth spinning and orbiting the sun. He completely ignores the fact that the same Church fonded by the same omnipotent God to speak for him had defined that 'myth' as formal heresy, and found Galileo guilty of suspected heresy.
-
Has Cassini read Copernicus?
It is heretical to assert that science is at odds with Scripture & Tradition of The Church.
Just to make sure, I'll quote Romano Amerio again:
In any event, we have two condemned propositions: Catholicism is compatible with modern civilization (Pius IX) and Catholicism is incompatible with true science (Pius X). From a comparison of the two condemnations, it becomes clear that modern civilization and true science do not correspond. While the Church distinguishes between modern civilization and true science, she does not cease condemning the spirit of the age. There can be knowledge which is true in a civilization which is false, but it is then garbed in a false spirit of which it must be stripped, by a kind of reclaiming action, so that it can be reclothed in the truth which is found in the Catholic system ...
Iota Unum on sspxasia.com (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/books/Iota_Unum/chp_02.htm#s12)
If I am reading the above correctly, it is being asserted that Pius has stated that Catholicism is incompatible with true science.
Could a source for this pls be provided?
Should read Pius X. IOW pls provide source for the allegation that Pius X claims true science is incompatible with Catholicism.
-
Wow John, what a lot to reply to. Wish I knew how to box separate points, but I do not.
You can separate points by copying a new "quote=" tag around what you want and ending it with another closing quote tag
To begin with, you seem to be trying to undermine the traditional place of Hell, at the centre of the earth. This puts you up as a critic of Scripture...
Please don't phrase it quite that way. It seems as though you're equating them in terms of credibility.
Very clever and the private revelations of God to Sister Mary of Jesus, better known as Mary of Agreda (1602-1665). Sister Mary began recording these secret insights, dictated, she said, to her by the Virgin Mary herself in 1637, a mere four years after Galileo’s trial wherein the formal heresy of a fixed sun and moving earth was condemned by popes of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Her three volume work is entitled; ‘The Mystical City of God’ or ‘The Divine History and Life of the Virgin Mother of God.’ These insights of Mary of Agreda, whose body lies incorrupt in the Agreda Franciscan Monastery in Spain, have received approbations from many popes throughout history as a mode of greater understanding of Catholic faith completely in line with the teaching of the Church.
Here is a relevant chapter of her book:
'In this fifth decree the creation of the angelic nature which is more excellent and more like unto the spiritual being of the Divinity was determined upon, and at the same time the division or arrangement of the angelic hosts into nine choirs and three hierarchies was provided and decreed.…To this instant belongs also the predestination of the good, and the reprobation of the bad angels. God saw in it, by means of his infinite science, all the works of the former and of the latter and the propriety of predestinating by his free will and by his merciful liberality, those that would obey and give honour, and of reprobating by his justice those who would rise up against his Majesty in pride and disobedience on account of their disordered selflove. In the same instant also was decreed the creation of the empyrean heaven, for the manifestation of his glory and the reward of the good; also the earth and the heavenly bodies for the other creatures; moreover also in the centre or depth of the earth, hell, for the punishment of the bad angels….'
And another:
'God created the earth co-jointly with the heavens in order to call into existence hell in its centre; for, at the instant of its creation, there were left in the interior of that globe, spacious and wide cavities, suitable for hell, purgatory and limbo. And in hell was created at the same time material fire and other requisites, which now serve for the punishment of the damned.'
With all respect due one of the faithful, I pull a hair for her private revelation, however much parts of it may agreed with those things that are de fide (of which I count neither geocentrism nor the notion of Hell being at the center of the Earth).
And now the Scriptures:
Gospel according to St Matthew 12-40
'For even as Johnas was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the Earth.'
Ephesians 4:9, says of Jesus: "Now this; "he ascended," what does it mean but that he also first descended first into the LOWER PARTS OF THE EARTH."
Yet more phenomenological language! The fact is that the position of Hell is unknown has never been decided upon by the Church, echoed by both Doctors, such at Sts. Augustine and John Chrysostom, and popes such as St. Gregory the Great.
I could go on and on, but for Copernicans, it is all 'apples and oranges.'
Oh, no doubt, your stamina for copying and pasting quotes and dodging questions is renowned, both here and elsewhere. Which reminds me, you never did answer my question regarding Earth's magnetosphere. How is it generated, if the earth is in fact hollow with Hell residing therein?
As regards your reference to your adherence to science, what you really mean is your devotion to science.
Fixed that for you.
-
Benedict XVI is a modernist personified. He is most famous for his book IN THE BEGINNING where he gives a novel evolutionary meaning to ORIGINAL SIN, nothing to do with a personal sin of Adam and Eve.
In the above passage he continues the fraud that credits SCIENCE with showing (proving) the doctrine of geocentrism was a myth but that does not mean that God did not activate a Big Bang and an evolution of the universe that includes a heliocentric earth spinning and orbiting the sun. He completely ignores the fact that the same Church fonded by the same omnipotent God to speak for him had defined that 'myth' as formal heresy, and found Galileo guilty of suspected heresy.
Roscoe and I are totally at odds on just about everything, but at least do him the courtesy of actually reading his post next time. He wrote Benedict XV, and is clearly quoting In Praeclara Summorum, Pt. 4.
-
Can U give an example of a secret of the heavens that Cassini discovered that is ignored by science?
I t needs to be kept in kind that saying E rev around S does not make one a heliocentrist. Saying that S is fixed in center of U constitutes heliocentrism. Copernicus only spoke hypothetically & would have been happy to submit to the scientific proofs that Both E & S are in motion. This is something that no one at that time could conceive of. I doubt that there is anything in U that is fixed and do not believe there is any physical center of U.
De Revolutionibus 'long abandoned'? I have never heard that one b4. It wasn't published until the last yr of his life because he knew there was something wrong with his theory. It had to wait for Newton & Bradly to make sense of the situation.
It is Benedict XV(15?) not 16 that I am referring to.
-
Cassini( unless I am mistaken this is the name of a spacecraft) seems somewhat conceited when proclaiming that he knows more about Copernicus than anyone in the Forum. How much further can the question go? I am confused as to what this may mean. Either he has read it or not.
I did not assert that science is heretical & at odds with Scripture & Tradition. It seems to moi that this is the theory of Cassini.
Pls give opinion on what Benedict XV(15?) means when he says
.....' If the progress of science showed later that the conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number & course of the planets & stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves & governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove ; and although this earth on which we live may not be the center of the universe as was one time thought......'.
Domenico Cassini was the last great geocentrist Catholic astronomer. He was also a measurer who worked for popes. He discovered secrets of the heavens that were ignored by science because they did not fit in with the heliocentric fraud. It is an honour to make his name known.
Why Roscoe is it 'CONCEIT' to profess I know more about Copernicus than anyone on this forum? It happens to be a subject I have studied for many years. How many others have put in such study? No one, you need a reason and I had one. There are a million subjects that I know little about. But I do not consider it conceited if somebody says they know more about any of these subjects. I stay away from commenting on subjects I know little about. You asked me if I read Copernicus. That was more than a question, that was trying out a 'put-down.' I answered it as it deserved.
Presumably you had something in mind when you asked that question, like 'don't you know Copernicus said this or that, or showed this or that etc.. The questions about Copernicus have given rise to a book, so there is a lot. For example, where did Copernicus get his heliocentrism from? What was that heliocentrism? Who helped him publish his long abandoned De revolutionibus? Did he write the preface to his book? Did he agree with it?
Benedict XVI is a modernist personified. He is most famous for his book IN THE BEGINNING where he gives a novel evolutionary meaning to ORIGINAL SIN, nothing to do with a personal sin of Adam and Eve.
In the above passage he continues the fraud that credits SCIENCE with showing (proving) the doctrine of geocentrism was a myth but that does not mean that God did not activate a Big Bang and an evolution of the universe that includes a heliocentric earth spinning and orbiting the sun. He completely ignores the fact that the same Church fonded by the same omnipotent God to speak for him had defined that 'myth' as formal heresy, and found Galileo guilty of suspected heresy.
-
Can U give an example of a secret of the heavens that Cassini discovered that is ignored by science?
I t needs to be kept in kind that saying E rev around S does not make one a heliocentrist. Saying that S is fixed in center of U constitutes heliocentrism. Copernicus only spoke hypothetically & would have been happy to submit to the scientific proofs that Both E & S are in motion. This is something that no one at that time could conceive of. I doubt that there is anything in U that is fixed and do not believe there is any physical center of U.
De Revolutionibus 'long abandoned'? I have never heard that one b4. It wasn't published until the last yr of his life because he knew there was something wrong with his theory. It had to wait for Newton & Bradly to make sense of the situation.
It is Benedict XV(15?) not 16 that I am referring to.
-
Cassini( unless I am mistaken this is the name of a spacecraft) seems somewhat conceited when proclaiming that he knows more about Copernicus than anyone in the Forum. How much further can the question go? I am confused as to what this may mean. Either he has read it or not.
I did not assert that science is heretical & at odds with Scripture & Tradition. It seems to moi that this is the theory of Cassini.
Pls give opinion on what Benedict XV(15?) means when he says
.....' If the progress of science showed later that the conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number & course of the planets & stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves & governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove ; and although this earth on which we live may not be the center of the universe as was one time thought......'.
Domenico Cassini was the last great geocentrist Catholic astronomer. He was also a measurer who worked for popes. He discovered secrets of the heavens that were ignored by science because they did not fit in with the heliocentric fraud. It is an honour to make his name known.
Why Roscoe is it 'CONCEIT' to profess I know more about Copernicus than anyone on this forum? It happens to be a subject I have studied for many years. How many others have put in such study? No one, you need a reason and I had one. There are a million subjects that I know little about. But I do not consider it conceited if somebody says they know more about any of these subjects. I stay away from commenting on subjects I know little about. You asked me if I read Copernicus. That was more than a question, that was trying out a 'put-down.' I answered it as it deserved.
Presumably you had something in mind when you asked that question, like 'don't you know Copernicus said this or that, or showed this or that etc.. The questions about Copernicus have given rise to a book, so there is a lot. For example, where did Copernicus get his heliocentrism from? What was that heliocentrism? Who helped him publish his long abandoned De revolutionibus? Did he write the preface to his book? Did he agree with it?
Benedict XVI is a modernist personified. He is most famous for his book IN THE BEGINNING where he gives a novel evolutionary meaning to ORIGINAL SIN, nothing to do with a personal sin of Adam and Eve.
In the above passage he continues the fraud that credits SCIENCE with showing (proving) the doctrine of geocentrism was a myth but that does not mean that God did not activate a Big Bang and an evolution of the universe that includes a heliocentric earth spinning and orbiting the sun. He completely ignores the fact that the same Church fonded by the same omnipotent God to speak for him had defined that 'myth' as formal heresy, and found Galileo guilty of suspected heresy.
-
Can U give an example of a secret of the heavens that Cassini discovered that is ignored by science?
I t needs to be kept in kind that saying E rev around S does not make one a heliocentrist. Saying that S is fixed in center of U constitutes heliocentrism. Copernicus only spoke hypothetically & would have been happy to submit to the scientific proofs that Both E & S are in motion. This is something that no one at that time could conceive of. I doubt that there is anything in U that is fixed and do not believe there is any physical center of U.
De Revolutionibus 'long abandoned'? I have never heard that one b4. It wasn't published until the last yr of his life because he knew there was something wrong with his theory. It had to wait for Newton & Bradly to make sense of the situation.
It is Benedict XV(15?) not 16 that I am referring to.
-
Cassini( unless I am mistaken this is the name of a spacecraft) seems somewhat conceited when proclaiming that he knows more about Copernicus than anyone in the Forum. How much further can the question go? I am confused as to what this may mean. Either he has read it or not.
I did not assert that science is heretical & at odds with Scripture & Tradition. It seems to moi that this is the theory of Cassini.
Pls give opinion on what Benedict XV(15?) means when he says
.....' If the progress of science showed later that the conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number & course of the planets & stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves & governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove ; and although this earth on which we live may not be the center of the universe as was one time thought......'.
In the above passage he continues the fraud that credits SCIENCE with showing (proving) the doctrine of geocentrism was a myth but that does not mean that God did not activate a Big Bang and an evolution of the universe that includes a heliocentric earth spinning and orbiting the sun. He completely ignores the fact that the same Church fonded by the same omnipotent God to speak for him had defined that 'myth' as formal heresy, and found Galileo guilty of suspected heresy.
Forgive me for being confused over the last paragraph.
What does a 'heliocentic earth spinning and orbiting the sun' mean?
-
Benedict XVI is a modernist personified. He is most famous for his book IN THE BEGINNING where he gives a novel evolutionary meaning to ORIGINAL SIN, nothing to do with a personal sin of Adam and Eve.
In the above passage he continues the fraud that credits SCIENCE with showing (proving) the doctrine of geocentrism was a myth but that does not mean that God did not activate a Big Bang and an evolution of the universe that includes a heliocentric earth spinning and orbiting the sun. He completely ignores the fact that the same Church fonded by the same omnipotent God to speak for him had defined that 'myth' as formal heresy, and found Galileo guilty of suspected heresy.
Roscoe and I are totally at odds on just about everything, but at least do him the courtesy of actually reading his post next time. He wrote Benedict XV, and is clearly quoting In Praeclara Summorum, Pt. 4.
I beg you pardon Roscoe/ John, I read you wrong, sorry. IN PRAECLARA SUMMORUM
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE BENEDICT XV
ON DANTE
TO PROFESSORS AND STUDENTS OF LITERATURE
AND LEARNING IN THE CATHOLIC WORLD.
Now I see why I never heard of it.
But what applies to Benedict XVI regarding the Galileo case also goes for Pope Benedixt XV as well as every pope since the 1741-1835 U-turn on the Church's decree defining heliocentrism formal heresy. More so however after Pope Leo's Provdentissimus Deus (1893). This encyclical, gave
‘an implicit theological vindication of Galileo’s hermeneutics in Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893). --- Maurice Finnocchiaro
Retrying Galileo, p.2.
That was enough, from then on it was open season on the literal interpretation of Scripture wherever it was said to be ‘shown incorrect’ by the advance of 'science,' and indeed on those churchmen who defended a geocentric interpretation in 1616 and 1633, irrespective of the fact that such an interpretation was the unanimous interpretation of all the Fathers. The encyclical, said to have been written to prevent attacks on the credibility of the Bible, in fact gave licence to challenge other literal interpretations and beliefs where ‘physical matters’ are touched on that might have been interpreted or understood incorrectly. Never again did the Church dare defend any literal interpretation of the Scriptures. Thus the emerging scientific theories of the time, received an unexpected ‘imprimatur’ in the sphere of biblical interpretation, throwing doubt on a mass of history and theology derived from a literal interpretation of Genesis. Once one admits the language of Scriptures can no longer guarantee literal truth in one area, it is difficult to close those open gates on other matters.
And this is why, in 1920, a mere twenty-seven years after Providentissimus Deus, a successor, Pope Benedict XV, had to bring out Spiritus Paraclitus, a second encyclical on biblical exegesis and hermeneutics to try to redress the imbalance caused by the Galileo fiasco.
And that is why in 1943 Rome had to issue a third encyclical on scriptural exegeses, Pope Pius XII’s Divino afflante Spiritu. Alas, if 333 encyclicals were written the damage could not be avoided. In a final attempt to bring harmony to faith and modern science, we find again the hermeneutics set out by Galileo in 1613, how geocentric wording in the Scriptures could be used to describe heliocentrism:
‘The first and greatest care of Leo XIII was to set forth the teaching on the truth of the Sacred Books and to defend it from attack. Hence with grave words did he proclaim that there is no error whatsoever if the sacred writer, speaking of things of the physical order "went by what sensibly appeared" as the Angelic Doctor says, speaking either "in figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the most eminent men of science." ’ --- Divino afflante Spiritu.
All this makes a mockery of Trent's teaching that no doctrine contrary to that of the Fathers is permitted.
-
Has Cassini read Copernicus?
It is heretical to assert that science is at odds with Scripture & Tradition of The Church.
Just to make sure, I'll quote Romano Amerio again:
In any event, we have two condemned propositions: Catholicism is compatible with modern civilization (Pius IX) and Catholicism is incompatible with true science (Pius X). From a comparison of the two condemnations, it becomes clear that modern civilization and true science do not correspond. While the Church distinguishes between modern civilization and true science, she does not cease condemning the spirit of the age. There can be knowledge which is true in a civilization which is false, but it is then garbed in a false spirit of which it must be stripped, by a kind of reclaiming action, so that it can be reclothed in the truth which is found in the Catholic system ...
Iota Unum on sspxasia.com (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/books/Iota_Unum/chp_02.htm#s12)
If I am reading the above correctly, it is being asserted that Pius has stated that Catholicism is incompatible with true science.
Could a source for this pls be provided?
Should read Pius X. IOW pls provide source for the allegation that Pius X claims true science is incompatible with Catholicism.
Please roscoe, study the quote again. Word by word, until you understand, what Romano Amerio says.
Hint: Look up the meaning of the word "condemnation" first.
Then look up who Romano Amerio is.
-
My apologies as I have re-read the passage.
-
Hello, cassini.
To learn how to separate certain points in individual boxes, do this:
Quote here.
Works on IA as well.
God Bless.
-
Ah, it came out as a quote, lol.
View the "help" page to learn how:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=help
-
Can U give an example of a secret of the heavens that Cassini discovered that is ignored by science?
It needs to be kept in [m]ind that saying E rev around S does not make one a heliocentrist. Saying that S is fixed in center of U constitutes heliocentrism. Copernicus only spoke hypothetically & would have been happy to submit to the scientific proofs that Both E & S are in motion. This is something that no one at that time could conceive of. I doubt that there is anything in U that is fixed and do not believe there is any physical center of U.
De Revolutionibus 'long abandoned'? I have never heard that one b4. It wasn't published until the last yr of his life because he knew there was something wrong with his theory. It had to wait for Newton & Bradly to make sense of the situation.
It is Benedict XV(15?) not 16 that I am referring to.
Well for one thing he falsified Newton's theory of gravity that predicted the earth would have a spherical shape or equitorial bulge. He also falsified Kepler's theory that orbits are ellipses. Newton knew this and introduced PERTURBATIONS to account for the number of times the planets left their supposed ellipical orbits.
To say the earth goes around the sun is heliocentrist, and condemned as 'theologically considered to be at least erroneous in faith.' Saying the sun is fixed is also heliocentrist and formal heresy.
Osiander prefaced Copernicus's book as a hypothesis. But Copernicus did not. He, it is known was a total heliocentrist. The only thing Copernicus considered wrong about his theory was that nobody cared for his theory. He publishedCommentariolus before 1514 but it BOMBED and Copernicus lost interest in publishing De revolutionibus. It was only when the Protestants told him to finish it did he do so. Yes, Copernicus was aware of relativity. But he also knew if the universe was rotating it should be expanding. How about that, Copernicus was first with an expanding universe theory, and it was GEOCENTRIC.
You may have no doubt that there is anything in the universe that is fixed. To do so is to reject the 1616 decree and chose to 'err in faith.'
Yes Roscoe, I have apologised for that error in Johns reply.
-
Forgive me for being confused over the last paragraph.
What does a 'heliocentic earth spinning and orbiting the sun' mean?
A heliocentric earth is one that spins every 24 hours while orbiting a fixed sun relative to the earth.
A geocentric earth is one that is geostatic and geocentric, that is absolutly stationary at the centre of the universe.
-
Ah, it came out as a quote, lol.
View the "help" page to learn how:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=help
Thanks, I'll try, I usually make a bags of such things.
-
Dear Cassini,
You are speaking the truth about this vital matter of geocentrism.
Your posts are excellent.
Thank you for defending the true geocentrist position.
God Bless you, Cassini.
Yours,
Sede Catholic.
-
MO is that there is nothing in U that is motionless.
-
If an uneducated person were on the moon, would it appear to him that E rev around M even though we know that M is in motion? IOW-- all the other bodies in U would appear to be in motion from the relative position of the observer.
-
MO is that dogmatic geo-centrist's are just as bad as dogmatic 'sedes'. :baby:
-
Has Cassini read Copernicus?
It is heretical to assert that science is at odds with Scripture & Tradition of The Church.
Just to make sure, I'll quote Romano Amerio again:
In any event, we have two condemned propositions: Catholicism is compatible with modern civilization (Pius IX) and Catholicism is incompatible with true science (Pius X). From a comparison of the two condemnations, it becomes clear that modern civilization and true science do not correspond. While the Church distinguishes between modern civilization and true science, she does not cease condemning the spirit of the age. There can be knowledge which is true in a civilization which is false, but it is then garbed in a false spirit of which it must be stripped, by a kind of reclaiming action, so that it can be reclothed in the truth which is found in the Catholic system ...
Iota Unum on sspxasia.com (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/books/Iota_Unum/chp_02.htm#s12)
If I am reading the above correctly, it is being asserted that Pius has stated that Catholicism is incompatible with true science.
Could a source for this pls be provided?
Should read Pius X. IOW pls provide source for the allegation that Pius X claims true science is incompatible with Catholicism.
Please roscoe, study the quote again. Word by word, until you understand, what Romano Amerio says.
Hint: Look up the meaning of the word "condemnation" first.
Then look up who Romano Amerio is.
My apologies as I have re-read the passage.
Fine, never mind.
Now let's see the conclusion: It is not "heretical to assert that" contemporary "science is at odds with Scripture & Tradition of The Church."
You are wrong!
-
MO is that there is nothing in U that is motionless.
How did you form your opinion?
-
Has Cassini read Copernicus?
It is heretical to assert that science is at odds with Scripture & Tradition of The Church.
Just to make sure, I'll quote Romano Amerio again:
In any event, we have two condemned propositions: Catholicism is compatible with modern civilization (Pius IX) and Catholicism is incompatible with true science (Pius X). From a comparison of the two condemnations, it becomes clear that modern civilization and true science do not correspond. While the Church distinguishes between modern civilization and true science, she does not cease condemning the spirit of the age. There can be knowledge which is true in a civilization which is false, but it is then garbed in a false spirit of which it must be stripped, by a kind of reclaiming action, so that it can be reclothed in the truth which is found in the Catholic system ...
Iota Unum on sspxasia.com (http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/books/Iota_Unum/chp_02.htm#s12)
If I am reading the above correctly, it is being asserted that Pius has stated that Catholicism is incompatible with true science.
Could a source for this pls be provided?
Should read Pius X. IOW pls provide source for the allegation that Pius X claims true science is incompatible with Catholicism.
Please roscoe, study the quote again. Word by word, until you understand, what Romano Amerio says.
Hint: Look up the meaning of the word "condemnation" first.
Then look up who Romano Amerio is.
My apologies as I have re-read the passage.
Fine, never mind.
Now let's see the conclusion: It is not "heretical to assert that" contemporary "science is at odds with Scripture & Tradition of The Church."
You are wrong!
I don't know how to answer that. :confused1:
-
MO is that there is nothing in U that is motionless.
How did you form your opinion?
By thinking about it.
-
If an uneducated person were on the moon, would it appear to him that E rev around M even though we know that M is in motion? IOW-- all the other bodies in U would appear to be in motion from the relative position of the observer.
Before anyone has a chance to answer, it is no fair to say we have never went to M because it is impossible & since we can therefore never go to M, we cannot know for sure.
I would imagine that if one were on M, E would appear to move across the sky.
-
If an uneducated person were on the moon, would it appear to him that E rev around M even though we know that M is in motion? IOW-- all the other bodies in U would appear to be in motion from the relative position of the observer.
Before anyone has a chance to answer, it is no fair to say we have never went to M because it is impossible & since we can therefore never go to M, we cannot know for sure.
I would imagine that if one were on M, E would appear to move across the sky.
The answer to your question may depend on the person. Independently of my education, if I went up to the moon and looked down to earth, I might perceive that I am orbiting my folks down there.
Same thing when I go on a trip. I perceive, that the house stays where it was, while I am being moved.
How about a more technical approach? Let's assume, Einstein was right. It follows, that we are not able to detect, which objects move and which don't. All depends on our own frame of reference. We are not able to determine, whether geocentrism is right or wrong.
Then Catholics are priviledged. We have the Church, Scripture, the Fathers, St Robert Bellarmine, the Inquisition and so forth. Science is helpless. But we know the answer.
-
MO is that there is nothing in U that is motionless.
How did you form your opinion?
By thinking about it.
Fine! Please, share the details!
-
If an uneducated person were on the moon, would it appear to him that E rev around M even though we know that M is in motion? IOW-- all the other bodies in U would appear to be in motion from the relative position of the observer.
Before anyone has a chance to answer, it is no fair to say we have never went to M because it is impossible & since we can therefore never go to M, we cannot know for sure.
I would imagine that if one were on M, E would appear to move across the sky.
The answer to your question may depend on the person.
:roll-laugh1:
-
Appropriate response, Roscoe.
-
Oldavid, IA not good enough for you? Supporting a nutty guy like roscoe, you descend down into new lows!
-
BTW, JohnGrey, just because the Bible doesn't explain all things of science doesn't mean it doesn't explain anything of science. All interpretation up to the 1800s of the passages of the Bible pertaining to the movement of the earth is unanimous: the earth is immobile and the sun moves. And the Council of Trent, as repeated so many times, condemned going contrary to unanimity of the Fathers, and the 1633 condemnation cemented that! Geocentrism is not mere opinion; it is authoritative teaching, that has never been rescinded (even if not infallible per se, it is still not contradicted by any subsequent dogmatic condemnations or pronouncements).
-
BTW, JohnGrey, just because the Bible doesn't explain all things of science doesn't mean it doesn't explain anything of science. All interpretation up to the 1800s of the passages of the Bible pertaining to the movement of the earth is unanimous: the earth is immobile and the sun moves.
Have U ever heard of Copernicus? who BTW had a Doc in canon law.
Apparently QVP has never read De Revolutions because he has never heard of it.
-
Oldavid, IA not good enough for you? Supporting a nutty guy like roscoe, you descend down into new lows!
Nah, nope.
I just thought that anyone resisting cultic loonies at least should have a thumbs up from someone. Still, It doesn't seem that Mormons and Jehovas Witnesses have been deterred by any reasonable persuasion; and I know from experience that you lot can't be.
Poor old Uncle Tom wasted his brains and time on you lot.
-
Oldavid, IA not good enough for you? Supporting a nutty guy like roscoe, you descend down into new lows!
Nah, nope.
I just thought that anyone resisting cultic loonies at least should have a thumbs up from someone. Still, It doesn't seem that Mormons and Jehovas Witnesses have been deterred by any reasonable persuasion; and I know from experience that you lot can't be.
Poor old Uncle Tom wasted his brains and time on you lot.
Put down the bottle. Sober up.
-
Dear Cassini,
You are speaking the truth about this vital matter of geocentrism.
Your posts are excellent.
Thank you for defending the true geocentrist position.
God Bless you, Cassini.
Yours,
Sede Catholic.
Thank you Sede. 'Where two or three are gathered in my name, there also am I.'
-
I just thought that anyone resisting cultic loonies at least should have a thumbs up from someone.
"Cultic loonies"? You do realize that roscoe is a pot-smoker who listens to the Beatles and thinks he's a stigmatist, right?
Trust me, we aren't the loonies.
-
Oldavid, IA not good enough for you? Supporting a nutty guy like roscoe, you descend down into new lows!
Nah, nope.
I just thought that anyone resisting cultic loonies at least should have a thumbs up from someone. Still, It doesn't seem that Mormons and Jehovas Witnesses have been deterred by any reasonable persuasion; and I know from experience that you lot can't be.
Poor old Uncle Tom wasted his brains and time on you lot.
Cultic loonies is indeed a real good way to describe dogmatic geocentrists & dogmatic 'sedes' as well. Unless I am mistaken, the latter are not even permitted on Cathinfo. The same should be true of the former.
-
[
I could go on and on, but for Copernicans, it is all 'apples and oranges.'
Oh, no doubt, your stamina for copying and pasting quotes and dodging questions is renowned, both here and elsewhere. Which reminds me, you never did answer my question regarding Earth's magnetosphere. How is it generated, if the earth is in fact hollow with Hell residing therein?
.
Never got back to you with this one John. In any debate, quoting others is simply a means of showing there are others that share a particular view. Anyone can say something, but by quoting other sources you give credibility to what you say.
As regards my 'dodging questions being renowned,' what question have I dodged since debating this subject with you and others. Ask me them again and if I do not answer them then you can say I dodge questions.
Yours on the earth's magnetosphere is not one I dodged, merely overlooked it in the thick of the debate.
No doubt you will tell me it is caused by a rotating earth. To which I respond that it could also be caused by a spinning universe. Dynamo's can have a spinning interior or a spinning exterior, the effect is exactly the same, both produce magnetic effects.
Interesting that you should bring up this subject, for it is my opinion that gravity is an effect of electromagnetism. If you study a geocentric universe you will note it behaves just like a gyroscope, with the axis of the universe in line with the earth's magnetic poles. Moreover, just like a gyroscope we observe precession of the stars. So far the theory that electromagnetism and gravity are unified has not been found by science. Our study of Cassini's work we believe has found this connection. Much more work has to be done on this.
-
Oldavid, IA not good enough for you? Supporting a nutty guy like roscoe, you descend down into new lows!
Nah, nope.
I just thought that anyone resisting cultic loonies at least should have a thumbs up from someone. Still, It doesn't seem that Mormons and Jehovas Witnesses have been deterred by any reasonable persuasion; and I know from experience that you lot can't be.
Poor old Uncle Tom wasted his brains and time on you lot.
Cultic loonies is indeed a real good way to describe dogmatic geocentrists & dogmatic 'sedes' as well. Unless I am mistaken, the latter are not even permitted on Cathinfo. The same should be true of the former.
When someone has to resort to the old ad hominem ploy, they really should stay out of such debates. If one cannot convince others with coherent, logical, rational, sound, consistent, articulate and lucid argument, that is when the ad hominem defeatest ploy is used.
Hopefully others will see it for what it is.
-
Oldavid, IA not good enough for you? Supporting a nutty guy like roscoe, you descend down into new lows!
Nah, nope.
I just thought that anyone resisting cultic loonies at least should have a thumbs up from someone. Still, It doesn't seem that Mormons and Jehovas Witnesses have been deterred by any reasonable persuasion; and I know from experience that you lot can't be.
Poor old Uncle Tom wasted his brains and time on you lot.
Poor old Uncle Tom rather would be sad that you ridicule those who apply his principles, including holding to the unanimous consensus of the Fathers. May I ask: what are we a cult of? Following the Fathers when they are unanimous, following the dogmatic decisions of the Popes, even if not per se infallible? Will you bring your scorning attitude from IA here?
-
Poor old Uncle Tom wasted his brains and time on you lot.
Poor old Uncle Tom rather would be sad that you ridicule those who apply his principles, including holding to the unanimous consensus of the Fathers. May I ask: what are we a cult of? Following the Fathers when they are unanimous, following the dogmatic decisions of the Popes, even if not per se infallible? Will you bring your scorning attitude from IA here?
I was a couple of years gently pointig out the inconsistencies, illogic and fallacies of your fad now I am tired of chasing your merry-go-round.
I don't know to whom you swapped your brains for this fad but I suspect that it was some imp who is still laughing at your credulity.
-
Those who ridicule Catholic faith in the traditional understanding of creation, bring ridicule on tradition itself. I would have thought that of all Catholic forums, Catholic info and IA members would be very careful at what teachings they laugh at, for in fact, if they laugh at one tenet of tradition, they are laughing at the credibility of all traditional teachings. It is difficult for me to understand such hypocracy, claiming to be a 'traditional' Catholic and making out part of that tradition to be the thinking of eejits. Moreover, the same people who ridicule any that adhere to Faith in this matter, NOT SCIENCE, would also give the impression they abhor Modernism. But the fact is, that I find no difference between Copernican Modernists and any other kind of Modernism.
As a back up to what I say, in spite of John's remarks about my referenceses, I shall quote from the consultant commissioned by the Holy Office in 1754 to examine the Galileo case, a Jesuit Pietro Lazzari, Professor of church history in the Roman College, a Copernican by the way,
Here in his report of 1755 you will see the birth of Modernism as it happened:
'Nor is it relevant to say that here one is dealing with the interpretation of Scripture and an opinion considered to be against the Faith. It would be unfortunate if, whenever there has been a consensus in the past, we try now to maintain the old shared opinions. Once it was common opinion, which was supported by citing Scripture, that the heavens were moved by intelligent beings. Thus at about the same time, in paragraph 4 of book 2 of his Philosophical Course, Cardinal Sfondrati said: "It was and is the opinion of almost all philosophers and theologians that the heavens are moved by intelligent beings; in question 6 of article 3 of De Potentia, St Thomas says that it belongs to the Faith." Who among the more erudite and enlightened philosophers or theologians holds it now? Nor do I think that a book denying it would represent a criticism of the Sacred Congregation.'
The LIE that Isaac Newton had proven the earth HAS TO MOVE, brought about this incredible loss of faith in the Catholic Church and plunged it into Modernism.
See how it eliminated the faith of the Fathers in many ways. See how a new Modenist hermeneutics was born and how it attacked every tenet of Catholic dogma after that. This thinking prevailed, got the approval of Pope Benedict XIV (a liberal by the way) and Modernism came into the Church as a result.
Here is another quote that John might object to, it confirms all I said above,
‘As a result of the collapse of geocentrism, which she has come to accept, the Church is now caught between her historic-dogmatic representation of the world’s origin, on the one hand, and the requirements of one of her most fundamental dogmas on the other – so that she cannot retain the former without to some degree sacrificing the latter… In earlier times until Galileo, there was perfect compatibility between historical representation and the Fall and dogmas of universal Redemption – and all the more easily too, in that each was modelled on the other…Today we know with certainty that the stellar universe is not centred on the earth, and that terrestrial life is not centred on mankind.’ --- Teilhard de Chardin. Christianity and Evolution, Collins, 1971, pp.36-38.
Yes, devotion to SCIENCE took over from Catholic faith. On forums like this hundreds vent anger at the current state of the Church, while some of those laugh at those who demonstrate the CAUSE of Modernism in our Church. I simply cannot understand it. It must be perfectly obvious to anybody with genuine Catholic faith that what caused Modernism to enter the Church needs to be taken very seriously in trying to understand the dilemma we are in today. And then I see the 'still deceived' doing their upmost to get neutrals to ignore the faith of the Fathers and continue to believe in the deceit in the the 'science' conjured up by the devil and his Freemasons of the Royal Society of London.
It must be the mystery of Iniquity, we will never understand it, will we?
-
I was a couple of years gently pointig out the inconsistencies, illogic and fallacies of your fad now I am tired of chasing your merry-go-round.
I don't know to whom you swapped your brains for this fad but I suspect that it was some imp who is still laughing at your credulity.
All you have pointed out all those years is your lack of understanding geocentrism, and the fact that you object to Trent condemning going against the unanimous consent of the Fathers and the 1633 condemnation, and the fact that the Church, at least officially, held to that until about the 1830s. All you also show is your littleness in stooping to such insults.
-
This thinking prevailed, got the approval of Pope Benedict XIV (a liberal by the way) and Modernism came into the Church as a result.
The problem with your position is that you only believe in the indefectibility of the Church when it helps your thesis. But those who believe it always applies, approach the matter with more care.
When the Church condemned the propositions, this could in my opinion best be understood as I explained in my earlier post, reproduced below. When the Church permits free discussion of both alternatives, she has made an implicit judgment which is also to be respected.
Just as no one can permit what the Magisterium forbids, no one can forbid absolutely what the Magisterium has permitted, by his own authority. If he wishes to do so, he must convince the authorities of the Church of it.
I do not say that Geocentrism is false, I even concede it is the more probable theological opinion in the absence of a demonstration the contrary (this is what St.Robert says), only that it is not a dogma.
St.Robert Bellarmine helps us understand the prudence and care with which we should approach this question.
I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown to me . . . . and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers.
Now, all of this is clearly not the way of speaking of something that is truly de fide, or which beyond all dispute is proved as belong to the deposit of revelation either from sacred Scripture or sacred Tradition. Can anyone imagine this illustrious Doctor of the Church saying, "If someone demonstrated that Jesus did not rise from the dead etc"? So, it must be concluded that Geocentrism is not considered as indisputably of the faith.
Yet, it is perhaps, from a theological standpoint, the more probable opinion, and therefore not to be abandoned until an actual demonstration has been produced to the contrary. In this light, I think the Holy Inquisition's condemnation is also understandable, because so long as the theory remained doubtful and was not actually and exactly proven, presenting it publicly as a fact could be legitimately proscribed.
St.Augustine, another bright light among the Doctors, long ago gives us an important rule in interpreting sacred Scripture, that we do not impose what the Church does not impose, we do not require confessions that the Church does not require, lest perhaps, both by introducing our own opinions, we introduce the divine faith to the scorn and derision of unbelievers, or even hinder the conversion of prospective converts through the stumbling block of requiring from them a profession of what does not pertain to the faith.
-
The Magisterium has already ruled on this issue in 1633. Heliocentrism (the sun is not moving and/or the earth revolves around the sun) has been condemned as bad doctrine! Or do you say this is not a ruling of the Magisterium because it is a condemnation by the Holy Office?
-
Or do you say this is not a ruling of the Magisterium because it is a condemnation by the Holy Office?
I say this,
"In this light, I think the Holy Inquisition's condemnation is also understandable, because so long as the theory remained doubtful and was not actually and exactly proven, presenting it publicly as a fact could be legitimately proscribed. "
And far more important than what I say, is what St.Robert says,
"if there were a true demonstration ... then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false ...
But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown to me . . . . and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers."
-
Do you then foresee a time when the Holy See will reverse its 1633 ruling that heliocentrism and acentrism was bad doctrine, contrary to the Holy Scripture and erroneous to faith at least?
-
QVP, I am merely saying that Geocentrism is the more probable theological opinion, and a less probable theological opinion when presented as fact could be legitimately censured by the authorities of the Church.
Edit: I cannot say for certain what will happen in the future, but it is quite possible the Church will decide infallibly in favor of one position and so close the question. For this, scientific and theological arguments in favor of that position would have to be presented to the authorities of the Church, rather than individual Catholics who may lack the theological and scientific competence to properly evaluate the alternatives being accused of heresy.
Unless I'm mistaken, I recall even you saying you don't believe the condemnation was infallible?
If St.Robert, learned in the Scriptures and the Fathers as he was, said he would be open to an actual demonstration to the contrary if it could be produced, why should we say any less?
Remember those who appeal to the Holy Inquisition's condemnation as being a proof that Geocentrism is de fide also have to contend with the Church's later implicit acceptance of the free discussion of the two opinions as well as Pope Benedict XV's statement. They cannot legitimately evade this by applying the Church's authority selectively to the one and not to the other.
-
You're right about that, but I also say that until no contrary decisions are made, the 1633 condemnation still stands, even if ignored and ridiculed; it is still binding on the faithful, even if they ignore it. Quietly dropping Copernican books from the Index does not constitute reversal of the decrees.
Does a mere opinion of a Pope in an encyclical which does not even deal in cosmology reverse a binding pronouncement by the Holy Office and confirmed by the Pope, the decision of which was sent throughout Europe, to princes and kings?
What is there to discuss: even hinting that the Church can make a mistake as to the interpretation of Scripture, particularly when one has the unanimous consensus of the Fathers, is bordering on heretical, if not outright heretical!
-
This thinking prevailed, got the approval of Pope Benedict XIV (a liberal by the way) and Modernism came into the Church as a result.
The problem with your position is that you only believe in the indefectibility of the Church when it helps your thesis. But those who believe it always applies, approach the matter with more care.
When the Church condemned the propositions, this could in my opinion best be understood as I explained in my earlier post, reproduced below. When the Church permits free discussion of both alternatives, she has made an implicit judgment which is also to be respected.
Just as no one can permit what the Magisterium forbids, no one can forbid absolutely what the Magisterium has permitted, by his own authority. If he wishes to do so, he must convince the authorities of the Church of it.
I do not say that Geocentrism is false, I even concede it is the more probable theological opinion in the absence of a demonstration the contrary (this is what St.Robert says), only that it is not a dogma.
St.Robert Bellarmine helps us understand the prudence and care with which we should approach this question.
I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown to me . . . . and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers.
Now, all of this is clearly not the way of speaking of something that is truly de fide, or which beyond all dispute is proved as belong to the deposit of revelation either from sacred Scripture or sacred Tradition. Can anyone imagine this illustrious Doctor of the Church saying, "If someone demonstrated that Jesus did not rise from the dead etc"? So, it must be concluded that Geocentrism is not considered as indisputably of the faith.
Yet, it is perhaps, from a theological standpoint, the more probable opinion, and therefore not to be abandoned until an actual demonstration has been produced to the contrary. In this light, I think the Holy Inquisition's condemnation is also understandable, because so long as the theory remained doubtful and was not actually and exactly proven, presenting it publicly as a fact could be legitimately proscribed.
St.Augustine, another bright light among the Doctors, long ago gives us an important rule in interpreting sacred Scripture, that we do not impose what the Church does not impose, we do not require confessions that the Church does not require, lest perhaps, both by introducing our own opinions, we introduce the divine faith to the scorn and derision of unbelievers, or even hinder the conversion of prospective converts through the stumbling block of requiring from them a profession of what does not pertain to the faith.
Hi Nishant. I am puzzelled by your first sentence above:
'The problem with your position is that you only believe in the indefectibility of the Church when it helps your thesis. But those who believe it always applies, approach the matter with more care.'
Is not my synthesis defending the indefectibility of the Church in all matters when I defend the 1616 decree against the farce that took place from 1741 to 1835 in Rome that undermined the indefectibility of that 1616 decree?
Moreover, it is with great care that I approached this matter, unlike the vast majority of Catholics these past 170 years. I have taken great care to separate official acts of the magisterium from 'imprimaturs' and speeches to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. But I have an advantage over all those these past 170 years, I have read many of the Church's docuмents over the matter not known or available until the archives were opened up and scholars like Maurice Finocchiaro translated them in English for us. I also know that science never proved geocentrism false. Note I did not say prove geocentrism correct, or falsify heliocentrism, I said science did not do what the Churchmen of 1741 to 1835 said it did that needed them to abandon the 1616 decree.
Now I shall answer your account of the case.
'When the Church condemned the propositions, this could in my opinion best be understood as I explained in my earlier post, reproduced below. When the Church permits free discussion of both alternatives, she has made an implicit judgment which is also to be respected.'
You produced a chosen passage from Cardinal Bellarmine - out of context as all apologists do - to make it look like the question of a geocentric interpretation was open to question in the Church.
It is twists like this that, produced in the docuмents of 1741 and 1820 that fooled the popes. Here Nishant, you are still under the impression it was an open question and still using it to undermine my synthesis. The falshood of an open question arises from the Church's allowing Copernicus's book as a 'hypothesis,' as a means for CALCULATION ONLY, not as a hypothesis to be proven true or not. To understand this you must read Osiander's preface to Copernicus's book that states the nature of this hypothesis very clearly.
As for Bellarmine letter you quote, let us see why it was written:
Then, in early 1615, Fr Foscarini sent a copy of his book to Cardinal Bellarmine seeking his opinion on it. Bellarmine’s reply, dated April 12, 1615, constitutes the showpiece docuмent of the whole Galileo affair, for it reflects the Church’s doctrinal and canonical position at the time which was quickly gathering momentum, crying for a resolution one way or another. Now it must be noted that by then the Cardinal, Chief Consulter of the Holy Office, had already concluded that Copernicanism was almost certainly heretical. Some weeks earlier Bellarmine’s personal opinion was reported to Galileo by Prince Ceisi (of the Academy of the Lynxes) in the following unmistakable terms:
‘With regard to the opinion of Copernicus, Bellarmine, who heads the Congregations that deal with such matters, told me himself that he holds it to be heretical, and that the doctrine of the earth’s motion is beyond all doubt whatever (senza dubbio aleuno) contrary to Scripture.’ --- Letter from Prince Cesi to Galileo on January 12, 1615, Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, Antonio Favaro, vol. X11, pp.129-131.
The passage you quote to try to convince readers that it was an open question is taken from the Letter to Foscarini written in 1615 (A YEAR BEFORE THE 1616 DECREE DOGMATISED THE GEOCENTRIC INTERPRETATION. It relates only to Galileo's ASSERTION THAT HE HAD PROOF FOR HELIOCENTRISM. Of course if Galileo had proof the interpretation would have had to be a heliocentric one. But Bellarmine reminds all, there was no such proof, so that scenario did not apply. It is like saying if someone had proof there was actually no virgin birth, then that revelation of Scripture would have had to be understood in a different manner, WHICH IT WOULD.
A year later, in 1616 the heresy was dogmatised. Your argument Nishant, wrong as it is, was further wrong in that the dogma was not defined until a year after you suggest it was not a dogma, which is true then, but not after 1616.
A week later, on the 5th March 1616, the Congregation of the Index published the decree as ordered by the Pope. This order, made public in 1640, began: ‘Since it has come to the knowledge of the above-named Holy Congregation that the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether opposed to the divine Scripture….’
Note carefully the heresy now explicitly condemned above was one attributed to the pagan Pythagoras (6th century BC) not Copernicus, thus an old doctrine, not a new one. Note also that no particular cosmic system was mentioned, just the principles of a fixed sun and moving earth.
St Augustine is also used to produce a false case for Copernicanism, just as St Bellarmine is, but it all falls apart when Augustine states the Scriptures cannot be re-interpreted unless there is CLEAR AND CERTAIN EVIDENCE FOR IT.
And please Nishant, do not use one Saint for one argument and then reject his opinion on another. Above you use Bellarmine to try to say it was an open question. Then you use St Augustine to try to suggest that the belief in geocentrism was not belonging to faith (see above in your post in blue). The hypocracy comes in when in the same Letter to Foscarini you quote, Bellarmine states quite clearly and shows why the matter of geocentrism DOES BELONG TO THE FAITH.
-
As for me not reading Copernicus, roscoe, I admit I don't care to, since Mr. Sungenis read it himself and even saw some of the original Latin copies. Also, you don't dispute the fact that Copernicus praised the sun-worshipping heliocentrists in his book.
The Forum is awaiting proof as to where Copernicus ' praised the sun-worshipping heliocentrists'.
As I came in late on this subject I read some of the earlier posts that I think should be answered. I believe there are good Catholics reading this thread who might welcome some insight into why the Galileo case became the most controversial incident in the history of the Church and human history, why it still generates so much attention. Please do take the time to read it and you will see how the Devil has been working throughout time, how he achieved his victory over the Church and how Catholics today still defend his illusion over the Scriptures, Revelation and the infallibility of the unanimous teaching of the Fathers:
The cult of the sun as master of ‘planet-earth’ originated in the main from the occult convictions of the post Noachian-flood Egyptians (2,941BC). It arises within the religion of Phallicism, the bond that unites all forms of idolatry into one great system. It stems directly from sun worship, heliolatry or light worship, e.g., Mithraism. It is evident that the learned of the heliolaters viewed the sun as the life source to all terrestrial creatures, the cause of all life and therefore divine. Accordingly, this paganism literally strove to regulate all places (a heliocentric order,) politics and religion in the image of their sun-deity. This priest-led cult included alchemy and magic, that is, a gnosis, an esoteric knowledge, a mode of indoctrination designed to overcome man’s fallen state and restore knowledge of all things enjoyed by Adam before the fall so that we can become like gods. This phenomenon is part of the 'as above, so below' philosophy.
Prominent in the Mysteries was sun worshipping with all its sɛҳuąƖ connotations. In the Bible (3 Kings 16:31-33) we are told of Baal, the sun god of the Phoenicians, characterised by the most scandalously impure rites. Then there were the sun gods of the Canaanites and Mithraists of Persia. Sun worshipping is condemned in the Scriptures (4 Kings 23:5-11; Wisdom, 13:2), the latter lesson repeated by St Paul in Romans 1:20, wherein he says ‘the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon’ were created as witness to their Creator and not ‘to be the gods that rule the world.’ The word Helios for sun comes from Helios the sun god, thus heliocentrism and heliolatry. Helios is the young Greek god of the sun. He is the son of Hyperion and Theia. The mysteries then spread east to Egypt where they reached their peak.
‘In 1460… a Tuscan monk rode unobtrusively into Florence on a donkey. Attached to his side was a bundle of cloth in which a small collection of books had been packed. Leonardo da Pistoia who had travelled a long way, took his precious cargo directly to the Doge of Florence, Cosimo de’ Medici. An intellectual nuclear bomb was about to explode.’ ---Graham Hancock & Robert Bauval: Talisman, Sacred Cities, Sacred Faith, Michael Joseph/Penguin Books, 2004, p.143.
On May 29, 1453, the ancient Egyptian city of Byzantium fell to the Ottoman Turks. Libraries were raided and ancient books became available for the first time in 1000 years. From these stores came the manuscripts purchased by Leonardo for the enormously wealthy Cosimo de’ Medici. The docuмents were said to contain divine wisdom, knowledge and teachings that came directly from Thoth, the wisdom god of the post-diluvian Egyptians, otherwise known to the Greeks as Hermēs Trismegistus (Hermēs Thrice Great), supposedly the greatest philosopher, priest and king who ever lived. Scholars now accept that these books - containing a synthesis of ancient hermetical magical, esoteric and philosophical systems - were in fact compiled in Alexandria in the first three centuries AD. This would explain similarities to be found in other composites of teachings known to have been written up at that time, those of the Christian heretics, the Gnostics, and those of Jєωιѕн rabbis who read hidden meanings into the Bible, the Cabbala or Kabbalah. These interpretations taught ‘a secret traditional lore, theological, metaphysical and magical.’ We see then that in the first centuries after Christ and the completion of the Sacred Scriptures, there was amassed a pot-puree of pagan, Jєωιѕн and Christian gnosis with the sole intent to pervert the true interpretation and teaching of the Old and New Testaments in order to confuse and undermine Christianity. History records that the Church reacted by condemning and suppressing all such books and, it could be said, over-reacted at times with the treatment meted out to the heretics themselves. Of interest to our thesis is how the sun was perceived. In Christianity, the sun, as Cardinal Bellarmine later described, is no more than a beautiful creature; a visible allegory of God as light.
‘Nothing is more beautiful than light, and God Himself, who is beauty itself, wanted to be called Light. Saint John says: “God is light, and in Him is no darkness” (1 Jn.1:5). Furthermore, there is no bodily object more luminous than the sun and, therefore, nothing is more beautiful than the sun. Besides that, the beauty of lower creatures and especially human beauty fade quickly, but the sun’s beauty is never extinguished, never lessened, and always gives joy to all things with equal splendour…’ St Robert Bellarmine: The Mind’s Assent to God (1614), republished by Paulist Press, Muhwah, New Jersey, USA, 1989.
In the beliefs of the ancient sun worshippers however, the sun is God, the giver of life. This false god of forces, Catholicism recognises as Satan. We believe this cult was assisted by the Devil to reflect two of his greatest inabilities by proxy; (1) to mimic the light of the Trinity for himself, and (2) to compensate for his most abject failing, his total inability to generate. In the sixteenth century then, this false god had returned to influence those who would try to map out the movements of the heavens, namely Copernicus, Bruno, Kepler, Galileo and Isaac Newton.
‘A section of the [hermetic] text which Lactantius called Sermo Perfectus (the Perfect Word) treats the sun as an intermediary between the divine light and the world, indeed as a second God… “…the Sun, or Light, for it is through the intermediary of the solar circle that light is spread to all. The Sun illuminates the other stars not so much by the power of his light as by his divinity and sanctity. He must be held as a second god. The world is living and all things in it are alive and it is the sun which governs all living things.” ’--- Jennifer Trusted: Physics and Metaphysics, Rutledge, London, 1991, p.37.
And it was this sun-centred magical plan contained in the Hermetic texts, this gnosis, that arrived on the back of a donkey into intellectual Europe. The timing was perfect, for the world was now ready for it, the revolt against Catholicism was in the air and all it needed was for someone to introduce this world-order revolution under the guise of science to give it credibility. The sun was not only on its way to become the dominant globe of a solar system that included the earth as a planet, but for many, even within the Catholic Church, the source of all life on earth as is reflected in modern cosmology and the evolutionary sciences. By placing the earth, the first created matter, into a solar system, Lucifer again shines and fecundates all by proxy as he did with the ancient pagans.
1473-1543
Nicolaus
Copernicus
‘New advances came from studying the sun and planets and stars. In this field the mighty discoverer was Nicolaus Copernicus, a Polish scholar who used all his powers of measuring and observing as well as that uncommon activity known as ‘thinking’ to prove that the sun was at the center of the universe.’ --- Geoffrey Blainey: A Very Short History of the World, Penguin Books, 2004, p.279.
So, what then did Copernicus find in the sky that led him to propose such a radical change of astronomical comprehension was necessary, that is, to move from a geocentric perspective to a heliocentric one? The answer is nothing, absolutely nothing. Yet most books on astronomy and popular history, such as in the opening quote of this chapter, asserts Copernicus ‘made new advances from studying the sun and planets and stars.’ They insist Copernicus differed from Hipparchus and Ptolemy in that unlike them, he used ‘that uncommon activity known as ‘thinking’ to prove that the sun was at the center of the universe.’ They exaggerate; Copernicus never had proof for his solar system. So from where did Copernicus get his inspiration for this ‘new advance’ in science if it was not by way of something found through astronomical observation and study? Perhaps the following quote from the introduction of his book can give us a clue.
‘In the centre of all rests the sun. For who would place this lamp of a very beautiful temple in another or better place than this whereupon it can illuminate everything at the same time. As a matter of fact, not unhappily do some call it the lantern, others the mind and still others, the pilot of the world. Trismegistus calls it a “visible god”; Sophocles’s Electra, “that which gazes upon all things.” And so the sun, as if resting on a kingly throne, governs the family of stars which wheel around.’ --- Nicolaus Copernicus, ‘De revolutionibus orbium coelestium’ in 1543.
Could anything be clearer, he got his inspiration for heliocentrism from the pagan cosmology of Hermēs Trismegistus. In fact all Copernicus’s ideas are spelt out in the Hermetic books. One treatise explicitly states that ‘the sun is situated at the centre of the cosmos, wearing it like a crown’ and ‘around the sun are the six spheres that depend from it: the sphere of the fixed stars, the six of the planets, and the one that surrounds the earth.’ It is well known that Copernicus copied the ancient hermetic texts because it and it alone, reflected a ‘harmony in the motion and magnitude of the orbs.’ Copernicus considered Ptolemy’s geocentric system, with its artificial equant, ‘lacked elegance,’ and was therefore too clumsy to be God’s design. He compared Ptolemy’s model to the hands, feet, head and other limbs of a man put together to make a monster rather than a thing of beauty. Yet what he was proposing in his heliocentric model, as can be seen in the dozens of drawings and hundreds of geometric proposals depicted through page after page in the six books of On the revolutions, was a solar system consisting of just as many, if not more, heads, ears, arms, hands, legs, knees, feet, toes and other appendages. Copernicus then, who, because there is not one astronomic discovery to this name, could not be labelled as a great astronomer in the proper sense of the word, was first and foremost an out and out Hermeticist, smitten by the magic of Hermēs.
‘In The Revolutions one of Copernicus’s deepest motivations for developing his sun-centred model was his belief that earlier interpreters of nature had produced a “translation” that was incoherent and aesthetically unappealing – one that did not do justice to the skill of the original Author Creator.’ ---Dennis Danielson: The First Copernican, p.53.
‘By 1543, the same year Copernicus’s famous Revolutions of the heavenly spheres was first published in Nuremberg, there were over fifty separate editions of the Hermetica circulating in Europe!’ ---Graham Hancock & Robert Bauval: Talisman, Sacred Cities, Sacred Faith, p.156
-
S is the center of solar system--- not universe.
-
Some readers may, for several reasons, skip lengthy posts. So I'd like to call attention to cassini's posts. Read them!
Copernicanism is not just one more of the many lies we're lavished with in virtually every area of modern life. Copernicanism is not just one more of some of the major and more successful lies, which are used to constantly brainwash our once Catholic western civilization. Copernicanism is the ignition charge of Protestantism, Liberalism, Modernism (and 'Practical Acordism').
cassini depicts the wider historical context, which is crucial to understand on the one hand the implications and the impact, and on the other hand the origins and the objective of Copernicanism.
(http://www.ordemeuniao.com.br/3.jpg)
Worshipping Lucifer.
-
--- relevant quotes (see here (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=14504&min=130&num=5)) ---
Conclusion: 1.) Renowned astronomers admit that the current model is based on an ideological choice. This choice is Friedmanns zweite Annahme (Friedmanns second assumption), which is the so called Copernican Principle, that reads: "The Church is wrong" (see Wikipedia: In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle, named after Nicolaus Copernicus, states that the Earth is not in a central, specially favored position.) Stephen Hawking says: We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty. Edwin Hubble basically says: We believe it, because we could not tolerate, that the Church is right.
2.) Renowned astronomers admit that there are observational facts suggesting geocentrism.
Please don't think I've ignored you. The post is just taking a while to write.
Not to hurry you, JohnGrey.
Just to remind others, who despise geocentrism, that we haven't yet read any usefull comment concerning the fact that the current model in astronomy is built on top of the arbitrary assumption "The Church is wrong". Astronomers are not able to prove that the Church is wrong, and they admit that they built the current model on a scientifically unacceptable principle. The objective being: Smack in the face of the Church.
-
Faber, Cassini, Quo Vadis Petre: I really enjoy reading your smart articles about Geocentrism. Gives a good introduction to the complex chapter. Thanks for it.
-
Faber, Cassini, Quo Vadis Petre: I really enjoy reading your smart articles about Geocentrism. Gives a good introduction to the complex chapter. Thanks for it.
You are very welcome Ethelred. If there is any question you want to know about the subject, no matter what, please ask it.
-
Some readers may, for several reasons, skip lengthy posts. So I'd like to call attention to cassini's posts. Read them!
Copernicanism is not just one more of the many lies we're lavished with in virtually every area of modern life. Copernicanism is not just one more of some of the major and more successful lies, which are used to constantly brainwash our once Catholic western civilization. Copernicanism is the ignition charge of Protestantism, Liberalism, Modernism (and 'Practical Acordism').
cassini depicts the wider historical context, which is crucial to understand on the one hand the implications and the impact, and on the other hand the origins and the objective of Copernicanism.
(http://www.ordemeuniao.com.br/3.jpg)
Worshipping Lucifer.
Yes Faber. And to back up what you say about Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ here is an interesting item from the popular book The Hiram Key of C. Knight & R. Lomas:
‘It is highly likely that Brother Bacon was the driving force behind the styling of the new second degree of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ introduced by his close colleague William Schaw. No one in the King’s group of Freemasons had more passion than Bacon for the advancement of science and the opening up of thinking about nature…The Second or ‘Fellow-Craft’ Degree of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ gives very little knowledge to the candidate but it does introduce the idea of ‘‘hidden mysteries of nature and science’’ and makes a clear reference to what is called the ‘‘Galilean Heresy.” Whilst we are certain that the central subject of this degree is as ancient as any in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, it nonetheless is evidently of much more recent construction due largely to Francis Bacon.’ --- Bacon’s Essays and Historical Works, Bohn’s Standard Library, quoted in C. Knight & R. Lomas: The Hiram Key, Century, 1996.
What then was the ritual for Bacon’s Second or ‘Fellow-Craft’ Degree of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ? Among other things there is a required session of prepared questions and answers:
‘Q. “Where were you made a Mason?”
A. “In the body of a Lodge, just perfect and regular.”
Q. “And when?”
A. “When the sun was at its meridian.”
Q. “As in this country Freemasons’ Lodges are usually held and candidates initiated at night, how do you reconcile that which at first sight appears a paradox?”
A. “The sun being a fixed body and the earth continually revolving about the same on its own axis, and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ being a universal science, diffused throughout the whole of the inhabited globe, it necessarily follows that the sun must always be at its meridian with respect to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.”
This reference is unlikely to have been inserted before 1610, the date when Galileo publicly announced his conviction that Copernicus was indeed correct in thinking that the earth revolved around the sun. Francis Bacon, we believe, immediately set about incorporating this new truth of nature into his recently created Second Degree.’ --Knight & Lomas: The Hiram Key, P.332.
And here is a comment on the Second Degree:
‘Although the Copernican Solar principle in lodge ritual may initially have appeared obsolete, it now seems that its inclusion is indeed significant. Far from denoting a limited extent of scientific knowledge, it is symbolic of the fact that, in the early days of the Indivisible College, embryonic Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ supported the science of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) when it was deemed outrageous and heretical, it was introduced as a statement of principle – a stance against nonsensical dogma – and this could remain the same today.’ --- Laurence Gardner: The Shadow of Solomon, p.250
-
My understanding is that the Prots Luther, Calvin, Bacon & Melanthon believed( like Cassini, Faber etc) that S rev around E.
-
A reminder to all what 'Copernicanism' is.
It is a 3 part doctrine that says
1--- E rev around S
2--- S is fixed
3-- S is center of U.
While article 1 has been shown to be correct, the same cannot be said for articles 2 & 3
-
A reminder to all what 'Copernicanism' is.
It is a 3 part doctrine that says
1--- E rev around S
2--- S is fixed
3-- S is center of U.
While article 1 has been shown to be correct, the same cannot be said for articles 2 & 3
Copernicanism is about the earth and about the Church of God. The sun is means. The rest of the universe doesn't matter.
Copernicanism is a postulate; it is the arbitrary assumption: "The Church is wrong".
See Wikipedia Copernican Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle): In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle, named after Nicolaus Copernicus, states that the Earth is not in a central, specially favored position.
Contemporary cosmology is built on the Copernican Principle, built on the arbitrary assumption that anything may be true, unless it is what the Church teaches. There is no other reason to state that "the Earth is not in a central, specially favored position" than opposition against the Church of God. Observations indicate, that the Church of God is right. Stephen Hawking and Edwin Hubble admit that. Still they cling to the arbitrary Copernican Principle.
You have been made aware of these facts. Yet your comments show that you seem to be unable to grasp them.
-
Taken as a whole, Copernicanism is indeed a false doctrine. Still, unless one thinks like the Prots Luther, Calvin, Bacon etc,---- E rev around S as has been proved by true science.
-
Catholics accepted the truth that the earth is central.
The fact that protestants believed the same thing does not suddenly make the truth of geocentrism into a protestant idea.
Luther and Calvin, etc., probably believed that 2+2=4
But 2+2 still=4, despite the acceptance of this fact by these heretics.
-
--- relevant quotes (see here (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=14504&min=130&num=5)) ---
Conclusion:
1.) Renowned astronomers admit that the current model is based on an ideological choice. This choice is Friedmanns zweite Annahme (Friedmanns second assumption), which is the so called Copernican Principle, that reads: "The Church is wrong" (see Wikipedia: In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle, named after Nicolaus Copernicus, states that the Earth is not in a central, specially favored position.) Stephen Hawking says: We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty. Edwin Hubble basically says: We believe it, because we could not tolerate, that the Church is right.
2.) Renowned astronomers admit that there are observational facts suggesting geocentrism.
Please don't think I've ignored you. The post is just taking a while to write.
Not to hurry you, JohnGrey.
Just to remind others, who despise geocentrism, that we haven't yet read any useful comment concerning the fact that the current model in astronomy is built on top of the arbitrary assumption "The Church is wrong". Astronomers are not able to prove that the Church is wrong, and they admit that they built the current model on a scientifically unacceptable principle. The objective being: Smack in the face of the Church.
In all of this, it comes to my attention that many observers of the discussion
may be overwhelmed with the profusion of names, dates and arguments going
one way or the other, to the point where they throw up their hands and say,
"This is all too much for me."
What if the building you are standing in were to suddenly fall down? You would
not appreciate that, obviously. Or if the bridge you're driving your car across
were to suddenly collapse. Ouch. But these things stand, and they do not fall,
because of engineering principles. Let me explain this a bit in more detail:
I would like to offer a point of view of everyday engineering. Whenever an
engineer designs a bridge, or a tower, example the San Francisco/Oakland Bay
Bridge or the Eiffel Tower in Paris, France, there is a technique called "taking
moments" where he can check his calculations based on forces multiplied by a
distance from a given point. A thousand pounds at 10 feet is ten thousand
foot-pounds.
(The Eiffel Tower was originally intended to only stand for a few decades, but
it is now over 100 years old and there are no plans to tear it down yet. People
still climb up in it and walk around under it, without fear, apparently.)
Now, every engineer knows, and you can ask them this and get a unanimous
assent, that it makes no difference where the point is about which you choose
to "take moments" because everything balances out. Everything has to balance
or else the theory is not possible in material reality. The taking of moments is
the same thing as the presumption that the point chosen is immovable, or
fixed in space, while everything around it can move as the forces at hand make
them move.
Applied to the solar system and even beyond, to the universe, this mathematical
tool (which is proven true and useful for all the buildings and bridges that are
standing in the world today) says, without any possibility of being "wrong" or
"merely a matter of your opinion," that it makes no difference what point you
choose to be stationary, that is, you can choose the sun to be motionless, or
you can equally choose the earth to be motionless, it makes no difference to
the "truth" of mathematics. To press the point home, you could choose any
one of our several planets (they like to say the number of planets is up for
revision at all times, so we can't really pick a number any more) to be the
motionless point, or the "center of the solar system." You can even choose our
own moon as the center, or for example, the Hubble Telescope currently in orbit
as the center of our solar system. It makes no difference mathematically.
And the same applies to the universe. We can call on any point we choose in the
universe to be the "motionless center" and no engineer, mathematician, or
astronomer could ever prove us wrong.
On a practical note, it is most amusing to me that at JPL, the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory in Pasadena, CA., where they keep track of rockets in outer space as
a matter of everyday activity, they presume that the earth is motionless. That's
right, they agree with the Church. But they do not readily admit the whole truth.
It's kind of an in-joke that nobody at JPL enjoys to laugh about. They kind of
smirk, and glance left and right, as geeks are wont to do anyway, so nobody pays
any attention to this odd behavior. They presume the earth is motionless, and not
the sun or whatever else you might dream up, because it makes their calculations
less complicated, and everyone likes to make the complex simple, if possible. End
of that story................
Therefore, it all comes down to the authority of the Church. For there is nothing
in science that can proclaim the Church wrong or correct on any matter of faith
or morals.
Maybe these points will be of some use for readers of this thread............
-
E rev around S as has been proved by true science.
If there was a scientific proof, that the Church is wrong, you'd simply present it. You'd find it on Wikipedia and on thousands of other sites on the internet.
If there was a scientific proof, Stephen Hawking would know it and mention it, instead of admitting in a million-seller book that there is no such proof.
I guess you're neither Newton nor Einstein nor Hawking. Still you tell us that there is a proof, that the Church is wrong.
Please realize that you have been brainwashed like I have been, and please start to ask and search for the proof. You have to wake up. You have been made to believe that there exists such a proof, but you have been fooled.
-
The sola scrptura Prots, Luther, Calvin, Bacon & Melanthon all believed that S rev around E. Apparently the heretics Einstien & Hawkings agree.
It is James Bradley with Newton who provide the true science proofs that E rev around S.
-
Catholics accepted the truth that the earth is central.
The fact that protestants believed the same thing does not suddenly make the truth of geocentrism into a protestant idea.
Luther and Calvin, etc., probably believed that 2+2=4
But 2+2 still=4, despite the acceptance of this fact by these heretics.
2+ 2 = 4 is not the topic under discussion.
-
E rev around S as has been proved by true science.
Science has never "proven" that heliocentrism is true. And science is not infallible either, it has been proven wrong many times.
I would obviously prefer to believe what the Catholic Church tells me, rather than what some atheist scientists try to tell me.
The Church condemned Galileo and his belief that the earth revolves around the sun, that's all there is to it.
-
Or Arian occultist like Newton (though if anyone would read Sungenis, they would see his principles do not invalidate geocentrism).
-
All I see, JohnGrey, is that your bias is towards modern science in opposition to at least 1500 years of the Church teaching geocentrism.
Standpoint of science? In the end, as you admit, according to relativity, both heliocentrism and geocentrism cannot be disproven.
In the end, it is a matter of philosophy: whether I believe the earth is not just the spiritual, but also physical center of the universe because Our Lord came down into the womb of the Blessed Virgin, or that the earth is no place special and thus just in a remote place, spinning aimlessly.
This is my last post on the subject; if you want to be truly open, get yourself a decent priced book from Sungenis (if you don't want the 2-volume work), otherwise no matter for me.
This is essentially what I was saying: in the end, it is a matter of philosophy, and
no matter how big your computer system or how advanced your mathematics or
how sophisticated your physics theory and particle accelerators are, you are never
going to be able to use any of it, or all of it, to answer any question of pure
philosophy, nor, for that matter, theology.
Philosophy is the handmaid of theology, and on a natural level it goes to serve
the achievement of sound theology, provided the philosophy is sound. Modern
philosophy is unsound by its core principles, and therefore by its whole development.
To ask a very good mathematician to answer a question proper to philosophy is
akin to asking a most excellent athlete to teach a class in analytical calculus, and
to put the math whiz on the track field for a final competition.
-
Mmm.
cassini, QVP, Faber and others, who have not appeared here, are an advertisement that Catholics are a bunch of superstitious idiots on about the same level as Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses etc.
I hope you chaps have no luck selling your defective goods at all.
-
Mmm.
cassini, QVP, Faber and others, who have not appeared here, are an advertisement that Catholics are a bunch of superstitious idiots on about the same level as Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses etc.
I hope you chaps have no luck selling your defective goods at all.
Albert Einstein, Max Born, Edwin Hubble, Stephen Hawking, and other mainstream astronomers are not generally thought of as a bunch of superstitious idiots. Still they reject what had been seen as "the proof of Bradley":
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.)
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: "Einstein's Theory of Relativity", Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344, 345
As you start calling us a bunch of superstitious idiots, it seems necessary to make you aware that folks like roscoe and you, who cling to 17th and 18th century physical models, that have been discarded by the scientific community, are called cranks in academic circles.
-
And I hope very few will take you seriously, oldavid. From day 1 debating geocentrism, you haven't brought a shred of evidence discrediting geocentrism, just only your own deep prejudices against it.
-
Mmm.
cassini, QVP, Faber and others, who have not appeared here, are an advertisement that Catholics are a bunch of superstitious idiots on about the same level as Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses etc.
I hope you chaps have no luck selling your defective goods at all.
Jansenist would be a good way to describe them.
-
roscoe, you don't even know the meaning of the word.
-
Roscoe thinks you're a Jansenist if you don't approve of marijuana or the dirtbag Beatles. :smoke-pot:
-
Mmm.
cassini, QVP, Faber and others, who have not appeared here, are an advertisement that Catholics are a bunch of superstitious idiots on about the same level as Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses etc.
I hope you chaps have no luck selling your defective goods at all.
The ethical limitations of science come from within two spiritual faculties, understanding and will. It must be said here that ethics is more important for mankind than science. History reveals this fact for all to see, whether Christian or rationalist. The happiness of peoples rests in moral rectitude not in scientific progress. We should conclude from this that if ever there should be a conflict between science and ethics the latter should prevail.
Anti-Christian science has surrounded itself with a number of boundary stakes driven into scientific ground, and has thus limited its own freedom of progress and growth. The ‘science without presupposition’ is entangled in its own axiom, and for no other reason than its aversion to Christianity. On the other hand, the scientist who accepts the teaching of Christ need not fall back on a single arbitrary postulate. If he/she is a philosopher, one starts from the premises dictated by reason. In the world around us we recognise the natural revelation of a Creator, and by logical deductions concluded from the contingency of things created to the Being Uncreated. The same reasoning gives us an understanding of the spirituality and immortality of the soul. From both results combined we concluded further to moral obligations and the existence of the natural law. Thus prepared one can start into any scientific research without the necessity of erecting boundary stakes for the purpose of justifying any prejudices. If one wants to go further and put our faith upon a scientific basis, we may take the books called the Sacred Scriptures as a starting point, apply methodical criticism to their authenticity, and find them just as reliable as any other historical record. Their contents, prophecies, and miracles convince us of the Divinity of Christ, and from the testimony of Jesus Christ we accept the entire supernatural revelation. We have constructed the science of our faith without any other than scientific premises. Thus the science of the Christian is the only one that gives freedom of research and progress; its boundaries are none but the pale of truth. Anti-Christian science, on the contrary, is the slave of its own preconceived ethics, and from such prejudiced axioms and suppositions are derived the heliocentric system and much of the cosmological and evolutionary ‘sciences’ propagated today.
The demand for unlimited freedom in science is unreasonable and unjust, because it always leads to licence and rebellion. There is no unlimited freedom in the world and liberty overstepping its boundaries inevitably leads to evil. Freedom is not the greatest boon or the final end of man; it is given to us as a means to reach our end. Within our own mind, man feels bound to truth. As we see nature around us bound to certain laws, we know we too must remain within certain laws. But these judgments are the best that are formed in accordance with the rules of logic. Opinions are free only where certainty cannot be reached. Scientific theories are free as long as they rest on probabilities. It is ironic that the freest of all in their thinking are the ignorant. The more freedom of opinion, the less science we have.
The long held cry for anti-Christian or unlimited freedom in science is for licence. Whenever science steps outside of the constraints of the logical, the physical and the ethical, it falls into error, into misfortune, into licence. This may be summed up by saying that unlimited freedom in science is a rebellion against both supernatural and natural revelation. If God pleases to reveal Himself in any way whatever, man is obliged to accept the revelation, and no arbitrary axiom will dispense him from this duty. When anti-Christian science repudiates the claim of Jesus Christ as Son of God, it necessarily repudiates the Father Who sent Him, and the Holy Ghost Who proceeds from both. Anti-Christian science, we find, leads to atheism. There is no such thing as ‘natural’ atheism for all people are born with an inherent yearning towards God. Atheism is an acquired state, and one has to work hard to sustain it. Atheism, in the main, is one of the more diabolical products of the Copernican revolution. In the face of the natural law, however, which binds man to know and serve our Creator, pleading ignorance of the triune God is as much a rebellion against Him as shutting Him out of the world. Once God is excluded then there is need of an idol; the necessity lies in human nature. The idol created by anti-Christian science - the emancipation of the mind and will from God, from idealism to subjectivism - is the human ego. Science that is changed then is not developed but abandoned. Similarly faith changed is faith abandoned. True development is shown in the parable of the mustard seed that grows into a tree without destroying the organic connection between the root and the smallest branches.
It is true that the believer is less free in his knowledge but only because he knows more. The unbeliever has only one source of knowledge; the believer has two. Logic will indicate both should be used to establish the infallible truth. Blind acceptance of dogmas and submission to non-scientific authority is said to be contrary to the dignity of science. Hence another supposed conflict between faith and science. The answer to this accusation is that it is what injures the dignity of science that constitutes the conflict, things such as the endorsement of errors, sham theories and arbitrary postulates. None of these qualifications is found in faith. In the faith there is the highest logical truth (infinite wisdom), the highest ontological truth (the infinite being), and the highest moral truth (infinite veracity). Bowing to such authority, infinitely beyond human science, is so much in harmony with sound reason. The dignity of science is indeed overshadowed by the dignity of faith, yet by no means degraded. As far as scientific facts are concerned, we can be assured that so far, none of them has ever been in contradiction with any official teaching of the Church. In case of an apparent difference between faith and science, as St Augustine said, we may take the following position; when a religious view is contradicted by a properly established scientific fact, then there has to be a re-examination of the source for this view. Until the matter is clarified the point remains an open question. But when a clearly defined dogma contradicts a scientific assertion, the latter has to be abandoned or revised whereupon it will surely be found to be premature in its claims.
Suffice to say that the final objection of the sceptics to the above will be to assert that such a view of faith and science is discredited by history. There have been many fables invented for this purpose, but when examined they prove to be untrue. In reply, the Galileo affair - a case in which it can be said that the Church did condemn heliocentricism outright as heretical and false philosophy - is often portrayed as an undeniable exception, docuмented in thousands of books touching on the subject of faith and science, one that even popes, historians, theologians, scientists, scholars, teachers etc., have admitted for nearly three centuries, albeit saying it is the only case of its kind in the history of the Church. But we say that even one such error would falsify the divine protection afforded the Church by the Holy Ghost. Thus we must repeat, when a clearly defined doctrine contradicts a scientific assertion, the latter has to be re-examined and it will be found to be a false statement, without any real verification or proof. Had those Churchmen done this in 1741, 1820-22 or even 1981-92 in the light of faith and confidence in its Catholic truth, as was their duty, it would have been found that in 1616 Mother Church did properly define that the Bible does assert a moving, orbiting sun around the earth of life that occupies the centre of the universe, and the Church did properly defend its teaching of this in 1633, and because there cannot be conflict between the Bible, truth and science, Copernicanism should again have been found to be what it is and will always be, a heresy and false scientific claim without any real or possible verification or proof.
-
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Einstien believed E rev around M.
-
We've been through this before, cassini.
Facts are not determined by volume of words.
Tell us again why the Universe is not governed by intelligent, intelligible laws.
-
oldavid, out with your old canard and assumption. You haven't proven in any way that geocentrism portrays the universe as not being governed "by intelligent, intelligible laws." Again, you show your lamentable prejudices and vincible ignorance. Your arguments haven't changed one iota and our rebuttals have not lost an ounce of their force, no matter your stubbornness in denying it.
-
We've been through this before, cassini.
Facts are not determined by volume of words.
Tell us again why the Universe is not governed by intelligent, intelligible laws.
Unlike you Oldavid, rhetoric has no place in this serious debate for us. In such a complicated history, wherein the Devil fooled popes into Modernism, Catholics need a clarification of certain aspects of this Trogan Horse. Any Catholic worth their salt should find time to read how the Devil works so that they can understand how to make CATHOLIC CHOICES. Hopefully they will see today's Copernicans continue the Devil's work by bullying and trying to undermine explanations by trying to make any who even consider a geocentric revelation out to be an idiot for even considering the Church's official stance taken in 1616 and 1633.
In April 1624, having arrived in Rome, Galileo got his long awaited audience with Pope Urban VIII. This was the first of six private audiences and while they were said to be amicable, we read that the Pope and Galileo did discuss the banned doctrine of heliocentrism among other things. Throughout their talks however, Urban VIII, in various ways, tried to convince Galileo that God, in His infinite power and wisdom, was not restricted by man’s known or contrived physics when it came to ordering the motions of the heavens. He may well, the Pope argued, if and where He uses secondary causes, have created the universe on the solid foundations of physics undreamed of in human minds, and set the sun, moon and stars in motion according to laws man might never discover. The Pope was telling Galileo (and for that matter all who would follow him from Newton to Hawking) that he had a long way to go to discover the mind of God.
In other words Oldavid, if you believe in an omnipotent God, He could be using His will and his angels to move the cosmos. But as a Copernican, this option is not 'intelligible' enough for you. No, you want 'LAWS.' Indeed, such is your need, like the Freemasons of history, that Newton's THEORY of universal gravity will do as a LAW for you.
But now you challenge the FAITH of those who accept Revelation rather than theory to back up what they believe in with an intelligent LAW for geocentrism. You hypocrite. There is no LAW known to mankind that could account for the movements of the sky. But we can give you a THEORY or two, just to show theories ARE TWO A PENNY.
At first Kepler thought the heavens were moved by angels. When Kepler tried to explain by mechanics how a planet moves in its orbit, he thought there must be some force constantly pushing the planet from behind.
Any Other ‘Scientific’ Theories for ‘Universal Gravity?’ Any theory for a geocentric order?
‘Non-equilibrium is a pre-requisite for movement in all its forms, and therefore a state of equilibrium is impossible in Nature.’ --- Callum Coats: Living Energies, Gateway Books, UK, 1996, pp. 65-66.
Now if Newton's theory was/is the only theory that could account for the phenomenon of apples falling to the ground; that would indeed have to elevate it into a ‘probable’ class. So, was the theory that said the apple is pulled to the ground the only theory that saved the appearance? Is the only way for an apple to fall to the ground if it is pulled down? We have put this simple question to many - even some at a university lecture that would like to believe they understand how Newton’s theory works - but rarely did we receive the right answer. The hard fact is, of course, apples falling to the ground might well be pushed down. In other words gravity could well be a pushing effect not a pulling effect.
And so we come to a pushing force for gravity instead of a pulling force. We introduce this particular section only as a means to further undermine the claim that Newton established true causes for heliocentricism. The ideas we shall now consider are almost certainly as big a load of moonshine as Newton’s and are not offered to readers as a true alternative or falsification but only to show that scientific theories can be invented at will.
By 1781, George Louis Le Sage (1724-1803) had completed an alternative thesis to the very same advanced level as Newton’s - a pushing force theory for moving celestial bodies. He proposed space is filled with countless infinitesimal particles termed ‘ultra mundane Corpuscles’ and these push planets in their orbits. These corpuscles, he posed, are in extremely rapid motion, analogous to molecules in a gas, and which tr¬averse in a criss-cross action in straight lines throughout the universe. The corpuscles move with tremendous speed in all directions, penetrating matter, but meeting some resistance in doing so. The consequences of this would mean the corpuscles are acting as a pushing force by colliding against all physical, material objects in the universe. The crucial factor in this theory is one of non-equilibrium, the positioning of cosmic bodies in the system relative to each other. If the pressure is the same on the surface of a sphere it goes nowhere. If however, something shields the pressure of the ‘ultra mundane Corpuscles’ on any part of that sphere it would move due to ‘non-equilibrium’. Here then is another theory for a cause for gravity whose effect would be exactly the same as the pulling theory finally proposed by Newton.
Then there was René Descartes’s ‘vortex theory’. The supposed formulator of analytic geometry explained planetary motion as the result of vortices or whirlpools sweeping the planets around the sun and the moons around the planets [like Einstein proposed later]. Newton however, dismissed the idea stating that: ‘Descartes’s vortex theory is in complete conflict with the astronomical observations, and instead of explaining celestial motions, merely confuses our ideas about them’.
So, what happened to Le Sage’s and other theories? Well there are two answers to this question, one at the ‘scientific’ level, and the other is ideological. One eliminates a scientific theory by falsifying it. In this case however, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), who, like many other eminent scientists, could find nothing wrong with the dynamics nor the mathematics of Le Sage’s theory, postulated that the collisions between the hypothetical particles and solid matter would, over long periods of time, involve a heat transfer sufficient to melt plan¬etary objects. This was enough, and coming as it did from a fellow and president of the Royal Society, the theory was treated as falsified. Later again however, as is prone to happen in theoretical physics, Le Sage’s theory, they decided, is not untenable according to modern physics. The science, and again I stress, for what it is worth, now holds that such particle collisions can be ‘elastic’ on contact and thus avoid any degradations of flux energy to heat. Le Sage’s theory, they now hold, would not melt planetary bodies so why wasn’t it readmitted as a possible scientific theory for cosmic movement.
‘A rather wild theory was put forward by Le Sage…Professor de Sitter has tested the idea by examining whether there is any weakening in the Sun’s attraction on the Moon at a time when the Moon is in the Earth’s shadow. He does actually find some evidence of such a weakening, but it is too minute to be certain about. The fantastic nature of Le Sage’s theory is evidence of the extreme difficulty of the problem. It is curious to reflect that we are still as ignorant of the nature of the force that draws a stone to the Earth as men were in the dawn of history.’ ---Dr. A.C.D. Crommelin: Diamonds in the Sky, Collins, London, 1940, p.49.
And if we are still in ignorance of the cause of gravity we witness and can measure as it happens, then how can they tell us this same gravity operates a heliocentric solar system? Consult any textbook and we will find Newton’s universal gravitation theory, affirmed heliocentricism and was accepted and adopted from the moment Newton’s Principia was published. The establishment had no need for any logic or ideas that could be used to deny the Earthmovers and Sun Fixers their victory, and the Royal Society made sure that anyone who might propose otherwise would not get too far with it. Everything except their own ‘laws’ was abandoned on ideological grounds and little else. Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the Earthmovers’ revolution.
‘This method, of which the germ was contained in the scientific revolution initiated at the turn of the seventeenth century by Francis Bacon and which has since been adopted by every branch of science and by countless pseudo-sciences such as politics, economics, the social sciences, and even art, religion, ethics and psychology, is as follows. Take a phenomenon that can be observed, produce a mathematical measurement for it that fits, concoct a hypothesis which, however far fetched, could possibly account for the phenomenon, and finally call the hypothesis and the mathematical formula that supports it a law and regardless of whether or not there is any theoretical justification for it whatever, apply it throughout the universe. And that is all that the famous Law of Gravitation consists of.’ --- Martin Gwenne.
-
For those who hold that geocentrism is de fide, would you then consider the Church in the couple centuries or so before Vatican II to be in formal heresy for allowing the opinion that the earth revolves around the sun? Also, how do you explain this statement of Pope Benedict XV?:
If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ. (In Praeclara Summorum 4)
Did he commit formal heresy/mortal sin by admitting the possibility that the earth may not be at the centre of the universe?
At this point, I'm actually learning towards the geocentric model. I can see the point that it's more in line with what Scripture, Tradition and the Church Fathers say; that there's no solid proof of heliocentrism vis a vis geocentrism; and that the adoption of heliocentrism and consequent denigration of geocentrism marked the first real victory of the forces of atheistic philosophy over the scriptural worldview. All of this would seem to favour the geocentric model over the heliocentric model as the model of the universe that should be favoured by Catholics.
But I find the implications of those who insist that geocentrism is a dogma of the Faith quite disturbing. They would effectively be accusing the Church of being in formal heresy for the 200 years or so before Vatican II, since at least the time of Pope Benedict XIV, who suspended the decrees of the Congregation of the Index of Forbidden Books against heliocentric works (1757). Quite frankly, I think they would be more effective if they didn't insist upon what the Church, even in the centuries leading up to Vatican II, clearly did not insist upon.
-
Even if obscured by deceit, etc., the Church's 1633 condemnation hasn't been rescinded. What culpability there is among Churchmen in hiding this I'll leave up to God. But there does seem to be a mentality among even traditional Catholics that believing only de fide dogmas is enough; the rest are optional. Which is of course wrong! I don't claim it to be de fide, but I repeat: it doesn't matter, since the condemnation is still authoritative enough for all Catholics to hold firmly. What would we think of a Catholic who says he believes all the Catholic Church has taught and yet he doesn't believe that life begins at conception ("Nancy Peℓσѕι, I'm looking at you," to quote Gary Potter)?
-
Those who demand geocentrism as dogma are just as obnoxious as Galileo demanding heliocentrism as dogma-- true science has now shown that both S, E & M are in motion. The 1616 indictment of Galileo would not even have happened if he had spoken hypothetically like Copernicus.
-
So you are one of those Catholics who believe dogma changes, at least so-called lesser authoritative teachings? No wonder! You might as well say you are a pick-and-choose Catholic.
-
I don't want to re-copy the whole post, which is quite interesting, but I would
like to comment on this one sentence:
‘Non-equilibrium is a pre-requisite for movement in all its forms, and therefore a state of equilibrium is impossible in Nature.’ --- Callum Coats: Living Energies, Gateway Books, UK, 1996, pp. 65-66.
Re-stated, movement in all its forms (that covers a lot!) absolutely requires
the absence of equilibrium (that is a UNIVERSAL statement!). Therefore a state
of equilibrium is impossible in Nature.
This can actually be translated into a syllogism:
The existence of a region of true and perfect equilibrium, would require in its
domain, the absolute absence of movement.
But we know that movement exists universally, because we can observe it
happening in truth, all around us, everywhere we look, and this observed
movement is part of nature.
Therefore, a state of true and absolute equilibrium is impossible in nature.
The major premise is divisible into another syllogism:
True and perfect equilibrium, and movement, are theoretical possibilities in nature.
But true and perfect equilibrium and movement are mutually exclusive.
Therefore, the existence of a region of true and perfect equilibrium, would require
in its domain, the absolute absense of movement.
Even so, the major premise of the second syllogism is divisible into yet another:
True and perfect equilibrium is a theoretical possibility in nature.
But movement is something that we can observe in nature.
Therefore, true and perfect equilibrium, and movement, are theoretical possibilities
in nature.
Even so, the major premise of the third syllogism is divisible into yet a fourth:
Perfect equilibrium is something imaginable in nature.
But that which is imaginable has a theoretical reality in truth.
Therefore, true and perfect equilibrium is a theoretical possibility in nature.
Perhaps it is getting evident that there is practically no limit to the layers and
abstraction that can be achieved by dividing syllogisms. This is not the activity
of mathematics, or of science, or of physics, or of astronomy. Rather, it is the
activity proper to philosophy. Philosophy is a higher activity than either
mathematics or science, even though, properly applied, it can be quite useful
in these disciplines, as well as in all other disciplines.
The question of whether the earth moves and the sun does not move, or,
whether it is the sun that moves and the earth that does not, or, whether both
the earth and sun move but something else in the universe does not move:
these are not questions for mathematics nor physics nor astronomy nor
engineering nor chemistry nor physiology nor sociology nor political science
to answer, but rather it is the type of question for philosophy to answer.
This means, that you will never find a scientist or a mathematician or a physicist
or an astronomer or a politician or an international banker or any other kind of
expert to satisfactorily answer this question. The only person that could be
capable of answering it would be a philosopher. But that does not mean that a
philosopher could ever do so. All it means is that no one else is capable of
providing the correct answer, while at least a philosopher has the possibility of
doing so.
We get into trouble, perhaps serious trouble, or even fatal trouble, when we
rely on non-philosophers, or bad philosophers to answer important
philosophical questions, e.g., Carl Sagan; Immanuel Kant. (In English, a good
answer is provided by the sound of the latter's own surname!)
For those who hold that geocentrism is de fide, would you then consider the Church in the couple centuries or so before Vatican II to be
in formal heresy for allowing the opinion that the earth revolves around the sun?
Also, how do you explain this statement of Pope Benedict XV?:
If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined
by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets
and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental
principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its
parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who
moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno
altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of
the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original
happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the
redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ. (In
Praeclara Summorum 4)
Did he commit formal heresy/mortal sin by admitting the possibility that the earth may not be at the centre of the universe?
It seems to me not, because while the doctrine of geocentrism may appear to be
de fide, it has not been defined ex cathedra, and therefore would seem to be
something like proxima fide or some lesser degree below ex cathedra. And since
Pius XI was not emphatic but literally vague, "...may not be the centre of
the universe...," it seems to me that he was not clearly departing from dogma but
rather was expressing his personal opinion on the matter. Notice, he did not
attach any anathema to this statement, nor did he surround it with any of the
notes of authority whatsoever.
At this point, I'm actually learning towards the geocentric model. I can see the point that it's more in line with what Scripture, Tradition and the Church Fathers
say; that there's no solid proof of heliocentrism vis a vis geocentrism; and
that the adoption of heliocentrism and consequent denigration of geocentrism
marked the first real victory of the forces of atheistic philosophy over the
scriptural worldview. All of this would seem to favour the geocentric model over
the heliocentric model as the model of the universe that should be favoured by
Catholics.
But I find the implications of those who insist that geocentrism is a dogma of the
Faith quite disturbing. They would effectively be accusing the Church of being in
formal heresy for the 200 years or so before Vatican II, since at least the time of
Pope Benedict XIV, who suspended the decrees of the Congregation of the Index
of Forbidden Books against heliocentric works (1757).
Quite frankly, I think they would be more effective if they didn't insist upon what
the Church, even in the centuries leading up to Vatican II, clearly did not insist
upon.
Well, if you're "leaning towards the geocentric model," do you mind if I "lean
towards your last two paragraphs?" HAHAHAHA
-
Daaarrrrr: I messed up...........
It seems to me not, because while the doctrine of geocentrism may appear to be
de fide, it has not been defined ex cathedra, and therefore would seem to be
something like proxima fide or some lesser degree below ex cathedra. And since
Pius XI was not emphatic but literally vague, "...may not be the centre of
the universe...," it seems to me that he was not clearly departing from dogma but
rather was expressing his personal opinion on the matter. Notice, he did not
attach any anathema to this statement, nor did he surround it with any of the
notes of authority whatsoever.
Should have said:
It seems to me not, because while the doctrine of geocentrism may appear to be
de fide, it has not been defined ex cathedra, and therefore would seem to be
something like proxima fide or some lesser degree below ex cathedra. And since
Benedict XV was not emphatic but literally vague, "...may not be the centre of
the universe...," it seems to me that he was not clearly departing from dogma but
rather was expressing his personal opinion on the matter. Notice, he did not
attach any anathema to this statement, nor did he surround it with any of the
notes of authority whatsoever.
And further back in the same post:
This means, that you will never find a scientist or a mathematician or a physicist
or an astronomer or a politician or an international banker or any other kind of
expert to satisfactorily answer this question. The only person that could be
capable of answering it would be a philosopher. But that does not mean that a
philosopher could ever do so. All it means is that no one else is capable of
providing the correct answer, while at least a philosopher has the possibility of
doing so.
Should have said:
This means, that you will never find a scientist or a mathematician or a physicist
or an astronomer or a politician or an international banker or a lawyer or a
medical doctor or any other such kind of expert to satisfactorily answer this
question. The only person that could be capable of answering it would be a good
philosopher, or perhaps a good theologian, because philosophy is the handmaid of
theology. But that does not mean that the philosopher or theologian would
satisfactorily answer this question. All it means is that no one else is capable of
providing the correct answer, while at least the philosopher or theologian
possesses the potency for doing so.
-
But there does seem to be a mentality among even traditional Catholics that believing only de fide dogmas is enough; the rest are optional. Which is of course wrong! I don't claim it to be de fide, but I repeat: it doesn't matter, since the condemnation is still authoritative enough for all Catholics to hold firmly. What would we think of a Catholic who says he believes all the Catholic Church has taught and yet he doesn't believe that life begins at conception ("Nancy Peℓσѕι, I'm looking at you," to quote Gary Potter)?
I never said that one only had to believe de fide dogmas. But clearly, if even the pre-Vatican II popes have said that it is permissible to say that the earth is not at the center of the universe, then clearly it cannot be said to be binding on the consciences of all Catholics like the idea that human life begins at conception, which I have never seen a pre-Vatican II pope deny or say that it was permissible to hold the opposite opinion.
-
What culpability there is among Churchmen in hiding this I'll leave up to God.
Also, I would caution you about this line of thinking. I'd say it's rather bold for an armchair theologian like yourself to sit back and say, 'I'm right, the popes (when they addressed this issue) are wrong, and I'll leave their judgment up to God'. Are you honestly insinuating that the popes prior to Vatican II were guilty of formal, or at least material, heresy? Are you saying that you're a better judge in these matters than them?
-
For those who hold that geocentrism is de fide, would you then consider the Church in the couple centuries or so before Vatican II to be in formal heresy for allowing the opinion that the earth revolves around the sun? Also, how do you explain this statement of Pope Benedict XV?:
If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ. (In Praeclara Summorum 4)
Did he commit formal heresy/mortal sin by admitting the possibility that the earth may not be at the centre of the universe?
At this point, I'm actually learning towards the geocentric model. I can see the point that it's more in line with what Scripture, Tradition and the Church Fathers say; that there's no solid proof of heliocentrism vis a vis geocentrism; and that the adoption of heliocentrism and consequent denigration of geocentrism marked the first real victory of the forces of atheistic philosophy over the scriptural worldview. All of this would seem to favour the geocentric model over the heliocentric model as the model of the universe that should be favoured by Catholics.
But I find the implications of those who insist that geocentrism is a dogma of the Faith quite disturbing. They would effectively be accusing the Church of being in formal heresy for the 200 years or so before Vatican II, since at least the time of Pope Benedict XIV, who suspended the decrees of the Congregation of the Index of Forbidden Books against heliocentric works (1757). Quite frankly, I think they would be more effective if they didn't insist upon what the Church, even in the centuries leading up to Vatican II, clearly did not insist upon.
Ok then, each post in turn. First thank you Neil for a most intelligent and Catholic posting on the subject. Forgive me if others have covered your question and you have gone on, but I read each post as it comes, answer it and then move on to the next post.
First something we Catholics must recognise:
In 1616 God in His Providence permitted His Church to make a definitive geocentric reading of Scripture, a fact now totally denied since 1835 if not before. Of profound importance then was to find the Church as the Church came through our investigation as the Spotless Spouse of Christ that it is. Not once did we find any pope officially deny or abrogate the 1616 decree, nor did any pope actually give Galileo a retrial at which, in Newtonian ignorance, he would more than likely have officially exonerated him. To witness the silence and steadfastness of the Church, as distinct from the utterances of churchmen in regards to the definition and declaration of 1616, surely provides irrefutable proof of the Church’s divine protection. Nowhere did we find an official denial, that is, an abrogation of the 1616 decree’s immutability that could, in the light of there never being any proof, have been a genuine breach of papal infallibility. What a great joy it was to see such divine protection prevailing throughout centuries of human chaos.
And your question Neil has TWO answers. Formal heresy is one that DELIBERATELY and CONSCIOUSLY rejects a dogma, a confirmed doctrine. Given popes believed science did falsify a geocentric interpretation, they had no choice but to believe it and abandon the geocentric truth. Thus they were guilty of no more than material heresy, no blame, no punishment in the event that they were wrong. That is inculpable ignorance.
But once you have been told, or even if you are aware that science did not falsify that papal decree, surely that changes the nature of the heresy. Some continue to chose heliocentrism and ridicule those who chose to believe the Church's decree etc., so it may well be their heresy is now deliberately choosen and back to formal heresy.
-
And your question Neil has TWO answers. Formal heresy is one that DELIBERATELY and CONSCIOUSLY rejects a dogma, a confirmed doctrine. Given popes believed science did falsify a geocentric interpretation, they had no choice but to believe it and abandon the geocentric truth. Thus they were guilty of no more than material heresy, no blame, no punishment in the event that they were wrong. That is inculpable ignorance.
First of all, I'm not 'Neil'. Second, you've just accused the popes after 1835 of being material heretics. So you claim to know better than the pre-Vatican II popes on this matter. Interesting.
Quo Vadis Petre, would you agree with him on that, that the popes were guilty of material heresy?
Quite frankly, at this point, I don't think there's anything more to say. You can either admit that the popes were better judges than you in this matter, or you can keep following Sungenis as your prophet. There's not much else I could say that would change your minds on this topic. Thumb me down all you want, but clearly the error lies with those who insist that geocentrism is something that all Catholics are obligated to believe as a matter of faith, and not with me or with the pre-Vatican II popes. I'll take the judgment of the popes over your personal judgment any day.
-
Common sense naturally inclines to the geocentrist view.
Everyone with eyes knows the sun rising in the morning.
Traveling over the sky it warms us and the plants,
setting westward for vespers.
The great moon, sometimes golden round
large at the horizon
floats into the night sky becoming white and bright.
Sometimes showing his profile, Mr. Moon is an interesting figure.
Stars turn to us their constellation lines, they don't rotate themselves distorting Orion or the big dipper.
Its all for us, this beauty, this warming, the lighting of the night sky.
We are loved profoundly.
-
And your question Neil has TWO answers. Formal heresy is one that DELIBERATELY and CONSCIOUSLY rejects a dogma, a confirmed doctrine. Given popes believed science did falsify a geocentric interpretation, they had no choice but to believe it and abandon the geocentric truth. Thus they were guilty of no more than material heresy, no blame, no punishment in the event that they were wrong. That is inculpable ignorance.
[...] Second, you've just accused the popes after 1835 of being material heretics.
Material heresy is not a sin. Popes are not generally infallible.
So you claim to know better than the pre-Vatican II popes on this matter. Interesting.
We actually do know better. We do know that science did not disprove geocentrism.
Why are you talking about pre-Vatican II popes? Do you know better than post-Vatican II popes and believe that it is a sin to know better than pre-Vatican II popes?
-
Common sense naturally inclines to the geocentrist view.
Everyone with eyes knows the sun rising in the morning.
Traveling over the sky it warms us and the plants,
setting westward for vespers.
The great moon, sometimes golden round
large at the horizon
floats into the night sky becoming white and bright.
Sometimes showing his profile, Mr. Moon is an interesting figure.
Stars turn to us their constellation lines, they don't rotate themselves distorting Orion or the big dipper.
Its all for us, this beauty, this warming, the lighting of the night sky.
We are loved profoundly.
If one's location was the moon, E would appear to be in motion.
-
I don't want to re-copy the whole post, which is quite interesting, but I would
like to comment on this one sentence:
‘Non-equilibrium is a pre-requisite for movement in all its forms, and therefore a state of equilibrium is impossible in Nature.’ --- Callum Coats: Living Energies, Gateway Books, UK, 1996, pp. 65-66.
Re-stated, movement in all its forms (that covers a lot!) absolutely requires
the absence of equilibrium (that is a UNIVERSAL statement!). Therefore a state
of equilibrium is impossible in Nature.
This can actually be translated into a syllogism:
Congratulations Neil on your assessment on the non-equilibrium quote. It came from a book devoted totally on the subject so I know it can be developed as far as you want. However, for us non-philosophers, I used it in its simplist form before giving Le Sage's theory of celestial movement to try to explain how his theory worked. In geocentrism, the earth is in an equilibrium of forces, not moving. Ever see the globe representing the earth in electromagnetic equilibrium? It is a famous electrical demonstration as to how it is possible on a cosmic scale. If anyone can put up a picture of it that would help. (I do not know how to post pictures) But for movement non-equilibrium must exist. Le sage's theory offered that, when cosmic objects are pushed they will move if those if those forces are in non-equilibrium.
-
Material heresy is not a sin. Popes are not generally infallible.
Irregardless, you're still accusing the popes from at least Gregory XVI to Pius XII of being heretics. I'm not exactly sure what makes you, or Mr. Sungenis for that matter, think that you are qualified to make that judgment.
So you claim to know better than the pre-Vatican II popes on this matter. Interesting.
We actually do know better. We do know that science did not disprove geocentrism.
Yes, we may know better about the science behind how the universe is structured, but you still miss the point in what I'm saying. I'm saying that you, and others here, claim to know better than the Popes about the theological necessity of believing that the earth is the center of the universe. The fact that you claim to know better about theological matters than the pre-Vatican II popes speaks volumes.
Why are you talking about pre-Vatican II popes? Do you know better than post-Vatican II popes and believe that it is a sin to know better than pre-Vatican II popes?
Because, as I'm sure we can all agree on (or at least I should hope those of us on here should agree to it), Vatican II and its aftermath represented a complete shift in the teaching of the Church. There is simply nothing else like it in the history of the Church. Even layfolk at the time could see the obvious shift in teaching from pre- to post-Vatican II, but most went along with it anyway, either because they welcomed the changes or out of a false sense of obedience.
-
Provide these proofs that the 1633 condemnations were lifted. And not just hearsay. I dare say won't find it; in fact, if you care to read Sungenis' book, he shows there to be no such lifting.
von Pastor v25 pg 300
...' Small importance attaches, therefore, to the FACT that only since 1835, when a new edition of the index was published, the name of Copernicus NO LONGER FIGURES IN THAT LIST, since his system had long ago prevailed even in Catholic schools.
Far more momentous than the measures thus taken against Galileo & the work of Copernicus was the general prohibition of all writings in support of the new system of the universe. This prohibition remained in the volume of the Index UNTIL 1758.
Acc to von Pastor, Sungenis is wrong.
Benedict XV.......' and though this Earth on which we live may not be the center of the Universe as it was one time thought....'
Bump
-
Now I remember why I need to stay away from these forums. There's too many crazy people. Tell you what, you guys can each have your own church, along with Robert Sungenis, Gerry Matatics, Peter Dimond, and all the rest of the quacks who are accusing everyone except themselves of being heretics. I'll stick with the Catholic Church, thank you very much!
I'll close by quoting Fr. Haydock, which I'm very fond to do, since he has yet to lead me astray:
12 Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Aialon.
Ver. 12. Them. This may be considered as a canticle of victory, containing a fervent prayer, which was presently followed with the desired effect. --- Aialon. Hebrew, "Sun, in Gabaon, be silent; (move not) and thou, moon, in the valley of Aialon," or "of the wood," which was probably not far from Gabaon. Josue had pursued the enemy at mid-day, to the west of that city, when turning round, he addressed this wonderful command to the sun. It is supposed that the moon appeared at the same time. But the meaning may only be, that the sun and the course of the stars should be interrupted for a time. (Calmet) --- The sun and the moon stood still in their habitation, Hebrews iii. 11. (Menochius) --- Many have called in question this miracle, with Maimonides, or have devised various means to explain it away, by having recourse to a parhelion or reflection of the sun by a cloud, or to a light which was reverberated by the mountains, after the sun was set, &c. (Prœdam iv. 6.; Spinosa; Grotius; Le Clerc) --- But if these authors believe the Scriptures, they may spare themselves the trouble of devising such improbable explanations, as this fact is constantly represented as a most striking miracle. If St. Paul (Hebrews xi. 30,) make no mention of it, he did not engage to specify every miracle that had occurred. He does not so much as mention Josue, nor the passage of the Jordan, &c., so that it is a matter of surprise that Grotius should adduce this negative argument, to disprove the reality of the miracle. (Calmet) --- The pretended impossibility of it, or the inconvenience arising to the fatigued soldiers from the long continuance of the day, will make but small impression upon those who consider, that God was the chief agent; and that he who made all out of nothing, might easily stop the whole machinery of the world for a time, and afterwards put it in motion again, without causing any derangement in the different parts. (Calmet) --- It is not material whether the sun turn round the earth, or the contrary. (Haydock) --- The Hebrews generally supposed that the earth was immovable; and on this idea Josue addresses the sun. Philosophers have devised various intricate systems: but the Scripture is expressed in words suitable to the conceptions of the people. The exterior effect would be the same, whether the sun or the earth stood still. Pagan authors have not mentioned this miracle, because none of the works of that age have come down to us. We find, however, that they acknowledged a power in magic capable of effecting such a change.
Cessavere vices rerum dilataque longâ,
Hæsit nocte dies: legi non paruit æther,
Torpuit & præceps audito carmine mundus. (Lucan, Phars. vi.)
See Homer, Odyssey xii. 382., and xxiii. 242.
This miracle would not render Josue superior to Moses, as some have argued. For all miracles are equally impossible to man, and equally easy to God: the greatness of a miracle is not a proof of greater sanctity. (Calmet) --- Aialon lay to the south-west of Gabaon. (Haydock) --- Josue ordered the moon to stop, as a necessary consequence of the sun's standing still. God condescended to grant his request. (Worthington)
-
Now I remember why I need to stay away from these forums. There's too many crazy people. Tell you what, you guys can each have your own church, along with Robert Sungenis, Gerry Matatics, Peter Dimond, and all the rest of the quacks who are accusing everyone except themselves of being heretics. I'll stick with the Catholic Church, thank you very much!
I'll close by quoting Fr. Haydock, which I'm very fond to do, since he has yet to lead me astray:
12 Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Aialon.
Ver. 12. Them. This may be considered as a canticle of victory, containing a fervent prayer, which was presently followed with the desired effect. --- Aialon. Hebrew, "Sun, in Gabaon, be silent; (move not) and thou, moon, in the valley of Aialon," or "of the wood," which was probably not far from Gabaon. Josue had pursued the enemy at mid-day, to the west of that city, when turning round, he addressed this wonderful command to the sun. It is supposed that the moon appeared at the same time. But the meaning may only be, that the sun and the course of the stars should be interrupted for a time. (Calmet) --- The sun and the moon stood still in their habitation, Hebrews iii. 11. (Menochius) --- Many have called in question this miracle, with Maimonides, or have devised various means to explain it away, by having recourse to a parhelion or reflection of the sun by a cloud, or to a light which was reverberated by the mountains, after the sun was set, &c. (Prœdam iv. 6.; Spinosa; Grotius; Le Clerc) --- But if these authors believe the Scriptures, they may spare themselves the trouble of devising such improbable explanations, as this fact is constantly represented as a most striking miracle. If St. Paul (Hebrews xi. 30,) make no mention of it, he did not engage to specify every miracle that had occurred. He does not so much as mention Josue, nor the passage of the Jordan, &c., so that it is a matter of surprise that Grotius should adduce this negative argument, to disprove the reality of the miracle. (Calmet) --- The pretended impossibility of it, or the inconvenience arising to the fatigued soldiers from the long continuance of the day, will make but small impression upon those who consider, that God was the chief agent; and that he who made all out of nothing, might easily stop the whole machinery of the world for a time, and afterwards put it in motion again, without causing any derangement in the different parts. (Calmet) --- It is not material whether the sun turn round the earth, or the contrary. (Haydock) --- The Hebrews generally supposed that the earth was immovable; and on this idea Josue addresses the sun. Philosophers have devised various intricate systems: but the Scripture is expressed in words suitable to the conceptions of the people. The exterior effect would be the same, whether the sun or the earth stood still. Pagan authors have not mentioned this miracle, because none of the works of that age have come down to us. We find, however, that they acknowledged a power in magic capable of effecting such a change.
Cessavere vices rerum dilataque longâ,
Hæsit nocte dies: legi non paruit æther,
Torpuit & præceps audito carmine mundus. (Lucan, Phars. vi.)
See Homer, Odyssey xii. 382., and xxiii. 242.
This miracle would not render Josue superior to Moses, as some have argued. For all miracles are equally impossible to man, and equally easy to God: the greatness of a miracle is not a proof of greater sanctity. (Calmet) --- Aialon lay to the south-west of Gabaon. (Haydock) --- Josue ordered the moon to stop, as a necessary consequence of the sun's standing still. God condescended to grant his request. (Worthington)
My apologies Lefevbre for addressing your earlier post as Neil's.
As for calling Sungenis a prophet for all us pro-1616 decreer, may I remind you that some of us were studying this matter years before Sungenis was even heard of. As for quoting Fr Haydock, he was/is just Copernican apologist no, 1,879, 645. We prefer the interpretation of all the Fathers and Pope Paul V.
Before you go Lefebvre, let me give you some good advice. I see no difference in your 'Catholicism' and that of the post Vatican II 'Catholicism.' I learned that lesson many years ago when I wrote a paper on Pope Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus stating it gave licence for 'science' to challenge the exegesis and hermeneutics of tradition based obviously on the Galileo case. A SSPX priest read it and practically excommunicated me for even suggesting such a thing. In his eyes, no Catholic was allowed to question anything any of these great pre-Vatican II popes said or did. Similarly, there are those millions who hold exactly the same position about the post Vatican II popes, all of whom are put forward for CANONISATION. Having studied the infamous Galileo case I now see no difference between the two, one as naive as the other.
Indoctrinated as I was since a boy into believing the Catholic Church had an impeccible history, I too thought no pope could do anything wrong in regard to the faith. But once one actually studies the Galileo case, it takes all one's faith to survive that study as a believing Catholic. The hypocracy shown by churchmen in the wake of their being told science had proven heliocentrism true and therefore geocentrism false shows that the Catholic Church of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was not Catholic in the traditional sense at all. Everything we have been taught about the credibility of the faith was SIMPLY IGNORED in order for them to embrace formal heresy as an orthodox interpretation of all the passages that reveal a moving sun in a geocentric universe.
But my faith in these 'traditional' Copernican popes since 1741 dropped further to almost zero when I read how the heresy was presented as Catholic and how the 1616 decree was presented by the Holy Office to a gullible pope who sanctioned the FARCE.
Let me tell you what Catholics have been subjected to since 1820 at least. The 1616 decree was AGAIN ruled papal and formal heresy by the Holy Office (and thus the pope) in 1820. Not many know this. But in the wake of Isaac Newton, the decree was presented as the heliocentrism of pre Newton's time. Yes, a heliocentrism that thought that there would be great disturbances on earth if it were true is supposed to be the formal heresy decreed in 1616, not one that was proven to be one in which things on earth were not disturbed by such motion.
Now if it came out that popes submitted the teaching Church to such a farce, how long do you think anybody would take it as a divinely guided Church. Unbelievable isn't it, belief in a disturbing heliocentrism is still formal heresy in the Church but a heliocentrism that does not have such motion is the heliocentrism of the Scriptures. That is the Catholicism you subscribe to Lefevbre, one that should make any Catholic ashamed of his or her Church.
Now if you consider the problem of whether the Copernican popes were material heretics is so uncatholic that it could not be true, then the news that popes allowed formal heresy into Catholic hermeneutics and exegesis based on the lie that the 1616 decree condemning a fixed-sun formal heresy was all along a decree that condemned a turbulent moving earth and not a smooth moving earth, should make you give up a religion that has such a doctrine.
Tell you what Lefevbre, maybe you should get out of this thread while you still have some faith left in the Catholic Church and it orthodox heresy. Ignorance really is bliss, and Catholic in this case.
-
Material heresy is not a sin. Popes are not generally infallible.
Irregardless, you're still accusing the popes from at least Gregory XVI to Pius XII of being heretics. I'm not exactly sure what makes you, or Mr. Sungenis for that matter, think that you are qualified to make that judgment.
I cannot speak for Mr. Sungenis. All I know is, he wrote a book about geocentrism, which I have not read, because I had technical trouble buying the PDF online.
As for me, yes, I believe that any cleric who teaches that the church was wrong condemning Galilei, because Galilei was not trying to spread heresy, is erring, is a material heretic.
Please note, that erring is human. We shun formal heretics, who willingly and pertinaciously spread heresies, even after having been corrected.
So you claim to know better than the pre-Vatican II popes on this matter. Interesting.
We actually do know better. We do know that science did not disprove geocentrism.
Yes, we may know better about the science behind how the universe is structured, but you still miss the point in what I'm saying. I'm saying that you, and others here, claim to know better than the Popes about the theological necessity of believing that the earth is the center of the universe. The fact that you claim to know better about theological matters than the pre-Vatican II popes speaks volumes.
Any thinking faithful who leaves the Novus Ordo and moves to tradition claims to know better than some popes about some theological questions and their dogmatic relevance.
Why are you talking about pre-Vatican II popes? Do you know better than post-Vatican II popes and believe that it is a sin to know better than pre-Vatican II popes?
Because, as I'm sure we can all agree on (or at least I should hope those of us on here should agree to it), Vatican II and its aftermath represented a complete shift in the teaching of the Church. There is simply nothing else like it in the history of the Church. Even layfolk at the time could see the obvious shift in teaching from pre- to post-Vatican II, but most went along with it anyway, either because they welcomed the changes or out of a false sense of obedience.
Yes it's a huge crisis. But the truth about the dogmatic relevance of geocentrism does not depend on what happened in some recent decades.
The crisis we have today though, I believe, is a result of what happened in the wake of Galileo Galilei.
-
Hello Cassini.
I read your last response to me, and owe you a more detailed response, but I just wanted to say this now, as it gives me some grief that you went through a trial of faith as you describe above. I personally experienced something quite different in reading the records of these Christian times though I had to first throw out the secularist indoctrination that the modern world tends to put into us sometimes that Christians and peoples of these time were uneducated and backward.
I just propose the following briefly, let me know where you disagree, as I imagine you would, and I'll support what I say in more depth later.
1. I maintain that what was true in St.Robert Bellarmine's day remains true today - that Geocentrism is by far the more common theological opinion, enjoys a very weighty presumption in its favor, and is not to be abandoned unless an exact demonstration to the contrary is produced.
2. This is very different from a de fide dogma which can never ever be abandoned under any conceivable circuмstances whatsoever. What you say to me with respect to the Virgin Birth is therefore certainly mistaken, for that is truly de fide. With regard to the explicit articles of the Creed, or the other points of the faith already defined, it is never permissible to abandon the meaning in which they have always been held.
This point is crucial and this is why I say St.Robert's reasoning proves he did not consider it beyond dispute to yet be de fide. But what about after 1616?
3. The 1616 decree merely confirms this reasoning of this Cardinal and Doctor of the Church. That is to say, this alone is is sufficient grounds to prevent the public teaching of the contrary opinion, heliocentrism as a proven fact. St.Robert himself says this in his letter, that it appears to him that therefore the Church could not allow the contrary to be preached unless an exact demonstration was produced.
4. (i) If an actual demonstration of heliocentrism has ever been produced, then there would be strong weight on either side, and Catholics would be left free to choose either opinion.
(ii) If the attempted demonstration was only apparent, (and reading what some of you have written, I agree that this appears that this is the case) then the force of the decree of 1616 still holds, which requires a reverential assent from Catholics called a religious assent which differs from the assent of faith we give to dogmas but is still a true assent.
I can very easily prove this by citing theologians if necessary, for example Msgr. Van Noort specifically says this in treating Papal authority, its ordinary and extraordinary means and the authority of the Holy Office of the Inquisition etc.
5. For us to suspect the Church of the last 200 odd years before Vatican II of being prone to error is to throw the several dogmas and doctrines that were defined during this time period, highly important and dear to all Catholics, into some doubt.
6. There is absolutely nothing, then, and indeed in may well happen, to prevent geocentrism from receiving in future the full and absolute approval of the Magisterium, following which Catholics would be bound to give the irrevocable assent of faith.
For example, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was once subjected to much discussion in the schools and Scotus' insights and arguments ultimately proved successful and received Magisterial approval in the eventual dogmatic definition.
If geocentrists think they have a compelling case to do this, and it appears to me, to whom some of this is new, that they actually do have a reasonable one, then they should not anathematize lay Catholics but at the proper time present their case to scientists and theologians and the authorities of the Church. Perhaps Sungenis' book was a first attempt to do just that.
God bless you.
-
Hello Cassini.
I read your last response to me, and owe you a more detailed response, but I just wanted to say this now, as it gives me some grief that you went through a trial of faith as you describe above. I personally experienced something quite different in reading the records of these Christian times though I had to first throw out the secularist indoctrination that the modern world tends to put into us sometimes that Christians and peoples of these time were uneducated and backward.
I just propose the following briefly, let me know where you disagree, as I imagine you would, and I'll support what I say in more depth later.
1. I maintain that what was true in St.Robert Bellarmine's day remains true today - that Geocentrism is by far the more common theological opinion, enjoys a very weighty presumption in its favor, and is not to be abandoned unless an exact demonstration to the contrary is produced.
2. This is very different from a de fide dogma which can never ever be abandoned under any conceivable circuмstances whatsoever. What you say to me with respect to the Virgin Birth is therefore certainly mistaken, for that is truly de fide. With regard to the explicit articles of the Creed, or the other points of the faith already defined, it is never permissible to abandon the meaning in which they have always been held.
This point is crucial and this is why I say St.Robert's reasoning proves he did not consider it beyond dispute to yet be de fide. But what about after 1616?
3. The 1616 decree merely confirms this reasoning of this Cardinal and Doctor of the Church. That is to say, this alone is is sufficient grounds to prevent the public teaching of the contrary opinion, heliocentrism as a proven fact. St.Robert himself says this in his letter, that it appears to him that therefore the Church could not allow the contrary to be preached unless an exact demonstration was produced.
4. (i) If an actual demonstration of heliocentrism has ever been produced, then there would be strong weight on either side, and Catholics would be left free to choose either opinion.
(ii) If the attempted demonstration was only apparent, (and reading what some of you have written, I agree that this appears that this is the case) then the force of the decree of 1616 still holds, which requires a reverential assent from Catholics called a religious assent which differs from the assent of faith we give to dogmas but is still a true assent.
I can very easily prove this by citing theologians if necessary, for example Msgr. Van Noort specifically says this in treating Papal authority, its ordinary and extraordinary means and the authority of the Holy Office of the Inquisition etc.
5. For us to suspect the Church of the last 200 odd years before Vatican II of being prone to error is to throw the several dogmas and doctrines that were defined during this time period, highly important and dear to all Catholics, into some doubt.
6. There is absolutely nothing, then, and indeed in may well happen, to prevent geocentrism from receiving in future the full and absolute approval of the Magisterium, following which Catholics would be bound to give the irrevocable assent of faith.
For example, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was once subjected to much discussion in the schools and Scotus' insights and arguments ultimately proved successful and received Magisterial approval in the eventual dogmatic definition.
If geocentrists think they have a compelling case to do this, and it appears to me, to whom some of this is new, that they actually do have a reasonable one, then they should not anathematize lay Catholics but at the proper time present their case to scientists and theologians and the authorities of the Church. Perhaps Sungenis' book was a first attempt to do just that.
God bless you.
Thank you Nishant for taking the time to put forward such a 'compromise' so to speak. For centuries, others have tried to do this because it tries to portray the Church of 1616, 1633, 1741 1820 and 1835 as being right all the time no matter what it did, it became the perfect excuse for believing Catholics.
The problem, as with many things, is in the detail.
1. Cardinal Bellarmine always considered a fixed sun reading of Scripture heresy. The Church at Trent took it for granted the world was geocentric and the Scriptures reveal geocentrism. It is recorded Bellarmine considered it heretical, and nothing can change that.
Apologists however, who portray the matter as a wait-and-see-if-it-is-really-is-heresy, misquote his Letter to Foscarini to support the 'hypothesis' synthesis. As I said before, he answered the hypothesis that Galileo had proof that the sun is fixed as Foscarini had suggested. He said correctly if Galileo had proof then of course the interpretation would have to change. But he added Galileo had not got real proof so no change. He then showed his faith in Solomon's word: 'Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated.' That was 1615.
In 1616 the heresy was defined as formal, end of story, that is what happend when all heresies are dogmatised. It was considered a heresy before Galileo, he would not listen, so the Church defined it as such so that all Catholics would no longer challenge the interpretation of the Fathers nor the revelation in Scripture. Now if any Catholic thinks that a decree defining formal heresy is not an act of the magisterium, then what else is up for revision within the Church, HALF its doctrine?
The greatest clarification of THE CHURCH'S MIND came in 1633 when Pope Urban VIII ordered them to condemn Galileo with the following words:
“Understanding,” the Congregation said, “that, through the publication of a work at Florence entitled Dialogo di Galileo Galilei delle due massime Sisteme del Mundo Ptolemaico e Copernicano, the false opinion of the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun was gaining ground, it had examined the book, and had found it to be a manifest infringement of the injunction laid on you, since you in the same book have defended an opinion already condemned, and declared to your face to be so, in that you have tried in the said book, by various devices, to persuade yourself that you leave the matter undetermined, and the opinion expressed as probable; the which, however, is a most grave error, since an opinion can in no manner be probable which has been declared, and defined to be, contrary to the divine Scripture.”
Now what is it about that statement from the highest office in the Church regarding serious heresy that is not clear? You try to undermine that statement at your peril. You KNOW it cannot be changed, no matter how much you might like it to be. If you do change black for white then your word is WORTHLESS.
The only Catholic solution to the Galileo case that has plagued it for hundreds of years is to face the truth and watch the Holy Ghost protecting His Church from the Copernican popes. I have done it, and while ashamed that popes of the eighteenth to twenty-first centuries have lost faith in the Church of 1616, I cannot find an official hand in this U-turn.
But, as I have said before, the vast majority of Catholics today would prefer martyrdom than face that truth, for it would mean they would be laughed at for such a belief. You say Nishant you can 'prove' your hypothesis claim by citing theologians to defend it. Of course you can. And I could cite theologians that confirmed the decree was papal and absolute. The facts are there in recorded history. The Church decided the matter was of FAITH and that included that there would never be proof for heliocentrism, and that faith is now vindicated. Please do not try to ROB them of their faith and replace it with an 50-50 bet.
-
Bellarmine’s Letter to Fr Foscarini
‘I have gladly read the letter in Italian and the Latin treatise which your Reverence sent me, and I thank you for both. I confess that both are filled with ingenuity and learning, and since you ask for my opinion, I will give it to you very briefly, as you have little time for reading and I for writing.
First. I say that it seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo did prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically, and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for mathematicians. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the centre of the heavens and only revolves around itself without travelling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false. For Your reverence has demonstrated many ways of explaining Holy Scripture, the Word of God, but you have not applied them in particular, and without a doubt you would have found it most difficult if you had attempted to explain all the passages which you yourself have cited.
Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.
Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the centre of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But as for myself, I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun is at the centre and the earth is in the heavens, as it is to demonstrate that the sun really is in the centre and the earth in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers. I add that the words “the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.” were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God.
[‘And God hath given to me to speak as I would…because he is the guide of wisdom, and the director of the wise…For he hath given me the true knowledge of the things that are: to know the disposition of the whole world, and the virtue of the elements, the beginning and ending, and midst of the times, the alterations of their courses, and the changes of seasons, the revolutions of the year, and the dispositions of the stars, the natures of living creatures, and the rage of wild beasts, the force of winds, and reasonings of men, the diversities of plants, and the virtues of roots, and all such as are hid and not foreseen, I have learned: for wisdom, which is the worker of all things, taught me.’ --- (Solomon’s Wis.7:15-21.)]
Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to the appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away from the ship, I shall answer that one who departs from the beach, though it looks to him as though the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to the sun and the earth, no wise man is needed to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move. And that is enough for the present.
I salute Your Reverence and ask God to grant you every happiness. From my house, April 12, 1615,
Your very Reverend Paternity’s brother,
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine.
-
What's wrong with heliocentric-ism? I personally think it's great symbolism; the sun is Jesus Christ, and the Earth, us. We are dependent on Him and our lives revolve around Him whether we like it or not.
But to be honest I don't really know which view to hold as I've never studied it for myself. I know that I'm not going to seem very creditable if I start rambling that the Sun revolves around the Earth if I don't have any evidence to back it up.
Very good. Isn't it funny that there is absolutely no reference to geocentricism in the Catechism or other Church docuмents?
-
'....... the false opinion of the motion of the Earth & the stability of the Sun.....'
I agree with this however it does not condemn the opinion of the motion of the Earth AND THE MOTION of the Sun.
-
You say Nishant you can 'prove' your hypothesis claim by citing theologians to defend it. Of course you can. And I could cite theologians that confirmed the decree was papal and absolute.
No you cannot.
I am talking specifically of the authority of the Holy Office condemnation, even when approved by the Pope, the reverential assent it commands that differs essentially from the assent of faith, and the traditional doctrine in this regard upheld by all theologians.
A man who acts in an official capacity does not always make use of his full power, of the whole weight of the authority which he possesses by his very position. A president may, for example, disagree with a bill of Congress, and express his disapproval and yet not take the step of vetoing the bill. Thus the pope, even acting as pope, can teach the universal Church without making use of his supreme authority at its maximum power. Now the Vatican Council defined merely this point: the pope is infallible if he uses his doctrinal authority at its maximum power, by handing down a binding and definitive decision: such a decision, for example, by which he quite clearly intends to bind all Catholics to an absolutely firm and irrevocable assent.
Consequently even if the pope, and acting as pope, praises some doctrine, or recommends it to Christians, or even orders that it alone should be taught in theological schools, this act should not necessarily be considered an infallible decree since he may not intend to hand down a definitive decision. The same holds true if by his approval he orders some decree of a sacred congregation to be promulgated; for example, a decree of the Holy Office, in which the congregation itself condemns some doctrine. It is one thing to be willing to allow a decision of a congregation to be published – a decision which is by its very nature revocable – but quite another matter for the pope himself to make the final decision.
Produce an authority to the contrary, since your argument depends on this.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but were I to judge matters like you seem to do with those who disagree with you, I would perhaps say you have also asserted at least two propositions that are heretical, though I know this is only materially so, condemned as such in the same Vatican Council, which I will name if you ask me to. This is why I say you are over-reaching in trying to make your case.
A dogma never admits of even the possibility of a change in interpretation. Conversely, when someone says a change in interpretation is still possible, he says it not a dogma. This is critical to understand, then you will see what the illustrious St.Robert Bellarmine means.
-
What's wrong with heliocentric-ism? I personally think it's great symbolism; the sun is Jesus Christ, and the Earth, us. We are dependent on Him and our lives revolve around Him whether we like it or not.
But to be honest I don't really know which view to hold as I've never studied it for myself. I know that I'm not going to seem very creditable if I start rambling that the Sun revolves around the Earth if I don't have any evidence to back it up.
Very good. Isn't it funny that there is absolutely no reference to geocentricism in the Catechism or other Church docuмents?
There are dozens of Church docuмents referring to geocentrism as revealed by God, the 1616 papal decree, the docuмents relating to the trial of Galileo and a mountain of them written up from 1741 to 1835. And as regards the Scriptures, there are hundreds of geocentric references in them, but not one on heliocentrism, except where they condemn heliolotry of course. Not so funny now eh?
-
Before you go Lefebvre, let me give you some good advice. I see no difference in your 'Catholicism' and that of the post Vatican II 'Catholicism.' I learned that lesson many years ago when I wrote a paper on Pope Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus stating it gave licence for 'science' to challenge the exegesis and hermeneutics of tradition based obviously on the Galileo case. A SSPX priest read it and practically excommunicated me for even suggesting such a thing. In his eyes, no Catholic was allowed to question anything any of these great pre-Vatican II popes said or did. Similarly, there are those millions who hold exactly the same position about the post Vatican II popes, all of whom are put forward for CANONISATION. Having studied the infamous Galileo case I now see no difference between the two, one as naive as the other.
Indoctrinated as I was since a boy into believing the Catholic Church had an impeccible history, I too thought no pope could do anything wrong in regard to the faith. But once one actually studies the Galileo case, it takes all one's faith to survive that study as a believing Catholic. The hypocracy shown by churchmen in the wake of their being told science had proven heliocentrism true and therefore geocentrism false shows that the Catholic Church of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was not Catholic in the traditional sense at all. Everything we have been taught about the credibility of the faith was SIMPLY IGNORED in order for them to embrace formal heresy as an orthodox interpretation of all the passages that reveal a moving sun in a geocentric universe.
But my faith in these 'traditional' Copernican popes since 1741 dropped further to almost zero when I read how the heresy was presented as Catholic and how the 1616 decree was presented by the Holy Office to a gullible pope who sanctioned the FARCE.
Let me tell you what Catholics have been subjected to since 1820 at least. The 1616 decree was AGAIN ruled papal and formal heresy by the Holy Office (and thus the pope) in 1820. Not many know this. But in the wake of Isaac Newton, the decree was presented as the heliocentrism of pre Newton's time. Yes, a heliocentrism that thought that there would be great disturbances on earth if it were true is supposed to be the formal heresy decreed in 1616, not one that was proven to be one in which things on earth were not disturbed by such motion.
Now if it came out that popes submitted the teaching Church to such a farce, how long do you think anybody would take it as a divinely guided Church. Unbelievable isn't it, belief in a disturbing heliocentrism is still formal heresy in the Church but a heliocentrism that does not have such motion is the heliocentrism of the Scriptures. That is the Catholicism you subscribe to Lefevbre, one that should make any Catholic ashamed of his or her Church.
Now if you consider the problem of whether the Copernican popes were material heretics is so uncatholic that it could not be true, then the news that popes allowed formal heresy into Catholic hermeneutics and exegesis based on the lie that the 1616 decree condemning a fixed-sun formal heresy was all along a decree that condemned a turbulent moving earth and not a smooth moving earth, should make you give up a religion that has such a doctrine.
Tell you what Lefevbre, maybe you should get out of this thread while you still have some faith left in the Catholic Church and it orthodox heresy. Ignorance really is bliss, and Catholic in this case.
You mistake what I'm saying. I'm not saying that liberalism had not crept into the Church long before Vatican II. Most traditional Catholics will acknowledge that this happened. The Crisis didn't come out of nowhere, after all. And unfortunately, many popes were guilty of compromising with liberalism, some more than others.
HOWEVER, when it comes to what Catholics are required to believe as a matter of faith, I trust the judgment of the popes pre-Vatican II over your personal judgment any day. If even as great a pope as Pope St. Pius X did not require Catholics to believe, as a matter of faith, that the earth is at the center of the universe, then I do not believe that it can rightly be said to be a heresy to believe the contrary.
-
Thumb me down all you want, but you know my point is unassailable. If a canonized pope did not require the faithful to believe in geocentrism as a matter of faith, then clearly it cannot be considered a heresy to believe the opposite. And Pope St. Pius X was no liberal, that's for sure.
-
Cassini, if you don't mind, I'd appreciate an answer, do you acknowledge the difference between an infallible decision and an authoritative one, the assent of faith given to the former and the religious assent given to the latter? Both are true forms of assent, and many matters that we now know are dogmas were once given a merely religious assent.
Also, I do refuse on principle any explanation that compromises the indefectibility of the Church and the infallibility of the Pope at any time. Otherwise, what is even the point, we might as well say the Pope and the Church committed "material heresy" in 1616, if we can as well say they committed "material heresy" at some later time. That is why it is beyond absurd to believe in and apply it selectively. No, they did not commit "material heresy", and any explanation that involves such a contingency must be rejected.
The explanation I gave above maintains it at every point of time, and also implies that geocentrism could command a reverential assent in our day and one day be the object of a a strictly infallible pronouncement by the Magisterium.
-
Sigh, I give up. It's like you people don't even realize the full implications of saying that the Church has fallen into heresy since the 17th century. It's basically the same as admitting that the Protestant revolutionaries were right about the Church all along, that the Church had fallen away from its primitive teachings and was now teaching error, a belief that was strongly condemned by the Council of Trent and subsequent councils and popes.
I'll let Nishant deal with you. I don't have the patience or the will to do so any more.
-
What culpability there is among Churchmen in hiding this I'll leave up to God.
Also, I would caution you about this line of thinking. I'd say it's rather bold for an armchair theologian like yourself to sit back and say, 'I'm right, the popes (when they addressed this issue) are wrong, and I'll leave their judgment up to God'. Are you honestly insinuating that the popes prior to Vatican II were guilty of formal, or at least material, heresy? Are you saying that you're a better judge in these matters than them?
The Popes (at least til the 1830s) upheld the 1633 condemnation, there has been no rescinding of this decree, so that is that. I really don't care about all the distinctions between infallible (de fide) and non-infallible or what not. The plain matter of the fact is that both ideas: (1) that the sun is immovable and the center of the universe (which no one believes nowadays), and (2) the earth revolves around the sun, were condemned. Not even a mere opinion in a papal encyclical not involving cosmology can reverse that! As for heresy and whatnot, I never said I had the competence to judge Churchmen; I only go by what the decree says, and the decree says contrary to Holy Scripture. That's enough for me.
And Trent also condemns, I repeat again and again, going against the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
But I'm not like cassini. I don't say it is strictly infallible per se, though I will maintain it is a distraction. As Nishant said, it must be at least reverential assent. Most people, unfortunately, don't have that because they believe modern science has proven the earth not to be immobile but going around the sun.
-
When I mean "it is a distraction," I mean the whole idea of distinction between infallible and non-infallible teachings. There are many teachings not strictly de fide and yet if one doesn't believe them, you might as well call him or her not Catholic.
-
As Nishant said, it must be at least reverential assent. Most people, unfortunately, don't have that because they believe modern science has proven the earth not to be immobile but going around the sun.
...
When I mean "it is a distraction," I mean the whole idea of distinction between infallible and non-infallible teachings. There are many teachings not strictly de fide and yet if one doesn't believe them, you might as well call him or her not Catholic.
It is not true to say if one doesn't believe Geocentrism, then we might as well call them not Catholic. It is not true at all.
Please quote me accurately.
4. (i) If an actual demonstration of heliocentrism has ever been produced, then there would be strong weight on either side, and Catholics would be left free to choose either opinion.
(ii) If the attempted demonstration was only apparent, (and reading what some of you have written, I agree that this appears that this is the case) then the force of the decree of 1616 still holds, which requires a reverential assent from Catholics called a religious assent which differs from the assent of faith we give to dogmas but is still a true assent.
...
I maintain that what was true in St.Robert Bellarmine's day remains true today - that Geocentrism is by far the more common theological opinion, enjoys a very weighty presumption in its favor, and is not to be abandoned unless an exact demonstration to the contrary is produced.
These are the theological principles that apply imho, with Scripture and patristic Tradition both taken into account. Now, because it is not yet a dogma, the Church does not forbid the attempt to produce such a demonstration, as she most certainly could and would if it were.
Like I said, if you think it may one day be a dogma, then, by all means marshal arguments drawn from faith and reason, as Scotus did with respect to the Immaculate Conception when yet the Church permitted the free discussion of the matter, so that it was eventually dogmatically defined, thanks in large measure to his insights.
If St.Robert who knew what the unanimous consent of the Fathers was and was not, thought it was already a dogma, he would have said, "If anyone says the earth is not immobile, or that this this dogma can ever be changed and understood in a different sense, let him be anathema" exactly as all Catholics would say of the Virgin Birth or transubstantiation. And the Pope would have promulgated this in an Encyclical with the strict language necessary or in a later Ecuмenical Council with a canon and anathemas attached, which are the organs of infallibility.
Nor would the Catholics who suffered everything and lost their lives in France, England, Ireland and elsewhere rather than deny the slightest point of faith when confronted with Protestants, heretics and apostates of all stripes, ever have wished to deny it.
-
Cassini, if you don't mind, I'd appreciate an answer, do you acknowledge the difference between an infallible decision and an authoritative one, the assent of faith given to the former and the religious assent given to the latter? Both are true forms of assent, and many matters that we now know are dogmas were once given a merely religious assent.
Also, I do refuse on principle any explanation that compromises the indefectibility of the Church and the infallibility of the Pope at any time. Otherwise, what is even the point, we might as well say the Pope and the Church committed "material heresy" in 1616, if we can as well say they committed "material heresy" at some later time. That is why it is beyond absurd to believe in and apply it selectively. No, they did not commit "material heresy", and any explanation that involves such a contingency must be rejected.
The explanation I gave above maintains it at every point of time, and also implies that geocentrism could command a reverential assent in our day and one day be the object of a a strictly infallible pronouncement by the Magisterium.
Let me ask you a question Nishant, do you recognise the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium? Does an 'authoritative' decision of a pope defining FORMAL HERESY not belong to the infallible ordinary magisterium? Do you believe this distinction was present in the Church since the Apostles? Well I do, the Church does, and I will quote you word for word how Vatican I defined it so if you wish.
Before you talk about 'infallibility' are you aware that the term 'infallible' was not used anywhere in the Galileo case until after 1870. It was in 1870 that the term was defined, 35 years after the Copernicans conned the Church out of its DOGMA.
‘By dogma in the strict sense is understood a truth immediately revealed by God which has been proposed by the teaching authority of the Church to be believed as such. Vatican Council I explains: ‘All these things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the word of God written or handed down and which are proposed for our belief by the Church either in a solemn definition or in its ordinary and universal authoritative teaching. Two factors or elements may be distinguished in the concept of dogmas.
(1) An immediate Divine Revelation of the particular dogma, i.e., the Dogma must be immediately revealed by God either explicitly or inclusively and therefore be contained in the sources of revelation.
(2) The promulgation of the Dogma by the teaching authority of the Church. This implies not merely the promulgation of the Truth, but also the obligation of the part of the faithful of believing the truth. The promulgation of the Church may be made either in an extraordinary manner through a solemn decision of faith made by the Pope or a General Council or through the ordinary and general teaching power of the Church.’ --- Ludwig Ott: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Mercier Press, Cork Ireland, 1954.
Are you seriously arguing that Catholics are free to believe a pope can define a belief as formal heresy that is open to its being reversed at a later date? Who could take such a religion seriously any more after that? Given you argue for such a contradiction, Can you give me one other such example in the history of the Catholic Church?
You say: 'For example, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was once subjected to much discussion in the schools and Scotus' insights and arguments ultimately proved successful and received Magisterial approval in the eventual dogmatic definition.'
The Immaculate conception you allude to was never defined as formal heresy before it was defined as a compulsory dogma so there is no contradiction there, no comparison with the 1616 dogma.
Then you started quoting theologians. Give me one unbiased Catholic theologian after 1835 that wrote or spoke on the authority of the 1616 decree? This being so, of course every one will argue a case for its ability to be overturned from formal heresy to an orthodox interpretatiuon of Scripture no matter it contradicted all of the Fathers, another contradiction in Catholic teaching itself.
You say: ' No you cannot [cite theologians that confirmed the decree was papal and absolute..]
I am talking specifically of the authority of the Holy Office condemnation, even when approved by the Pope, the reverential assent it commands that differs essentially from the assent of faith, and the traditional doctrine in this regard upheld by all theologians.
To answer this I will chose Fr Filippo Anfossi (1748-1825)
Master of the Sacred Palace and his colleague the Vatican majordomo Antonio Frosini, later made Cardinal.
Anfossi wrote a book in defence of the position that the 1616 decree was a FULL papal decree and NOT-REFORMABLE. The Holy Office agreed with this. In other words, the churchmen of the Holy Office in 1616, 1633 and even in 1820, all agreed the 1616 cannot be overturned. Thus it is a dogma, because formal heresy means contrary to a DOGMA.
As regards your position on the indefectibility of the Church and the infallibility of the Pope at any time, well my main reason in examining the Galileo case was to see if this dogma was safe and true. It is, but only because the material heretics kept their farce outside their conditions of infallibility.
Now I know all 'good' Catholics like to think their popes are not allowed by God to be heretics. Many hard line traditionalists however, seriously believe the post Vatican II popes were heretics. But when you disclose to them popes since 1741 could have been material heretics at worst and that they allowed material heresy to infiltrate the Church, well now, that couldn't be true, could it.
Remember now Nishant that it was THE CHURCH that defined belief in a fixed sun interpretation of Scripture is formal heresy. Do not join the crowd accusing us individuals as the ones who decided sun-fixing is heresy, no, it was your Church.
I'll finish this post with the history of the heresy after the 1741-1835 U-turn.
Throughout the ‘U-turn’ into Modernism, Catholicism as a sacramental religion sustained the flock as ever before and not a priest, man or woman thereafter saw the defined biblical interpretation of a fixed sun or moving earth as having any significance or bearing on their Catholic belief. This is because the Copernican heresy undermined the basis of the Catholic faith like dry rot in a cathedral, unnoticed and invisible by those worshipping in the pews, thanks to the suppression of the truth by the hierarchy in Rome and to the fiction writers serving up one edition of the Galileo case after another, all the while effecting changes that eventually threatened the very sources of grace themselves. What is beyond question or contradiction is that this mutation of doctrine, this surrender of the hierarchical sacred doctrine of the world, and all that it supported and destroyed, including the profound effect it had on the very understanding of the Bible as history and the scholastic method whereby all knowledge is guided by theology, reached to the top, the papacy itself. The hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church is such that wherever a pope goes the vast majority of the Catholic world follows. Vatican I reiterated that the Catholic Church has a divine mandate to guard the flock from false reasoning so that the truth can be used as a subordinate means to salvation. Faith in the doctrine of a geocentric creation without doubt had salvatory merit whereas heliocentrism, unlike geocentrism, has no direct link to God in its conception as history attests to. Add to this, when any pontiff, who, even implicitly, repudiates the doctrinal definitions of his predecessors, risks eroding the Petrine authority and consequently his own. Accordingly, from the moment popes appeared to give belief to heliocentrism in place of geocentrism, in whatever way, the teaching Church was compromised, its tradition, its doctrine and its authority. In this case it led to scientific agnosticism and evolutionism compromising Church teaching, the core principle of Modernism, i.e., the precedent to question any Catholic teaching that did not comply with ‘science’ and consequently the new philosophies that came along with the Renaissance and Enlightenment, including that godless scientific reasoning as directed by Bacon, Descartes and Kant to mention a few. Once it was perceived that the Church’s interpretation of the Bible could no longer guarantee full truth or literal certainty as the holy Fathers read it, it was clear the final assault on the stability of the Lord’s footstool had reached its climax.
-
History of the U-turn continued:
‘Sigmund Freud believed science (including psychoanalysis) to have inflicted three severe blows to man’s perception of himself. In the sixteenth century Copernicus inflicted a cosmological blow by demonstrating that the earth moved around the sun, and was not the centre of the universe. In the nineteenth century Darwin inflicted a biological blow by showing man’s evolutionary continuity with the animals, and in the twentieth, his own emphasis on the unconscious determination of human behaviour dealt a drastic blow to man’s sense of psychological freedom.’ ---Stephen Wilson: The B. Book of the Mind, Bloomsbury, 2003, p.312.
There they are, in proper order, the three deceitful ‘scientific’ systems believed by most outside and inside the Catholic Church for many years now; Copernicus supposedly ‘demonstrating’ the earth moves, Darwin supposedly ‘showing’ we evolved from inorganic matter over ‘millions of years,’ and Freud ‘emphasising’ his psychology built upon the two earlier hoaxes. Nevertheless, this concoction is now the worldview, demonstrating modern man is now the rationalist model personified; and surrounded as he is with new technology and scientific advances, is now far too clever to believe he can be deceived by any such intellectual stealth.
This revolution was applied slowly to Catholic theology under the guise of neo-scholasticism to make it look Catholic. As a direct consequence of accepting the heliocentric and evolutionary worldview, a new synthesis with doctrine and dogma was thought necessary, for having perverted, abandoned and deprived the Church of its scholastic exegeses and theologically based philosophy by conceding to the new ‘sciences,’ the Copernicans thereby created a vacuum, inviting a novel theology to fill it. A version of this new Hermetic theology - the dream of Giordano Bruno and Tommaso Campanella (1568–1639) of the 16th and 17th century, the ‘development of doctrine’ as they called it, was begun in the main by John Henry Newman (1801-1890), Cardinal Mercier (1851-1926), Canon Henry de Dorlodot (1865-1929), the Jesuit Karl Rahner, Urs von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac, Joseph Ratzinger (1927- ) and many other modernist reformers of the 20th century, a system of thought taken to bizarre heights by the new age advocate Fr Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) - a Jesuit priest who taught a Luciferian mindset; that Catholicism is not the only way to God. The modernist takeover was completed at Vatican II when one after the other the pope elected was modernist.
When pragmatic churchmen, consciously or in ignorance, tried to marry heliocentric ‘certainty’ with the truth of Revelation, that is, tried to have the best of both worlds, trying to mix the teaching of the Church with the scientific ideas and fancies of the intellectual Hermetic neo-Gnostic Earthmovers and sun fixers and their progeny, the long-age evolutionists and relativists, they plunged most Catholic teaching institutions into the camp of the modernists and Modernism, putting the faith of Catholics at risk, including the very credibility of Catholicism among the Church’s enemies and even within the flock itself.
-
Nishant, your obsession with infallibility has blinded you to the fact that the 1633 condemnation has not been revoked and that it still must be held by all Catholics. Or do you actually countenance the possibility that the Pope could be wrong in condemning what he saw as heresy? Because that's what all heliocentrists say, that the Pope condemned what is scientific fact now. Do you really realize the implications of this? Even if not infallible, it was quite public in being sent to all the rulers of Europe and the Pope commanded all to accept his decision.
-
Nishant, your obsession with infallibility has blinded you to the fact that the 1633 condemnation has not been revoked and that it still must be held by all Catholics. Or do you actually countenance the possibility that the Pope could be wrong in condemning what he saw as heresy? Because that's what all heliocentrists say, that the Pope condemned what is scientific fact now. Do you really realize the implications of this? Even if not infallible, it was quite public in being sent to all the rulers of Europe and the Pope commanded all to accept his decision.
I could not agree more Quo Vadis. I never refer to their beliefs as 'heliocentrists' but as Copernicans. Copernicans in my book are heliocentrists who insist in interpreting the Bible in a heliocentric manner- the complete reverse to the literal geocentric wording. Only the 'Father of lies' could get Catholics from the pope down to reject the clear revealed geocentrism of the Bible and insert the heretical interpretation instead and build a new modernist exegesis and hermeneutics on that heresy. If you read that in fiction you would not believe it. The non-infallible' ploy is but one excuse thought up over the centuries to try to make an impossible situation for Catholics look like it could be accounted for under Catholic teaching. The contradiction is summed up best by a Fr Roberts who himself became a reject-1870 infallibility based on the Galileo case. At the end of his booklet, revised in 1885, Fr Roberts summarises the situation as he saw it, the situation all Copernicans propose and others who try to dismiss the 1616 decree as null and void.:
‘I will now sum up the conclusions which the history of Galileo’s case seems to me to teach in direct opposi¬tion to doctrine that has been authoritatively inculcated in Rome: —
1. Rome, i.e. a Pontifical Congregation acting under the Pope’s order, may put forth a decision that is neither true nor safe.
2. Decrees confirmed by, and virtually included in, a Bull addressed to the Universal Church, may be, not only Scientifically false, but, theologically considered, danger¬ous, i.e. calculated to prejudice the cause of religion, and compromise the safety of a portion of the deposit com¬mitted to the Church’s keeping. In other words, the Pope, in and by a Bull addressed to the whole Church, may confirm and approve, with Apostolic authority, deci¬sions that are false and perilous to the faith.
3. Decrees of the Apostolic See and of Pontifical Con¬gregations may be calculated to impede the free progress of Science.
4. The Pope’s infallibility is no guarantee that he may not use his supreme authority to indoctrinate the Church with erroneous opinions, through the medium of Congregations he has erected to assist him in protecting the Church from error.
5. The Pope, through the medium of a Pontifical Congregation, may require, under pain of excommunica¬tion, individual Catholics to yield an absolute assent to false, unsound, and dangerous propositions. In other words, the Pope, acting as Supreme Judge of the faithful, may, in dealing with individuals, make the rejection of what is in fact the truth, a condition of communion with the Holy See.
6. It does not follow, from the Church’s having been informed that the Pope has ordered a Catholic to abjure an opinion as a heresy, that the opinion is not true and sound.
7. The true interpretation of our Lord’s promises to St. Peter permits us to say that a Pope may, even when acting officially, confirm his brethren the Cardinals, and through them the rest of the Church, in an error as to what is matter of faith.
8. It is not always for the good of the Church that Catholics should submit themselves fully, perfectly, and absolutely, i.e. should yield a full assent, to the decisions of Pontifical Congregations, even when the Pope has con¬firmed such decisions with his supreme authority, and ordered them published.
Are not all these propositions irreconcilable with Ultramontane principles? If so, can it be denied that those principles are as false as it is true that the earth moves?
And that, dear reader is what confronted Catholicism in the wake of the infamous 1741-1835 U-turn; indefensible contradictions that could be said to have led Fr Roberts – and God knows how many others - into denying the dogma of papal infallibility defined at the Vatican Council of 1869-70. Now if ever a book warranted a reply from by the Holy Office this was one of them. It should either have been put on the Index itself for questioning the dogma on infallibility, or the contradictions addressed as the thesis demanded to save others from the same road to further heresy. But the Holy Office made ‘no comment’ allowing the army of Copernican apologists to do the defending for them, inventing reasons and excuses as often as necessary, and having them published in the likes of the Dublin Review of April 1871. Thereafter the status of the 1616 decree was plunged into a pit of canon law arguments that would lie well beyond the ability of any Catholic to know the status of anything other than a direct ex cathedra definition by a pope, an act of the extraordinary magisterium, of which there are a mere handful. Clearly the U-turn of 1741-1835 had set Catholicism on a new path of change, into the confusion that Modernism thrives in. Fr Roberts’s analysis was thus conveniently ignored and faded into oblivion. Meanwhile the apologists’ version of the Galileo case became the ‘official’ version in the propaganda war.
-
I had a high opinion of John Daly before I read what he has written on this subject, and he did not disappoint.
We have shown that the Church has implicitly withdrawn her condemnation of heliocentrism, so that Catholics are not directly guilty of heterodoxy or disobedience if they hold that the earth revolves around the sun. But we do not think it follows from this that a good Catholic will regard the matter as theologically indifferent and one on which he is perfectly free to follow his opinion taking account only of scientific evidence and considerations of the natural order as though there were no theological or supernatural principles involved.
This is pretty much the conclusion I have myself maintained above.
It would be far better, Quo Vadis Petre, to be "obsessed" with infallibility, though I am not, than it would be to be willing to sacrifice it altogether to maintain one's own version of events, as unfortunately, I say this with all due respect, you both appear to be.
It is your position that could have disastrous implications that you have not even pondered - I mean truly and terribly catastrophic ones for the faith. For one thing, it throws everything the Church did within the period into doubt if it was as prone to error and as susceptible to modernist influence as you believe. Cassini, who disagrees with you in saying it is a dogma, unfortunately shows this when he relates' Fr.Roberts', a heretic who doubted the Vatican Council's solemn definition of Papal infallibility, version of events.
I freely admit my own version could be wrong, but I think it is the only one that maintains the Church's rights and divine characteristics at every step.
Do you not see the importance of a proper appraisal of the theological status of geocentrism first? You've not done this, in fact you disregard it altogether as being completely irrelevant, but it is relevant precisely because the grade of certainty it can claim and the proportionate level of assent we give to it affects questions like whether it would be lawful for Catholics to proceed into scientific inquiry into the subject or not.
You reject St.Robert's reasoning behind the 1616 decree, that an actual demonstration would have to be produced for heliocentrism to be taught. St.Robert was open to the possibility of such a demonstration existing, you are not. This is what I mean.
When a mere apparent demonstration was produced, the Church implicitly reversed her revocable Holy Office decision, which altogether differs from an irrevocable decision of the Magisterium, whether ordinary (like an Encyclical with the strict language necessary) or extraordinary (like a Council with a canon and anathemas attached) which requires the assent of faith.
If it could be shown the apparent demonstration was not an accurate one, the force of the 1616 decree would still hold. But Catholics who have studied the matter carefully and are aware of what is involved are not guilty of heteredoxy if they say with Pope Benedict XV "the earth may not be the centre of the universe as was once thought"
To treat those who disagree with you on this matter as "might as well not being Catholics" would be wrong, in fact it borders on an act of schism, since it comes close to refusing communion with them and treating them as non-Catholics, and even John Daly, a learned geocentrist aware of the theological principles involved, concedes this.
That is all. I've already said Geocentrism appears to be by far the more probable opinion, and especially if, as Faber said, we now know the demonstration to the contrary was only apparent, it would certainly command a reverential assent.
-
Nishant, you ignore the fact that St. Robert Bellarmine was saying that only for the sake of argument; he never, never believed it can be produced. And why are you focused on the 1615 condemnation, which was not promulgated? Show me where the 1633 condemnation of Galileo was implicitly withdrawn. Show us this evidence quoted by John Daly that the Church did so. Robert Sungenis has researched this far more, IMO, than John Daly if Mr. Daly can confidently assert the Church has implicitly withdrawn Her condemnation of heliocentrism.
To treat those who disagree with you on this matter as "might as well not being Catholics" would be wrong, in fact it borders on an act of schism, since it comes close to refusing communion with them and treating them as non-Catholics, and even John Daly, a learned geocentrist aware of the theological principles involved, concedes this.
Do you say that a Catholic who denies that at conception the soul is created is still Catholic or not? How so then? From this, they can say abortion is fine. How is this still Catholic?
-
Also, your reference, Nishant, to the 1757 decree is used wrongly. The Pop may have mislead people to believe heliocentrism is ok, but the decree does not give carte blanche to heliocentrism at all; only, it allowed for a publication of Galileo's works (albeit with caveats showing that the Church still followed the 1633 decree and certain works omitted from the publication).
-
Wait, does Bob Sungenis say that not to believe in geocentrism or not to believe Catholics are required to believe it to be Catholic is to be non-Catholic?
-
Wait, does Bob Sungenis say that not to believe in geocentrism or not to believe Catholics are required to believe it to be Catholic is to be non-Catholic?
No, but at the same time, he says those saying the decree is non-infallible inadvertently imply the Holy Ghost doesn't protect the Church just only in terms of defined dogma, and ultimately are forever embarrassed to try "to save the doctrine of infallibility," admitting the Catholic Church's critics to be right.
-
Right, that's what I thought.
To say that the Catholics who disagree with you have to resort to untenable explanations is perfectly legitimate, to cast aspersions on the sincerity and genuineness of their faith is not.
Why don't you just say what Sungenis says, no less and no more?
-
Right, that's what I thought.
To say that the Catholics who disagree with you have to resort to untenable explanations is perfectly legitimate, to cast aspersions on the sincerity and genuineness of their faith is not.
Why don't you just say what Sungenis says, no less and no more?
I only say this: that Catholics are wrong to oppose an authoritative decision made by the Holy Office and approved by the Pope objectively; "implicit withdrawal" of the condemnation doesn't mean anything, if the decree in question is not positively rescinded. Subjectively, that is up to God, as always. Still, as Pope Pius XII says, it isn't enough to believe only de fide teachings.
-
Has anyone read this?
http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Daly.pdf
I'm in agreement with him.
I believe it would be incorrect to publically proclaim the contrary as absolute fact as doing such would be, in my opinion, unessesary and perhaps scandalous.
Think about it. Who can put themselves in a position to view both at the sun and the earth at the same time and be sure that they are completely still while viewing both the sun and earth. Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know, no one who tries to speak authoritively on the subject can claim to have viewed them both at the same time. Where can they do this from and remain perfectly still (not be floating anywhere) long enough to see what is spinning around what?
Out of all the places in the universe it was EARTH where Christ came to be conceived, born, suffer, die and rise again. I found that interesting.
-
30th December 1632: Pope Urban, clearly unconvinced by Galileo’s excuses [he had a reputation for trickiness] orders Galileo to be sent to Rome in chains if he will not come voluntarily and is able to travel at all.
What would have happened if Father Feeney was given this summons?
-
At the end of his booklet, revised in 1885, Fr Roberts summarises the situation as he saw it, the situation all Copernicans propose and others who try to dismiss the 1616 decree as null and void.:
‘I will now sum up the conclusions which the history of Galileo’s case seems to me to teach in direct opposition to doctrine that has been authoritatively inculcated in Rome: —
1. Rome, i.e. a Pontifical Congregation acting under the Pope’s order, may put forth a decision that is neither true nor safe.
2. Decrees confirmed by, and virtually included in, a Bull addressed to the Universal Church, may be, not only Scientifically false, but, theologically considered, dangerous, i.e. calculated to prejudice the cause of religion, and compromise the safety of a portion of the deposit committed to the Church’s keeping. In other words, the Pope, in and by a Bull addressed to the whole Church, may confirm and approve, with Apostolic authority, decisions that are false and perilous to the faith
3. Decrees of the Apostolic See and of Pontifical Congregations may be calculated to impede the free progress of Science.
4. The Pope’s infallibility is no guarantee that he may not use his supreme authority to indoctrinate the Church with erroneous opinions, through the medium of Congregations he has erected to assist him in protecting the Church from error.
5. The Pope, through the medium of a Pontifical Congregation, may require, under pain of excommunication, individual Catholics to yield an absolute assent to false, unsound, and dangerous propositions. In other words, the Pope, acting as Supreme Judge of the faithful, may, in dealing with individuals, make the rejection of what is in fact the truth, a condition of communion with the Holy See.
6. It does not follow, from the Church’s having been informed that the Pope has ordered a Catholic to abjure an opinion as a heresy, that the opinion is not true and sound.
7. The true interpretation of our Lord’s promises to St. Peter permits us to say that a Pope may, even when acting officially, confirm his brethren the Cardinals, and through them the rest of the Church, in an error as to what is matter of faith.
8. It is not always for the good of the Church that Catholics should submit themselves fully, perfectly, and absolutely, i.e. should yield a full assent, to the decisions of Pontifical Congregations, even when the Pope has confirmed such decisions with his supreme authority, and ordered them published.
Are not all these propositions irreconcilable with Ultramontane principles? If so, can it be denied that those principles are as false as it is true that the earth moves?
[/color]
Nowhere in the history of the Galileo case will one find the consequences of a rejection - FOR ANY REASON AT ALL - of the 1616 papal decree as a truth better spelled out. The above is the position the churchmen of 1741-1835 left behind them. There is no point in going on about this or that or the other, for no matter the excuses one is left with the most UNCATHOLIC scenario as illuistrated above.
I note no one who rejects the absolute correctness of the 1616 decree and the 1633 trial of Galileo has ever responded to these points one by one. Until someone does all the arguing and debating has no relevance.
Given Nishant, you are the last man standing - and I salute you for it - perhaps you could show us all how a Copernican or even a nutralist might explain to an educated non-Catholic audiance (that is, people aware of the claims of the Catholic religion) how any Catholic could accept the above 8 points and still remain a believer.
-
Hello Cassini.
Have you read John Daly's work on the subject? He discusses some of the claims of this Fr.Roberts. The Fathers of the Vatican Council discussed the matter and the alleged historical counterexamples very carefully before finalizing the eventual dogmatic definition of Papal infallibility.
I'm not saying the Holy Office decree was unsafe to follow, am I? I've always said the contrary, and the Church was well within her rights to prohibit the public preaching of the theory given that it was unproved. When there was an apparent demonstration of heliocentrism, the Church implicitly reversed her condemnation by not forbidding Catholics to hold either opinion. Such a mere tacit reversal suffices to establish what I'm saying, and also requires those who believe otherwise to resort to untenable explanations about "material heresy" and unproved theories about modernist influence centuries ago in the very Church that later defined for us (why do we believe these, then, if they are suspect or can contain "material heresy") dogmas and doctrines on a whole range of issues.
I agree that the theological considerations and these historical condemnations emanating from the Holy Office add a great deal of weight to the probable truth of the geocentrist position, and that informing other Catholics about this is worthwhile, but most be done without accusing them of heterodoxy, and I only deny that those who disagree with geocentrism are bad Catholics or non-Catholic.
-
Hello Cassini.
Have you read John Daly's work on the subject? He discusses some of the claims of this Fr.Roberts. The Fathers of the Vatican Council discussed the matter and the alleged historical counterexamples very carefully before finalizing the eventual dogmatic definition of Papal infallibility.
I'm not saying the Holy Office decree was unsafe to follow, am I? I've always said the contrary, and the Church was well within her rights to prohibit the public preaching of the theory given that it was unproved. When there was an apparent demonstration of heliocentrism, the Church implicitly reversed her condemnation by not forbidding Catholics to hold either opinion.
I agree that the theological considerations and these historical condemnations emanating from the Holy Office add a great deal of weight to the probable truth of the geocentrist position, I deny that those who disagree with geocentrism are bad Catholics or non-Catholic.
Yes I have Nishant, when it was first written. I made notes on it and will discuss it tomorrow.
The problem Nishant is that unless you have studied the matter properly (I began my study in 1993) it is very difficult to see the whole picture from every angle. Very few have reached that point and so as we have seen debating the subject is rather difficult at times. You Nishant I have no doubt - unlike others - are seeking the truth.
-
First thank you Neil for a most intelligent and Catholic posting on the subject. Forgive me if others have covered your question and you have gone on, but I read each post as it comes, answer it and then move on to the next post.
You're welcome. And sorry I didn't notice you answered. I lost track of this
thread. It's been getting a lot of hits and I couldn't find where I last posted.
And your question Neil has TWO answers. Formal heresy is one that DELIBERATELY and CONSCIOUSLY rejects a dogma, a confirmed doctrine. Given popes believed science did falsify a geocentric interpretation, they had no choice but to believe it and abandon the geocentric truth. Thus they were guilty of no more than material heresy, no blame, no punishment in the event that they were wrong. That is inculpable ignorance.
- I think that was lefebvre-fan's qustion, no?
I don't want to re-copy the whole post, which is quite interesting, but I would
like to comment on this one sentence:
‘Non-equilibrium is a pre-requisite for movement in all its forms, and therefore a state of equilibrium is impossible in Nature.’ --- Callum Coats: Living Energies, Gateway Books, UK, 1996, pp. 65-66.
Re-stated, movement in all its forms (that covers a lot!) absolutely requires
the absence of equilibrium (that is a UNIVERSAL statement!). Therefore a state
of equilibrium is impossible in Nature.
This can actually be translated into a syllogism:
Congratulations Neil on your assessment on the non-equilibrium quote. It came from a book devoted totally on the subject so I know it can be developed as far as you want. However, for us non-philosophers, I used it in its simplest form before giving Le Sage's theory of celestial movement to try to explain how his theory worked. In geocentrism, the earth is in an equilibrium of forces, not moving. Ever see the globe representing the earth in electromagnetic equilibrium? It is a famous electrical demonstration as to how it is possible on a cosmic scale. If anyone can put up a picture of it that would help. (I do not know how to post pictures) But for movement non-equilibrium must exist. Le sage's theory offered that, when cosmic objects are pushed they will move if those if those forces are in non-equilibrium.
My syllogism exercise was actually kind of fun. I was tempted to go about 15
levels deep but I thought nobody would care about it and it would look like I'm
trying to show off or something. I almost got in trouble in philosophy class about
40 years ago when I and a collaborator threatened to consume the remainder of
the course with a discussion of the details of movement vs. non-movement. It is
a very deep topic, and there are philosophers who spent their entire lives on that
one thing, to an excess, of course. I fortunately had a very sympathetic yet
firm professor, who did not abuse me or grade me down for being so obsessive,
but even to this day, I look back with dismay at how the other students were
unconcerned with the exercise to which I was drawn like a magnet.
And it bears directly on the question of geocentrism, however, I must admit, that
geocentrism, per se, does not draw me in as powerfully as the movement
topic does. I don't pretend to have an explanation, but I do have to admit that
my fascination has not diminished over the years. Curious.
You say that book is entirely about this subject, and I saw the book --- Callum
Coats: Living Energies, Gateway Books, UK, 1996, pp. 65-66 --- on Amazon.
Maybe I should take up Matthew's project and order it through the CathInfo link?
Thumb me down all you want, but you know my point is unassailable. If a canonized pope did not require the faithful to believe in geocentrism as a matter of faith, then clearly it cannot be considered a heresy to believe the opposite. And Pope St. Pius X was no liberal, that's for sure.
It certainly seems lefebvre-fan has a point, here.
Perhaps there is some balance between these two directions - whether all the
popes since 1740 fell into inculpable ignorance in this matter or that all
Catholics are bound to accept geocentrism as of 1616... ?
Hello Cassini.
I read your last response to me, and owe you a more detailed response, but I just wanted to say this now, as it gives me some grief that you went through a trial of faith as you describe above. I personally experienced something quite different in reading the records of these Christian times though I had to first throw out the secularist indoctrination that the modern world tends to put into us sometimes that Christians and peoples of these time were uneducated and backward.
I just propose the following briefly, let me know where you disagree, as I imagine you would, and I'll support what I say in more depth later.
1. I maintain that what was true in St.Robert Bellarmine's day remains true today - that Geocentrism is by far the more common theological opinion, enjoys a very weighty presumption in its favor, and is not to be abandoned unless an exact demonstration to the contrary is produced.
2. This is very different from a de fide dogma which can never ever be abandoned under any conceivable circuмstances whatsoever. What you say to me with respect to the Virgin Birth is therefore certainly mistaken, for that is truly de fide. With regard to the explicit articles of the Creed, or the other points of the faith already defined, it is never permissible to abandon the meaning in which they have always been held.
This point is crucial and this is why I say St.Robert's reasoning proves he did not consider it beyond dispute to yet be de fide. But what about after 1616?
3. The 1616 decree merely confirms this reasoning of this Cardinal and Doctor of the Church. That is to say, this alone is is sufficient grounds to prevent the public teaching of the contrary opinion, heliocentrism as a proven fact. St.Robert himself says this in his letter, that it appears to him that therefore the Church could not allow the contrary to be preached unless an exact demonstration was produced.
4. (i) If an actual demonstration of heliocentrism has ever been produced, then there would be strong weight on either side, and Catholics would be left free to choose either opinion.
(ii) If the attempted demonstration was only apparent, (and reading what some of you have written, I agree that this appears that this is the case) then the force of the decree of 1616 still holds, which requires a reverential assent from Catholics called a religious assent which differs from the assent of faith we give to dogmas but is still a true assent.
I can very easily prove this by citing theologians if necessary, for example Msgr. Van Noort specifically says this in treating Papal authority, its ordinary and extraordinary means and the authority of the Holy Office of the Inquisition etc.
5. For us to suspect the Church of the last 200 odd years before Vatican II of being prone to error is to throw the several dogmas and doctrines that were defined during this time period, highly important and dear to all Catholics, into some doubt.
6. There is absolutely nothing, then, and indeed in may well happen, to prevent geocentrism from receiving in future the full and absolute approval of the Magisterium, following which Catholics would be bound to give the irrevocable assent of faith.
For example, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was once subjected to much discussion in the schools and Scotus' insights and arguments ultimately proved successful and received Magisterial approval in the eventual dogmatic definition.
If geocentrists think they have a compelling case to do this, and it appears to me, to whom some of this is new, that they actually do have a reasonable one, then they should not anathematize lay Catholics but at the proper time present their case to scientists and theologians and the authorities of the Church. Perhaps Sungenis' book was a first attempt to do just that.
God bless you.
Thank you Nishant for taking the time to put forward such a 'compromise' so to speak. For centuries, others have tried to do this because it tries to portray the Church of 1616, 1633, 1741 1820 and 1835 as being right all the time no matter what it did, it became the perfect excuse for believing Catholics.
The problem, as with many things, is in the detail.
1. Cardinal Bellarmine always considered a fixed sun reading of Scripture heresy. The Church at Trent took it for granted the world was geocentric and the Scriptures reveal geocentrism. It is recorded Bellarmine considered it heretical, and nothing can change that.
Apologists however, who portray the matter as a wait-and-see-if-it-is-really-is-heresy, misquote his Letter to Foscarini to support the 'hypothesis' synthesis. As I said before, he answered the hypothesis that Galileo had proof that the sun is fixed as Foscarini had suggested. He said correctly if Galileo had proof then of course the interpretation would have to change. But he added Galileo had not got real proof so no change. He then showed his faith in Solomon's word: 'Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated.' That was 1615.
In 1616 the heresy was defined as formal, end of story, that is what happend when all heresies are dogmatised. It was considered a heresy before Galileo, he would not listen, so the Church defined it as such so that all Catholics would no longer challenge the interpretation of the Fathers nor the revelation in Scripture. Now if any Catholic thinks that a decree defining formal heresy is not an act of the magisterium, then what else is up for revision within the Church, HALF its doctrine?
The greatest clarification of THE CHURCH'S MIND came in 1633 when Pope Urban VIII ordered them to condemn Galileo with the following words:
“Understanding,” the Congregation said, “that, through the publication of a work at Florence entitled Dialogo di Galileo Galilei delle due massime Sisteme del Mundo Ptolemaico e Copernicano, the false opinion of the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun was gaining ground, it had examined the book, and had found it to be a manifest infringement of the injunction laid on you, since you in the same book have defended an opinion already condemned, and declared to your face to be so, in that you have tried in the said book, by various devices, to persuade yourself that you leave the matter undetermined, and the opinion expressed as probable; the which, however, is a most grave error, since an opinion can in no manner be probable which has been declared, and defined to be, contrary to the divine Scripture.”
Now what is it about that statement from the highest office in the Church regarding serious heresy that is not clear? You try to undermine that statement at your peril. You KNOW it cannot be changed, no matter how much you might like it to be. If you do change black for white then your word is WORTHLESS.
The only Catholic solution to the Galileo case that has plagued it for hundreds of years is to face the truth and watch the Holy Ghost protecting His Church from the Copernican popes. I have done it, and while ashamed that popes of the eighteenth to twenty-first centuries have lost faith in the Church of 1616, I cannot find an official hand in this U-turn.
But, as I have said before, the vast majority of Catholics today would prefer martyrdom than face that truth, for it would mean they would be laughed at for such a belief. You say Nishant you can 'prove' your hypothesis claim by citing theologians to defend it. Of course you can. And I could cite theologians that confirmed the decree was papal and absolute. The facts are there in recorded history. The Church decided the matter was of FAITH and that included that there would never be proof for heliocentrism, and that faith is now vindicated. Please do not try to ROB them of their faith and replace it with an 50-50 bet.
I'm posting this, above because I'm not sure I understand what you mean
when you say that you "cannot find an official hand in this U-turn."
It seems to mean that there is no pronounced act of any competent authority
in the Church that we can cite as the moment when the U-turn was officially
adopted. Is that about right?
I know a traditional priest who spent some time before he was ordained studying
geology, and I'd like to ask him a few key questions about geocentrism. I think
he has some dearly held beliefs that are in accord with the 1616 pronouncements,
but I'm not specifically sure. I would also like to discuss with him the findings of
the geological researcher Guy Berthault (pronounced "GEE BearTHOugh"), whose
meticulous laboratory work brings into question the entire geological column and
consequently the age of the universe. If there is not enough time since the earth
was formed, for so-called evolution to have taken place, then the other vast
precept (besides Copernicanism), namely biological evolution, is rendered void,
and as they say, the modernist scientist "wouldn't have a leg to stand on."
One more thing.
Cassini, you mentioned something about a magnetic image of the earth
picture that you don't know how to post, but I can't find that post anymore.
I think it was about 4-10 pages back, and my eyes get cramps trying to
scan pages and pages and pages. Can you repeat that description or maybe
provide a link to the website that has a picture, and I'd be happy to post it
for you............ like this:
(http://www.northernsun.com/images/imagelarge/I-Pledge-Allegiance-Poster-(4426).jpg)
I Pedge Allegiance to the Earth - Poster for sale!!
-
I just realized - how can they say, that the Earth isn't special and that's the
reason that we have to presume the Church is wrong: because the alternative,
that the Earth is special, is entirely unacceptable...
and now, the same promoters of this 'heresy' are teaching our children to..
"pledge allegiance to the earth, and all the life which it supports;
one planet, in our care, irreplaceable; with sustenance and respect for all"?
There are actually quite a variety of these new pledges of allegiance to
just about everything you can think of - except the Flag of the United
States of America, that is!
Of course, the "under God" phrase is the real problem the libs have with that....
-
Congratulations Neil on your assessment on the non-equilibrium quote. It came from a book devoted totally on the subject so I know it can be developed as far as you want. However, for us non-philosophers, I used it in its simplest form before giving Le Sage's theory of celestial movement to try to explain how his theory worked. In geocentrism, the earth is in an equilibrium of forces, not moving. Ever see the globe representing the earth in electromagnetic equilibrium? It is a famous electrical demonstration as to how it is possible on a cosmic scale. If anyone can put up a picture of it that would help. (I do not know how to post pictures) But for movement non-equilibrium must exist. Le sage's theory offered that, when cosmic objects are pushed they will move if those if those forces are in non-equilibrium.
My syllogism exercise was actually kind of fun. I was tempted to go about 15
levels deep but I thought nobody would care about it and it would look like I'm
trying to show off or something. I almost got in trouble in philosophy class about
40 years ago when I and a collaborator threatened to consume the remainder of
the course with a discussion of the details of movement vs. non-movement. It is
a very deep topic, and there are philosophers who spent their entire lives on that
one thing, to an excess, of course. I fortunately had a very sympathetic yet
firm professor, who did not abuse me or grade me down for being so obsessive,
but even to this day, I look back with dismay at how the other students were
unconcerned with the exercise to which I was drawn like a magnet.
And it bears directly on the question of geocentrism, however, I must admit, that
geocentrism, per se, does not draw me in as powerfully as the movement
topic does. I don't pretend to have an explanation, but I do have to admit that
my fascination has not diminished over the years. Curious.
You say that book is entirely about this subject, and I saw the book --- Callum
Coats: Living Energies, Gateway Books, UK, 1996, pp. 65-66 --- on Amazon.
Maybe I should take up Matthew's project and order it through the CathInfo link?
Now that is interesting Neil, your discovering a love for philosophy. Unfortunately I found/find it is beyond my abilities. I am into logic, trying to make thing simple enough for myself.
I cannot remember Neil the exact content of that book, it was loaned to me by my brother who is a Professor of Quantum mechanics. If it is philosophy you are interested in my brothers new book Love and Curiosity might be a better buy. Google it in and see if you are interested.
Geocentrism is a fascinating concept. For me an explanation of TIME can only be found in geocentrism. Is that philosophy. Here let me show you some thoughts:
Time is defined, after Aristotle, as ‘the numbering of motion according to the before and after.’ Time then is the duration of motion or change in which all things happen. This must also apply to matter. All matter is in a process in its existence (the law of entropy-decay, otherwise known as the Second law of Thermodynamics). Everything is undergoing energy breakdown, from the stars to the earth and all things on it. Now a process in motion is something changing, and change needs time to run its course. The very existence of ‘time’ shows there was a beginning, and not so long ago, because, as the law of burn-out dictates, if everything was here forever, all would be burned down to zero energy matter by now, which is not the case.
The Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son,
this day have I begotten thee. (Ps 2:7) and (Heb 5:5-6)
When the Royal Priesthood of Melchisedech was made manifest, King David records: ‘The Lord hath said to me: thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.’ Thus, heaven, earth, priest and king are wedded into a time template.
Measuring time is of course not time itself. We measure time according to God’s plan, the ordained movement of the cosmos, but specifically the daily and yearly cycle of the sun, stars and seasons. Thus the first object of astronomy was measuring time, begun, as Domenico Cassini recorded, by the first people to inhabit the earth. Every measurement - from the watch on your hand to the calendar on your wall - is but a division of the cosmic day and the cosmic year. Of crucial importance in any sane and rational concept of time is that it has to be universal, that is, all time must be the same for everyone, in heaven and on earth. When we relate to the past, present and future, it should go without saying, we must all have the same understanding of it. Fortunately, for most of us, apart from the space-time relativists that is, who think the cosmos is made up of different time-zones, this is how it is, has always been, and always will be. Dogmas held by the Catholic Church must surely need true time and space forming an absolute framework within which the material and spiritual events of the world and man run their course in imperturbable order. Such at least is demanded by the Christian intellect and is reflected in the Scriptures – as we see quoted above in Psalm 2:7 and Hebrews 5:5-6, and in scholastic philosophy and theology. This created God time of the world has to be the same for every observer, the same time in every era and every place. Accordingly, for a true Christian understanding of the Creation and the measurement of time, the whole universe, from the earth to the furthest star, has to be incorporated together as a unit, that is, to serve its purpose in the order of things.
How then does the universe, including ourselves, comply with what we shall call Genesis-time? What is the one and only order of the universe that serves both revelation and mankind? (A 6-day creation, 6,000+ years of existence to the present.)
And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of the heaven,
to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs,
and for seasons, and for days and years. (Gen. 1:14)
Firstly there had to be an immediate creation, all instantaneously together or all in that literal six day creation, and in particular the sun, moon and stars, visible to man on the sixth day. It must also be that God achieved the measurement of time by incorporating the whole cosmos (everything and everyone) within a finite revolving geocentric universal timepiece. The sun, planets and stars, as we observe, participating together in this cosmic clock, no matter how many of them there are or how far away they are, no matter whether they can be seen by the naked eye or not, no matter their distances, every star in the heavens rotates in union with the sun, the differing only by 4 minutes. A ‘day’ then, is actually a universal day everywhere, and a year is a universal year, everywhere. As to the credibility of such things, well they are what we observe, what we actually see and measure every day and year of our lives; what is, and is philosophically and theologically as plausible as God being able to create the universe in the first place.
I will respond to other points later.
Oh by the way, here is one site showing immobile magnetic earth I found by googling in magnetic floating earth.
http://www.google.ie/search?q=magnetic+floating+earth&hl=en&sa=X&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=0iilUP-WIMOEhQfto4DYAg&ved=0CDkQsAQ&biw=1272&bih=784
-
Which one?
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRAIrtmw7ojfwnIla9Ept7t7O2hVAVeHEQh8sS5L07z6nwINVPjog)
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQBSMTm_JV3wg0inqlHL4CTXB7RD6B96ib3fSx0DNJydMvlDGlz)
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS4NVW5Zr-V5uL2zMGdX6wWA4Y0l8CFi23Sb245G66XGA3P2T_7)
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSyHb37qgOEfXbFL_411b9UWnxsb41WwwCWn-BJBcBFzeVz_95_)
-
Regarding the time question, I heard it explained that when God created the
universe, He did so outside of His eternal reality, distinguished from but not
separate from it. We distinguish but we do not separate. This is a most
excellent rule for all of good philosophy.
So first came the universe, inasmuch as time itself was created, and in this
creation He then created angels. Since the angels were in time, they had
"time" to make a choice. Being perfect spirits (without material bodies) they
made one choice, and it was a well-informed choice. Their choice being
made, God then distinguished them the good from the bad, and this is why we
now have the good angels and the devils. Their choice has been made and
their existence in eternity is defined by that choice.
The angels now move from eternity (heaven or hell) into our temporal
reality, based on God's permission for them to do so. When St. Gabriel the
archangel appeared to Our Lady and gave her a 'choice' he was giving her
the same kind of opportunity and challenge that he had himself been given:
Art thou with me or art thou against me? Upon her fiat, hers became the
eternal mission of divine maternity and Mediatrix of grace. How much can
change on the point of one answer!
In time, our vision is veiled from the eternal reality. We have God's revelation,
which is a kind of window open to eternity, a concept the Eastern Churches
enshrine in their veneration of icons. The West has much to learn from that
but we spend most of our lives ignorant of it.
When we die, we leave behind our existence in time and enter, perhaps gradually,
into the eternal reality. Our passage through Purgatory is a gradual
abandonment of temporal reality and "attachment to sin" by which we change
and become purified for our entrance into the eternity of God where there
is no time.
I saw a book yesterday the title of which is "What Do We Do When We're Dead?"
The question comes from ignorance of what death is. The verb "to do" implies
time, for action is a movement through time. Well, in death we have a new
existence by which our state is no longer contingent on temporality, and
therefore we do not "do" anything as we know and understand "doing." Those
in hell have been aptly described (in the visions of Don Bosco) as having
fallen through the gates of hell petrified in posture and unable to "move" for
all eternity. The translations I've seen use "frozen" but that conflicts with our
understanding of "the fires of hell" so I use "petrified" instead.
In eternity, being is an eternal "now," which is God's reality. God has no beginning
and He has no end, because His is perfect being, that exists outside of time.
He said to St. Catherine of Siena, "I am He Who Is, you are she who is not."
In the Old Testament His name is "I AM," rendered as "I am who am." He said,
"Tell them I AM sent you."
Catholic philosophers and dogmatic theologians throughout the ages have
pondered these things and have derived more detailed explanations for us to
learn from, if we will be docile and make our will open to learning. Protestants
have a closed will, for they claim that if something isn't literally in the Bible, then
we don't have to believe it... to their eternal perdition, most unfortunately.
-
Which one?
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRAIrtmw7ojfwnIla9Ept7t7O2hVAVeHEQh8sS5L07z6nwINVPjog)
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQBSMTm_JV3wg0inqlHL4CTXB7RD6B96ib3fSx0DNJydMvlDGlz)
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS4NVW5Zr-V5uL2zMGdX6wWA4Y0l8CFi23Sb245G66XGA3P2T_7)
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSyHb37qgOEfXbFL_411b9UWnxsb41WwwCWn-BJBcBFzeVz_95_)
The bottom picture is real (except the arrow suggesting a spin), showing electromagnet forces are capable of maintaining an immobile object. The others are illustrations showing the electromagnetic forces present around the earth, and one a theoty of the sun providing this electromagnetic field. I believe it is the spinning universe that gives rise to 'geocentric magnetism.' The next step is to find a connection between electromagnetism and gravity. 300 years of heliocentric science has not done this. Domenico Cassini did it but never realised it. Science ignored Cassini's findings because they falsified the very basis of Keplerian and Newtonian heliocentrism. Some day I will show this, but for now I I am developing it.
-
Regarding the time question, I heard it explained that when God created the
universe, He did so outside of His eternal reality, distinguished from but not
separate from it. We distinguish but we do not separate. This is a most
excellent rule for all of good philosophy.
So first came the universe, inasmuch as time itself was created, and in this
creation He then created angels. Since the angels were in time, they had
"time" to make a choice. Being perfect spirits (without material bodies) they
made one choice, and it was a well-informed choice. Their choice being
made, God then distinguished them the good from the bad, and this is why we
now have the good angels and the devils. Their choice has been made and
their existence in eternity is defined by that choice.
The angels now move from eternity (heaven or hell) into our temporal
reality, based on God's permission for them to do so. When St. Gabriel the
archangel appeared to Our Lady and gave her a 'choice' he was giving her
the same kind of opportunity and challenge that he had himself been given:
Art thou with me or art thou against me? Upon her fiat, hers became the
eternal mission of divine maternity and Mediatrix of grace. How much can
change on the point of one answer!
In time, our vision is veiled from the eternal reality. We have God's revelation,
which is a kind of window open to eternity, a concept the Eastern Churches
enshrine in their veneration of icons. The West has much to learn from that
but we spend most of our lives ignorant of it.
When we die, we leave behind our existence in time and enter, perhaps gradually,
into the eternal reality. Our passage through Purgatory is a gradual
abandonment of temporal reality and "attachment to sin" by which we change
and become purified for our entrance into the eternity of God where there
is no time.
I saw a book yesterday the title of which is "What Do We Do When We're Dead?"
The question comes from ignorance of what death is. The verb "to do" implies
time, for action is a movement through time. Well, in death we have a new
existence by which our state is no longer contingent on temporality, and
therefore we do not "do" anything as we know and understand "doing." Those
in hell have been aptly described (in the visions of Don Bosco) as having
fallen through the gates of hell petrified in posture and unable to "move" for
all eternity. The translations I've seen use "frozen" but that conflicts with our
understanding of "the fires of hell" so I use "petrified" instead.
In eternity, being is an eternal "now," which is God's reality. God has no beginning
and He has no end, because His is perfect being, that exists outside of time.
He said to St. Catherine of Siena, "I am He Who Is, you are she who is not."
In the Old Testament His name is "I AM," rendered as "I am who am." He said,
"Tell them I AM sent you."
Catholic philosophers and dogmatic theologians throughout the ages have
pondered these things and have derived more detailed explanations for us to
learn from, if we will be docile and make our will open to learning. Protestants
have a closed will, for they claim that if something isn't literally in the Bible, then
we don't have to believe it... to their eternal perdition, most unfortunately.
Agree with every word Neil. Here is how I write it up.
Eternity and Aeviternity
On the other hand we have that state without time, ‘eternity,’ the ‘duration of what is altogether unchangeable,’ i.e., that which subsists by its essence and has no kind of succession, without beginning or end, and without the possibility of either.
‘I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, who is,
and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.’ (Apoc.1:8)
Christian theology teaches us that God created the universe we live in now from eternity. Thus time and no time exist together. This gives rise to the state of aeviternity, what the scholastics call periodic or irregular intervals of change, a mean between the changeless duration of eternity and the constant change of time. Such a happening would apply to an image, a spirit, or a person permitted by God to go out of time to eternity, and from eternity into time and the other way around..
The sacred doctrine of geocentrism, we must now see, was more than just an astronomical theory, for it embraced many aspects of the Catholic faith and human reason as it applies to God, mankind, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory and Limbo, even time itself; structures and images of hierarchy, unity, truth and beauty as well as the eternal fire intimately connected. Through the analogy and inherent reality of a geocentric creation of the universe, mankind comprehended the divine plan for their lives and ultimate salvation. God as three persons with divine nature reigned in His geocentric universe. But the forces of darkness knew that to topple one was to topple the other. Move, or rather remove, God’s footstool, the earth, and you not only unseat God from His Heavenly Throne but deprive Him of that direct union with man in the temporal world, stealing from man that reward that lies in store for those who do believe and adore God through this creation. And if the promise of extra bliss in heaven is to be man’s reward through recognising and glorifying God in this sensual structure of the world, then it required the Church for the good of its members and glory of God to defend this revelation, both in the material sense and in its scriptural sense, so that man living on earth might know and confirm God’s existence better in this life even before the bliss of heaven for all eternity.
-
This is a most edifying conversation. I'll have to think about your last post,
but for the moment, one thing strikes me right away: "Eye hath not seen nor
ear heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath
prepared for those that love Him" (I Cor. ii. 9 / Isa. lxiv. 4). When you say,
The sacred doctrine of geocentrism, we must now see, was more than just an astronomical theory, for it embraced many aspects of the Catholic faith and human reason as it applies to God, mankind, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory and Limbo, even time itself; structures and images of hierarchy, unity, truth and beauty as well as the eternal fire intimately connected.
Through the analogy and inherent reality of a geocentric creation of the universe, mankind comprehended the divine plan for their lives and ultimate salvation.
God as three persons with divine nature reigned in His geocentric universe.
But the forces of darkness knew that to topple one was to topple the other.
Move, or rather remove, God’s footstool, the earth, and you not only unseat God from His Heavenly Throne but deprive Him of that direct union with man in the temporal world, stealing from man that reward that lies in store for those who do believe and adore God through this creation.
And if the promise of extra bliss in heaven is to be man’s reward through recognising and glorifying God in this sensual structure of the world, then it required the Church for the good of its members and glory of God to defend this revelation, both in the material sense and in its scriptural sense, so that man living on earth might know and confirm God’s existence better in this life even before the bliss of heaven for all eternity.
... I am thinking that it is an act of pride for man to presume to understand
the universe better than God does.
And if the devil can get man to commit this act of pride, the devil wins and
man loses.
God never loses, and Catholics true to the Faith always win in the end.
If it were possible for us to ever discover the hidden realities of heaven, the
Apostle would never have quoted Isaias, and the latter would never have written
the words he did in verse 4.
How can we presume to know what the earth will become, or rather, be replaced
with, in the next life?
How can we begin to imagine what this temporal planet is a mere shadow of,
when being itself will be redefined in the eternal reality yet to come?
The foundation of the "faith of a child" is to believe those things the infallible
Church teaches, even if we do not understand them, for our understanding
grows with us as our faith becomes more mature.
God has provided man with this vast and mysterious world for our benefit, or
our destruction, and the choice is ours, by our use of our free will.
We are given the natural world for our observation and study, and we are also
given God's divine revelation so that we may believe it.
But God does not reveal everything to us; He leaves a lot for our own
discovery by way of deduction, or perhaps induction.
But not all we know comes to us by way of learning and esoteric study,
"...because thou hath hidden these things from the wise and prudent and hath
revealed them to little ones. Yea, Father, for so it hath seemed good in thy
sight" (Lk x. 21).
And there are many ways for man to "go off the rails," no less so in our
modern world than there have been in past ages, "...for wide is the gate and
broad is the path that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in
thereat" (Matt. vii. 13).
Move, or rather remove, God’s footstool, the earth, and you not only unseat God from His Heavenly Throne but deprive Him of that direct union with man in the temporal world, stealing from man that reward that lies in store for those who do believe and adore God through this creation.
I would only caution that perhaps it would be more accurate to say,
"Move, or rather remove, God’s footstool, the earth, and you not only would
unseat God from His Heavenly Throne, but would prevent Him from that
direct union with man in the temporal world, thereby depriving man of that
reward that lies in store for those who do believe and adore God through this
creation."
...Because, nobody can "unseat God from His Heavenly Throne," and nobody can
"deprive God" of anything, and the devil can't really be "stealing" man's reward, for
that would presume that the devil then possesses man's reward, which he does
not do. The devil has no reward at all, but eternal punishment. The devils in hell
don't "gain" anything by souls of men falling into hell, it's just their desire to make
as many others of God's creatures suffer as the devils already do, themselves,
that is their incentive.
But I don't want to drift off topic.
It seems you might have a response, cassini, to my question about the Foucault
pendulum. As I'm sure you're aware, it has been tested in many places north
and south in the world, and has been found to behave as the Newtonian
gravitational equations would predict, insofar as the variation in the swing of the
heavy suspended mass progresses in such a way as to give the impression to a
viewer that the earth moves. That is, the oscillation rotates clockwise in the
northern hemisphere, completing a 360-degree precession in 24 hours at the
north pole, and in 48 hours at 30 degrees latitude. In the southern hemisphere it
rotates counterclockwise. At the equator, it does not rotate at all, where it may
be difficult to find a Foucault pendulum on display anywhere. There is one at
Griffith Park, Los Angeles, at the Observatory, at 34 degrees north latitude.
However, no one has ever explained, as far as I know, how the pendulum could
possibly "know" that the earth would be moving, nor, how the pendulum could
possibly "know" that the distant stars would "not be moving." In all the
explanations I have read, there seems to be this conspicuous gap where they
talk about the pendulum and then they talk about the earth and/or the sun
and/or the universe, without any explanation of how or by what means the
relative movements of each can be "communicated" between the elements.
Obviously, gravitational forces, whatever those are, may be presumed to
act through "empty space" but where is the explanation of how they translate
into a force acting perpendicular or a force communicating at a distance a
torsional aspect or a moment, as engineers would say?
-
But I don't want to drift off topic.
It seems you might have a response, cassini, to my question about the Foucault
pendulum. As I'm sure you're aware, it has been tested in many places north
and south in the world, and has been found to behave as the Newtonian
gravitational equations would predict, insofar as the variation in the swing of the
heavy suspended mass progresses in such a way as to give the impression to a
viewer that the earth moves. That is, the oscillation rotates clockwise in the
northern hemisphere, completing a 360-degree precession in 24 hours at the
north pole, and in 48 hours at 30 degrees latitude. In the southern hemisphere it
rotates counterclockwise. At the equator, it does not rotate at all, where it may
be difficult to find a Foucault pendulum on display anywhere. There is one at
Griffith Park, Los Angeles, at the Observatory, at 34 degrees north latitude.
However, no one has ever explained, as far as I know, how the pendulum could
possibly "know" that the earth would be moving, nor, how the pendulum could
possibly "know" that the distant stars would "not be moving." In all the
explanations I have read, there seems to be this conspicuous gap where they
talk about the pendulum and then they talk about the earth and/or the sun
and/or the universe, without any explanation of how or by what means the
relative movements of each can be "communicated" between the elements.
Obviously, gravitational forces, whatever those are, may be presumed to
act through "empty space" but where is the explanation of how they translate
into a force acting perpendicular or a force communicating at a distance a
torsional aspect or a moment, as engineers would say?
Here Neil, for you, my essay on Foucault's Pendulum with references.
1851:
Foucault’s
Pendulum
PICTURE OF
Léon Foucault conducting his famous experiment in Rome
Léon Foucault (1819-1868), after having observed the working of a lathe, reasoned that a pendulum might operate in a similar manner to show rotation between the earth and the inertial field, and thus, in his view, demonstrate the rotation of the earth. He built a small apparatus in a basement in Paris to test this idea, and pronounced his ‘success’ at 2 am on Jan 8,1851.
Following this he was invited to set up his wonder of wonders at the Paris Observatory which led to an invitation from none other than Napoleon III to build a very large exhibit in the Pantheon in Paris. Hanging from a dome 220 feet above, a huge bob swung across a 20-foot diameter ring containing wet sand leaving a grove as it passed through. As it swung in time, it continued to cut out new ridges until it formed a curve of cuts on the ground. Truly it looked as if it was accomplishing something specific, and aided by the claims of Foucault that this was indeed the earth’s rotation, the ability of this demonstration to convert even the most sceptical was instantaneous.
Like a demon on horseback, news of Foucault’s pendulum and its success in convincing all that the earth moves spread far and wide. As the Devil would have it, the greater heights of cathedral roofs were deemed most suitable for hanging the wire and ball of the pendulum so operations were set up in churches in Reims, Amiens, St Jaques and Marseille and many other places. Soon all sizes of pendulums began operations throughout Europe and beyond. So effective was the Foucault hoax that they placed them in many key locations such as in the Science Museum London; in the Deutsches Museum Munich; in the Monash University Melbourne; in the (Smithsonian) National Museum of American History Washington DC; in Columbo Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and in hundreds of other places. In a recent book on the Léon Foucault, the author Amir Aczel records that in 1902 the Academy of Sciences of France commemorated that first demonstration of the earth’s rotation by re-enacting the display once again at the Panthéon in Paris, presided over by Camille Flammarion and Alphonse Berget before a crowd of over 2000 people. Aczel then illustrates the part the Foucault pendulum has played in the heliocentric indoctrination in both Church and State over the past five centuries.
‘The most magnificent lesson in popular astronomy ever given to the public was surely the memorable experiment conducted at this very place almost half a century ago by Léon Foucault. It was a practical, evident and majestic demonstration of the movement of rotation of our globe and a grammatical affirmation of the title planet, or ‘wandering star’ to the world on which we live… The image of Galileo just passed before our eyes. The demonstration of the earth’s movement has changed philosophy as a whole…
It is the greatest moral and ethical revolution in the history of man. Foucault’s great triumph is a triumph of the human mind. It is a double victory of knowledge against ignorance.
Foucault’s definitive proof of the rotation of the earth helped vindicate Galileo, Copernicus and Giordano Bruno. After Foucault successfully demonstration of the earth’s rotation Church scholars themselves embraced the heliocentric Copernican view of the world and openly wrote about Foucault’s proof. In 1911, the Jesuit priest J.G. Hagen wrote a major treaties called “The Rotation of the Earth: It’s Mechanical Proofs Ancient and New.” ’ ---Amir D. Aczel: Pendulum: Léon Foucault and the Triumph of Science, Washington Press, 2003, p.234 and p.238.
Picture of
Rotating stars or rotating earth?
We see then that Foucault’s pendulum is long portrayed as the instrument that supposedly demonstrates it is a rotating earth that causes the above appearance and not the rotation of the stars around the earth. Here are a couple more quotes to show how this assertion is held throughout the whole academic world.
‘Ever since the time of Copernicus it had been taken for granted that the Earth is rotating on its axis. Nevertheless no one had actually demonstrated the fact. It seemed stationary, and no effect had been observed (other than the apparent spin of the sky) that could be attributed to the rotation. In 1851, however Jean Foucault suspended a large iron ball, about 2 feet in diameter and weighing 62 pounds, from a steel wire more than 200 feet long...The swinging pendulum would then remain in the same plane, but the earth, as it rotated, would change its orientation. If the pendulum had been at the North Pole, it would do a complete circle in 24 hours. At the latitude of Paris, the change would have taken 51 hours and 47 minutes. Thus the spectators were actually watching the Earth rotate under the pendulum.’ --I. Asimov, Science and Discovery, Grafton Books, 1990, p.323.
‘Léon Foucault in Paris demonstrates the rotation of the Earth by means of a 200 foot pendulum.’ --- Dava Sobel, Galileo’s Daughter, p.391.
Richard G Elmendorf’s Investigation
So much for the propaganda but now study the truth of it. This comes from the 20-year investigation of the foucault pendulum by Richard G Elmendorf completed in 1994. Elmendorf is an engineer by profession and has now to be the world’s leading expert on the subject by far. We thank him for permission to use his work in our thesis. Mr Elmendorf’s begins with the following:
‘The foucault pendulum is one of the best-known experiments in the history of science. It created a sensation in its first public showing in Paris in 1851, and has fascinated scientists and laymen ever since. …
This article discusses the history, construction, operation, theory and meaning of the foucault pendulum, presenting facts about it which are not generally known or understood by the millions of visitors who view these fascinating displays in science museums, schools, planetariums, observatories and other public buildings all around the world every year.
My findings about the foucault pendulum may very well astonish you…The surprising truth is that all foucault pendulums are fakes. Most of them are fakes because they are forced to do what they do, rather than doing what comes naturally, and all the rest of them are fakes insofar as they are used as proof of the earth’s [supposed] rotation. The only kind of foucault pendulum which would not be a fake would be one that was free-swinging, operated properly, and either had no explanations, plaques or literature associated with it, or had such which plainly acknowledged that it cannot determine absolute rotation. I know of no such foucault pendulum anywhere.
The foucault pendulum is a piece of scientific apparatus specifically designed and built to deceive and mislead. It is literally a “humbug” – a sham, a fake, a fraud, an artifice, a pretence, a hoax – and I believe it should be exposed as such.
But the foucault pendulum is more than a hoax. It is actually a religious propaganda tool. Foucault pendulum displays have something very serious and important to prove.'---R.G. Elmendorf: A Critical Investigation of the Foucault Pendulum, published by P.C.S., PO Box 267 Bairdford, PA 15006, USA, Introduction.
The Occult Connection
The first hint of occult association with the Foucault pendulum can be gleaned when we know that Napoleon III, then president of France, a nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte, an implacable foe of the Roman Catholic Church, a wannabe scientist, agreed with Foucault to install his grand exhibit of the Foucault pendulum in the Panthéon in Paris. The word ‘panthéon’ refers to a temple dedicated to ‘all the gods’. This building, constructed originally as the Church of St Genevieve and taken over by the smaller revolution of 1848, was just perfect to mock the geocentricism of common sense, Scripture and the Catholic Church’s declarations of 1616 and 1633.
Thereafter, President Napoleon III encouraged the use of other Churches as display sites for the contraption, exhibitions that must have generated howls of laughter in the pits of hell where the Copernican revolution was first dreamed up. For those of us still conscious of the great battle between the Christian faith and those that despise it, the war of Principalities and Powers, this was indeed a great victory for the occult forces of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
‘A final irony of the intriguing connection between the Foucault pendulum and religion is that many of the early scientific reports on the pendulum presented to the London Philosophical Society in England were authored by “Reverend” so-and-so, reflecting the fact that science started out originally as “natural philosophy” taught in religious schools. The word “science” wasn’t even in common use until the middle of the nineteenth century – just when the Foucault pendulum appeared on the scene.’ --- Elmendorf, Foucault Pendulum, Pittsburgh Creation Society, p.26.
[On this forum today, there is a posting showing how COMMUNISM would take over the world as predicted at Fatima. Read the following in this context]
In 1930, the occult masters in their ‘Communists of the Soviet Union’ guise, thought it worthwhile to construct and keep active the largest Foucault pendulum in the world at the time. They put it in St Isaac’s Cathedral in Leningrad (now St Petersburg). To facilitate it, a symbol of the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Ghost, was removed from the cathedral’s 250-foot dome. Mr Elmendorf adds: ‘In these surroundings, the Foucault pendulum does act as sort of a spiritual wrecking ball, and I wonder what kind of church would have allowed its facilities to be used for such a purpose.’
Where now the most significant instrument of occult brainwashing? Why in modern man’s new Tower of Babel of course, the United Nations Building in New York.
PICTURE OF UNITED NATIONS BUILDING:
Spot the Foucault pendulum at the United Nations Building in New York.
Slap in the entrance hall, where every diplomat (and pope these days) entering can see it, its gold-plated bob reminding the powers from all over the world that the earth they govern is a spinning one. When offering New York the pendulum in 1955, the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs commented that it served as a reminder of the “ability of the human mind to penetrate into the secrets of the universe.”
Elmendorf says:
‘That is occult talk. Umberto Eco’s novel Foucault pendulum is full of esoteric medieval plots and the abstruse meanings and symbolisms of secret societies, which climax dramatically in the Musee National des Techniques. In Paris, where the original Foucault pendulum bob used in the 1851 Pantheon exhibit is displayed and the complete 1855 pendulum operates today…
The darkened, altar-like settings of many Foucault pendulum displays, and the procedures, traditions and trappings associated with them giving a strong impression of a religious aspect to the device. The bob, swinging slowly and eerily back and forth, incites thoughtful wonder if not reverential awe in anyone who sees a Foucault pendulum for the first time. You might expect the operator to come dressed in priestly robes and chanting incantations as he sets up the pins, adjusts the dials of the hidden mechanisms and burns the thread to start the pendulum swinging. Indeed, the Foucault pendulum does promulgate a religious message, as we have seen, and its purpose is to make a connection with a sort of “hidden force”, much as a new-age channeler would claim to do. Pendulums have figured in occult activities and ceremonies for thousands of years. Sometimes termed “radiesthesic tools”, they are used in various forms of divination. Pendulums claiming to be “antennas to a higher power” are sold through supermarket tabloids. Pendulums are inherently mesmerising devices, and are widely used in hypnotism. Hidden mechanisms are a staple of occult ceremonies. The use of fire is common.
It is a useful device in literature and drama. Edgar Allen Poe utilized a pendulum in his horrible tale of torture at the hands of the Inquisition, “The Pit and the Pendulum.” A swinging (and falling) chandelier is involved in the climax of “The phantom of the Opera”. Another sign of the occult of Foucault pendulums is the secrecy surrounding their actual operation, and the seeming reluctance of experimenters to give complete performance figures and lay their difficulties out on the table. I think there is more to this than technical pride, because it is characteristic of most reports published on the Foucault pendulums , starting with Foucault’s original experiments…There are a lot of strange things about the Foucault pendulum, and it does seem that there is some kind of an occult connection involved somewhere, even if I haven’t put my finger on it. The thing is loaded with philosophical and religious aspects in the guise of physics, and these are exploited to the greatest possible extent in all major displays.’ (pp.27-28)
Footnote: This museum is a branch of the Conservatoire des Arts et Metiers and was established in 1793 in the old monastery of St Martin des champs, which had been nationalised during the French Revolution.
Footnote: An article in The Physics Teache Sept 1981 describing a short Foucault pendulum for corridor display in a school made the following remarkable statement: “The complete pendulum unit can be seen inside the enclosure, but the wire suspension device and electromagnetic drive mechanism are intentionally hidden from the observer.”
Elmendorf believes Foucault - who incidentally showed that light travels slower when travelling through water - was sincere in his experiments with the pendulum and probably believed it did prove the earth rotates on its axis. What really matters is that Foucault provided the illusion of the millennium, and for that the earthmoving Masons gave him many honours and awards. It should be no surprise then that among the accolades were the Copley Medal of the British Royal Society. As recent as 1958, Foucault and his pendulum appeared on the fifteen-franc stamp.
How it is Supposed to Work
Once again then, a Foucault pendulum is constructed with its bob free to swing in any direction. Under the bob is placed a ‘base plate’, with precision markings like the face of a 24-hour clock. It begins its sway as any normal pendulum does, i.e., to and fro in a straight line. Soon however, the bob begins to turn, all the time cutting grooves in the clay at its base. Most textbooks, technical articles, plaques, and other accounts give an explanation of its operation similar to this one below.
‘For simplicity, let us consider such a pendulum swinging at one of the poles. At other latitudes it will have a more complicated motion, but the principle is the same. Since the pendulum is swinging from a universal joint, the plane of its motion will remain fixed in absolute space, while the earth rotates underneath.’ D.W. Sciama, The Unity of the Universe, doubleday, 1959, p.112.
In answer to this assertion Elmendorf replies:
‘The plane of a Foucault pendulum cannot possibly remain “fixed in space”, as these texts say, at least not anywhere except at the poles and when swinging east-west at the equator. Think about it. If it did, the pendulum would soon be crashing through the side wall of the museum, and if it kept on swinging, it would return to its starting position every 24 hours regardless of its location, neither of which actually occurs.’ (p.34)
But the fact is, according to Elmendorf’s thorough research, the Foucault pendulums seldom achieve turning rates closer than 15 percent to the theoretical. Compared to a sundial their daily movements are a joke, swinging in erratic directions proving that it is not an instrument controlled solely by the supposed steady rotation of the earth underneath it, but that the sensitive bob is moved by other unknown inertial influences.
Rigging the Foucault Pendulum
Because of the enormous difficulties in actually getting a Foucault pendulum to work properly, nearly all of them are rigged to do what they are supposed to do naturally. The theory is there, the instrument is there, and the need to demonstrate the earth’s supposed rotation is there, but the damn things just do not oblige. Instead they show mysterious perturbations and erratic motions that cause the turning rate to vary from that expected of them. 150 years of investigation still cannot explain why this should be so and perhaps they never will.
The first short cut to a successful hoax was to use various ingenious ways to drive the pendulum arm to do the right thing and yet be able to disclaim it affects the turning rate of the pendulum. Elmendorf refutes this disclaimer in his study.
The second operation that is essential to all sham Foucault pendulums is to damp them. In order to keep it in a straight line the motion of the pendulum is ‘damped’ at just the right point in the swing.
On this rigging Elmendorf says:
‘Whenever damping is present, deliberate or not, sophisticated or not, hidden or not, the natural motion of the pendulum, including the Foucault turning itself, has been altered, and is no longer an honest Foucault pendulum.’
The third operation necessary to have any hope of even the pretence of proper functioning is tuning. The object of many little adjustments and manipulation of the controls is to achieve a ‘clear and convincing exhibit for your consumption.’ Again Elmendorf provides many technical details of such tuning adding ‘the proof of the pudding is in the turning, and the proof of the fudging is in the fooling with the settings and controls to get the right turning rate. Not too fast, not too slow, but just right, that’s the name of the game in the world of Foucault pendulums.’ However, so erratic are the things that soon another tuning is necessary, then another, the settings readjusted and the dials reset to demonstrate for all to see that the earth rotates. ‘And that’s what the Foucault pendulum is in most cases -a demonstrator and not a scientific instrument at all. The bottom line is that almost all Foucault pendulums are not what they pretend to be. They are faking it.’
Do Some Work?
Richard Elmendorf says ‘almost’ for there are ‘pure’, un-driven Foucault pendulums to be found which will exhibit a turning, although always erratic. One such pendulum is in the University of Colorado in Boulder Co. USA. During its daily stint it will turn approximately 90 degrees (25% of a rotation). Can it be claimed the students of Colorado experience proof for a partial rotation of the earth? The answer is a resounding no. First of all the very idea that the earth revolves under the pendulum is utter nonsense. You may as well try to say that if you jump in the air and hold yourself up with both shoelaces the earth would turn under you. That is a similar belief to that asked of us by the Earthmovers with their Foucault pendulums. But why and how then can a pure Foucault pendulum turn even 90 degrees as the Boulder one does? The answer is that there is an inertial field around the earth and it is this effect that causes the bob to change its position over time, the same effect that Guglielmini and Coriolis found some years earlier.
Other Theories for Inertial Field
There seems to be only two possible reasons for the earth’s inertial field, a rotating earth or a rotating universe around the earth. In 1883, some years after Foucault’s demonstration and ‘proof’ for the earth’s rotation, Ernst Mach, a top-notch physicist of the time, for what it was worth, said one need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of the earth; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of the earth where the earth is treated as being at rest. Other unknown factors then add to its movement leading not to a smooth synchronised turn but to an erratic series of partial turns. According to their own physics then, Mach’s Principle in effect negates all demonstrations in the earth’s inertial field as proof for anything but that the field exists.
‘Mach made the further suggestion that inertia is not an inherent property of matter but is the result of forces caused by the dis¬tant galaxies. According to this hypothesis, the inertial force on a given mass...is caused by the action of all the matter in the universe.’ (Moon and Spencer. ‘Mach’s Principle’ 1959.)
Support for Mach’s relativity theory would also come from Albert Einstein. He too concluded that a centrifugal force on an object in the earth’s rest frame is inadmissible as proof of a rotating earth, for in the earth’s frame that force could equally arise from ‘the average rotational effect of distant detectable masses.’ Such relativity would of course be better known under his General Theory of Relativity of 1915. After Einstein came a top Viennese scientist, Professor Hans Thirring who in 1918 agreed with Mach’s Principle, and said that the Coriolis effect can also be accounted for equally well in a geocentric reference frame when he stated ‘the required equivalence be guaranteed by the general co-variance of the field equations.’
‘For a rotating shell of matter...Thirring found the interesting result that the field in the interior of the shell, ...is similar to the field in a rotating system of coordinates, thus leading to gravitational forces similar to the centrifugal and Coriolis forces.’ -- G. Moller: The Theory of Relativity,1952.
So it seems science has known since 1883 that the Coriolis effect and the movement of the Foucault pendulum can be equally accommodated in a geocentric model of the universe. Since then many physicists have written papers confirming this conclusion.
So, does the earth spin? The late Sir Fred Hoyle, once accepted as one of the world’s leading astrophysicists, affirms the current position of science in regard to the long held claim that it does:
‘We can talk with precision of a body as spinning around relative to something or another, but there is no such thing as absolute spin: the Earth is not spinning to those of us who live on its surface and our point of view is as good as anyone else’s – but no better.’ ---F. Hoyle: Frontiers of Astronomy, New York, Harper & Row, 1966, p304.
-
Thank you for your reply, cassini.
While that's all interesting, and so on, I'm not satisfied that it answers my question.
Maybe I should put it in different words. If we were to presume that there is no
torsional or rotating field of 'gravity' acting on a pendulum, we should be able to
conclude that a freely swinging pendulum would continue to swing in the same
plane (it is actually a piece-of-pie-shaped area that is a part of the geometrical
plane) indefinitely, so long as it has an innocent 'nudge' every so often, or even
each time it swings, to overcome the decay of movement that is inherent in
nature due to friction, like air resistance and the imperfection of the bearing
that holds the top of the pendulum up, or 'suspends' it. A classical pendulum
clock is a reasonable approximation of what I'm talking about, for the oscillating
'bob' moves regularly left and right, slicing through the air (friction) and
constantly slowed down by the little hinge pin from which it hangs. I have a
smaller version of one, made in Germany around 1910, a 'box clock,' that has a
strip of metal at the top of the pendulum arm, that is rigidly attached to the
clock framework. That is, there is no 'bearing' or 'hinge' that suspends the
swinging pendulum.
(My clock's little strip of steel sheet metal (about 0.010" thickness, made of spring
steel, and 6 mm wide and 40 mm long) flexes with each swing of the arm, thereby
absorbing energy with each swing, energy which is changed by this flexing
movement from kinetic energy into heat in the steel strip, plus a miniscule
deterioration of the strip itself, such that over time, the 'working' of this flexing
action will eventually cause the spring steel material to harden, become brittle,
crack and break. But it is the same little strip now 100 years old, and it shows
some discoloration but no obvious signs of hardening or cracking. But this is detail
not directly bearing on the subject at hand. I only mention it in the context of
the question of "where does the energy of the pendulum go?"...)
My box clock has a mainspring that is manually wound, and 7 half-turns of the
key once a week keeps it running very well, so long as there is no earthquake
(speaking of earth 'movement'!). For when there is an earthquake, and we have
small ones at least once a week around here, occasionally the clock will stop
because the pendulum's swing was disrupted by the seismic jolt. This happens
once every few months, but might not happen at all for a year or more. I have
been paying attention to this phenomenon for over 20 years, with this very
thing in mind. I know people with battery-operated clocks with a swinging
pendulum and they're a flat-out joke, because there is one motor that runs the
pendulum and another motor that powers the clock, and they have nothing to
do with each other: the swinging do-dad is just for looks. Talk about a farse!
Those are not pendulum clocks, they're Hoax Clocks! They're Scam Clocks!
The point is, a true pendulum clock needs a power source to keep the bob
swinging. In my box clock, and in all classical mechanical clocks (even watches)
that were made until about 1960 (there's that year again!! - the Seiko QC-951,
which weighed 3 kilos, used at the Tokyo games in 1964 was the first quartz clock
to time Olympic events), there is an escapement that consumes a small
amount of kinetic energy from the mainspring each time the clock "ticks," and this
escapement regulates the speed of the clock. That is, without it, the clock's
minute hand would race around the dial like a second hand, or perhaps even faster
than that. This same energy, then, is doled out to the pendulum by way of a tiny
and fairly consistent 'nudge' in the general direction of the swing. The precise
moment of this nudge varies within a narrow range. That is, there is an optimum
time for it to happen, for if it happens too late in the swing, by the time the
energy takes effect, the pendulum would be starting its return swing, and would
therefore be slowed down by the nudge, eventually causing the clock to stop
running. The escapement is not able to provide this nudge too early, however.
So the clock escapement mechanism needs to be adjusted manually to keep the
tiny 'push' happening before it's too late in the pendulum's swing. Over years of
operation, the brass gears wear down, ever so slowly, and this tiny 'push' gets
delayed, so some periodic maintenance is required for the clock to be reliable.
This is done every 5 - 10 years.
All clocks like this have a swinging pendulum that only moves in two directions, left
and right. But would the swing gradually rotate to a forward-back movement if it
were allowed to do so? I have not found a definitive answer to this question.
But I suspect the answer is "yes." Furthermore, I suspect that this accounts to
some degree for the fact that my box clock runs slightly faster at odd times from
month to month, and slightly slower at other times, and when I try to adjust the
rate of swing by moving the bob up (faster) or down (slower), I find a very odd
thing goes on. I can move the bob up a little, and have no increase in speed for a
few days. So then I move it up a little more (1 or 2 mm) and still no increase
occurs. Then when I move it up 1 or 2 mm again, suddenly, the clock starts
running faster by several seconds every day. There seems to be a range over
which the bob can be placed without changing the rate of the clock, but if you go
just past that range (either up/faster or down/slower) there is a sudden increase
or decrease in the speed of the clock. I have not found this to be the case with
balance wheel movements (like manual wristwatches have, or some older, actually
obsolete, wall clocks).
In a Foucault pendulum, a little 'nudge' is obviously required to keep it swinging
too, otherwise it will stop swinging. But in order to provide this nudge, some
direction of force is inherently required. At our Griffith Park Observatory, every
time I've been there to hear the docent's presentation of the Foucault Pendulum
in action, I have noticed that when they mention the electromagnetic device
up on the ceiling that nudges the cable with each swing, they are highly
sensitive to their audience, as if they're afraid of 'touching a nerve.' They
always assure us that the device does not impart any prejudice in the swing
of the cable, that is, it only encourages the cable to keep moving in the way
that it is already moving of its own accord. And whenever I, or anyone else
who happens to be there, ask them questions about the nature of force, that
it inherently has a direction in which it acts, they defer to someone else, like,
"you'll have to take up more detailed matters with a qualified representative."
Curiously, these docents are always people who claim to not be an 'expert,'
even though they are students at MIT, or USC or work for JPL, or whatever. I
am under the impression that the Observatory trains them to NOT answer
questions in front of the crowd that can raise this issue with any attention to
the issues that they do not want to discuss: such as, "How can you nudge
a cable to move more in some direction without specifying the direction?"
Or, and this one they treat as if it's radioactive or something:
"IF you let the present movement of
the cable determine the direction of the
nudge, AND the present movement of
the cable is changing constantly due to
this 'Coriolis effect,' how can you be sure
that your device can deliver a nudge in the
exact same direction that the cable is moving,
FOR, from the time the device senses
the instantaneous direction of the present
movement (which is contstantly changing)
until the moment when the nudge takes
effect, would have to be a period of at
least one or two seconds, and during that
time, the cable must have changed direction
some small amount; THEREFORE, the
nudge can absolutely never be guaranteed
to be delivered with no prejudice whatsoever
as to direction, since the moment that
the nudge takes effect is a moment that
the direction of the current swing has not
yet been evaluated, AND as such,
in order to attempt to approximate the
current direction of the pendulum swing that
will occur one or two seconds into the future,
an anticipation of what that direction
will be must be introduced, SUCH THAT
your anticipation itself contributes a kind of
prejudice, SINCE you are then having
the nudge occur in a direction that you are
estimating WILL BE existing in the future
but has not yet occurred at the time
when you deliver the nudge itself?"
This whole thing of the unpredictability of pendulums and the incessant and
ostensibly random purturbations of their movement, however slight, reminds
me of the "retrograde" motions of the planets as observed from earth,
inasmuch as they were ostensibly random purturbations when seen from
earth, until such time as they could be explained by recognizing the way
the movements of other planets must appear from earth due to their orbits
-- orbits, that is, around the sun AND the other planets, including the earth!
For, before the larger mass of the sun was understood as at least a major
component of the cause of the respective planets' orbital movements, their
retrograde motions were inexplicable and seemingly erratic.
In your last post, the conservators of the Foucault pendulums all over the
world are effectively charged with falsifying the observable movements of
their devices, but how that is done in specifics is not offered. Do you have
any more detail on what they actually do to make the devices behave as
they do, or, more importantly, do you have any explanation for how the
distant stars and galaxies could effect any force on a moving pendulum or
gyroscope in our environment? What is the communicating medium from
Alpha Centari to planet earth??
-
I have read your thinking on pendulums Neil. It seems there are mysteries when it comes to pendulums, as there are in many other areas of nature. "where does the energy of the pendulum go?"
I have no doubt the problems are twofold, and whereas an understanding of physics can answer some questions, other actions are mysteries that may never be answered. Which brings us back to what Pope Urban VIII said to Galileo, that God, in His infinite power and wisdom, was not restricted by man’s known or contrived physics when it came to ordering the motions of the heavens (or on earth). He may well, the Pope argued, if and where He uses secondary causes, have created the universe (and the laws of nature on earth) on the solid foundations of physics undreamed of in human minds, and set the sun, moon and stars (and pendulums) in motion according to laws man might never discover.
You say: 'All clocks like this have a swinging pendulum that only moves in two directions, left and right. But would the swing gradually rotate to a forward-back movement if it were allowed to do so? I have not found a definitive answer to this question. But I suspect the answer is "yes." '
So do I. The unassisted Foucault pendulum does show there is some movement but not more than 90 degrees.
Then again you could try quantum mechanics to see if they could answer your questions. The closest thing to quantum is magic.
YOu SAY: This whole thing of the unpredictability of pendulums and the incessant and ostensibly random purturbations of their movement, however slight, reminds me of the "retrograde" motions of the planets as observed from earth, inasmuch as they were ostensibly random purturbations when seen from earth, until such time as they could be explained by recognizing the way the movements of other planets must appear from earth due to their orbits -- orbits,that is, around the sun AND the other planets, including the earth! For, before the larger mass of the sun was understood as at least a major component of the cause of the respective planets' orbital movements, their retrograde motions were inexplicable and seemingly erratic.
Here above Neil you give the 'mass of the sun' as a cause. One of the reasons that few can accept the geocentric doctrine is because of the illusion that Newton's theories are LAWS. It seem few will understand that if H or G cannot be established or falsified, then the LAWS of the universe cannot either. Therefore the mass of the sun as a scientific cause is only a theory and might not be true at all. Moreover, ever go into the area of Newtonian 'mass'? It is a nightmare theory to try to explain. For example, how come a 1 pound plastic ball and a 200 pound cannonball dropped from a heights will hit the ground at the same time? How come MASS has no influence on this experiment?
As for the retrograde motions of the planets as seen from earth, well these too fall under God's plan to demonstrate His omnipotence.
He [Domenico Cassini] also accepts Josephus’s claim that it was through the study of the stars [planets], indeed of the irregularity of their motions, that Abraham was led to knowledge of the true God, for their irregularity shows that they move, not by their own will, but for our benefit in service to a commanding power.’ --- N. M. Swerdlow: ‘Astronomical Chronology and prophecy: Jean-Dominique Cassini’s discovery of Josephus’s great lunisolar period of the Patriarchs,’ Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 53, 1990, pp.1-3.
ILLUSTRATION OF PLANETS AS SEEN FROM EARTH SHOULD BE SHOWN HERE
What Abraham saw as a sign of God.
On the left, as observed from the earth, we have the apparent movements
of Saturn in twenty-nine years, Jupiter in twelve years and Mars in two years.
On the right we have the apparent movements of Mercury over seven years.
Finally Neil, I have Richard G Elmendorf’s paper tucked away somewhere. It is an 84 page monigraph. In it he does address the different ways they have to 'assist' nature to get a Foucault Pendulum do what it is supposed to do. Here is a website link to it I believe:
http://www.reformation.org/united-nations.html
-
The illuminating posts of NO in this discussion are much appreciated-- at least by moi. :cheers:
-
Do you have [...] any explanation for how the distant stars and galaxies could effect any force on a moving pendulum or gyroscope in our environment? What is the communicating medium from Alpha Centari to planet earth??
The Centrifugal, Euler and Coriolis forces do not have any special explanation other than the inertia of matter, the property of matter, which manifests itself as a resistance to any change in the motion of a body. These forces are a purely geometrical consequence from inertia alone.
So your question, more generally stated, would be: How can lumps of distant matter cause inertia of local matter?
There is no answer to this question.
Ernst Mach might have answered: OK, there is no known mechanism which can explain how inertia could be the result of the presence of distant matter. But there also is no known mechanism which can explain how inertia could be the result of some so-called absolute space. What is an absolute space other than something which is rather next to nothing and by which mechanism can this quasi-nothing cause inertia?
-
Do you have [...] any explanation for how the distant stars and galaxies could effect any force on a moving pendulum or gyroscope in our environment? What is the communicating medium from Alpha Centari to planet earth??
The Centrifugal, Euler and Coriolis forces do not have any special explanation other than the inertia of matter, the property of matter, which manifests itself as a resistance to any change in the motion of a body. These forces are a purely geometrical consequence from inertia alone.
So your question, more generally stated, would be: How can lumps of distant matter cause inertia of local matter?
There is no answer to this question.
Ernst Mach might have answered: OK, there is no known mechanism which can explain how inertia could be the result of the presence of distant matter. But there also is no known mechanism which can explain how inertia could be the result of some so-called absolute space. What is an absolute space other than something which is rather next to nothing and by which mechanism can this quasi-nothing cause inertia?
I was going to reply to cassini but I'm not quite ready with it yet. I don't want the
"ink" to dry before I make all the changes!! :laugh1:
So, in a modern, sophisticated world where scientists think we're so much more
wise and insightful than our ancestors (usually) there are a few things that
physicists (they study and teach the most general forms of our knowledge of the
physical universe) readily admit we cannot explain - what they mean to say is we
can't explain it yet. One professor at MIT said that anyone who can explain
how the mass of an object has no effect on its speed while falling to earth in
general terms, that is, without reliance on experimental data alone, would be
eligible for the Nobel Prize. I found that worth notice.
The Centrifugal, Euler and Coriolis forces do not have any special explanation other than the inertia of matter, the property of matter, which manifests itself as a resistance to any change in the motion of a body. These forces are a purely geometrical consequence from inertia alone.
So your question, more generally stated, would be: How can lumps of distant matter cause inertia of local matter?
There is no answer to this question.
...YET!
You're referring to Newton's Second Law of motion: any object at rest tends
to remain at rest, and any object in straight line motion remains so, unless acted
on by an outside force. Not his words, though.
I mentioned gyroscopes but you did not address that at all.
Today, we have sophisticated gyroscopes used for very delicate measurements
of an aircraft's movements or a ship's orientation:
(http://www.gyroscopes.org/images%5Cgeneral%5Csmallcom.jpg)
"Gyrocompasses are basically navigation aids. Gyroscopes don't like to change direction, so if they are mounted into a device that allows them to move freely (low friction gimbal). Then when the device is moved in different directions the gyroscope will still point in the same direction. This can then be measured and the results can be used in similar ways to a normal compass. But unlike a standard magnetic compass is not magnetic environmental changes and readings are move accurate. Gyrocompasses are commonly used in ships and aircraft."
Then, my question is, why can't gyroscopes be used to test, and to verify or
refute, the presumption that "the earth moves?" For, if a running gyroscope
makes no indication of its environment being moved over days, weeks, months
or years, how then can anyone with the command of his senses and proper
use of reason who understands the physical principles of gyroscopes in regard
to our universe claim that the earth is rotating on its axis, and orbiting the sun,
and progressing with our solar system around the milky way galaxy?
And why do gyroscopes "that don't like to change direction" appear to be quite
happy and satisfied that their direction is not being changed when the aircraft
they're mounted on is parked on the tarmac, or the ship they're on is anchored
in port?
This seems to me to be a question that may not be so much based on theory
and general principles as it is entirely based on the observed evidence of all the
gyroscopes ever made and ever observed in action. But physicists are not
averse to making some admissions of sheer faith without being able to prove it.
I think I would be interested in a verifiable list of such axioms in modern physics.
One of them most certainly seems to be that "the earth rotates on its axis,"
even though most physicists are not so eager to admit that they believe it
without having any evidence for their belief. For, if they would point to the
Foucault pendulums as "proof" that the earth rotates on its axis, then why
would they not be eager to place an aircraft gyroscope right next to the
said pendulum to demonstrate that two independent apparatti report the same
measurement of the earth's motion, or non-motion, as the case may be? Is it
because the pendulum and the gyro would not exhibit the same readings?
-
Neil Obstat,
you say "gyroscopes don't like to change direction". OK. But: how do you know that? And: direction with respect to what?
Newton said: Direction with respect to "absolute space". But how do you know that a gyroscope does not change direction with respect to "absolute space"? Is "absolute space" visible so that you can see that your assertion is right? No it isn't! Newton spoke about "fixed stars" which are fixed in "absolute space". So he could as well have said: Direction with respect to the "fixed stars".
Now Mach said: Direction with respect to the rest of the matter of the universe.
Now please, tell me: How do you know whether Newton or Mach is right? The gyroscope of your Learjet will detect change of direction with respect to the "fixed stars", and a (working) Foucault Pendulum will (hopefully) show rotation of the earth with respect to the "fixed stars".
So what? I can tell change of direction of my Learjet with respect to the "fixed stars" by looking out of the window! I can watch the rotation of the earth with respect to the "fixed stars" by looking at the sky. But that doesn't prove that the "fixed stars" are truely fixed. They might as well be rotating around the fixed earth.
-
Neil Obstat,
you say "gyroscopes don't like to change direction". OK. But: how do you know that? And: direction with respect to what?
I don't have a gyroscope. Maybe I should get one! HAHAHAHAHA
I said that gyroscopes don't like to change direction because I was quoting a
physics professor who made a video. I'm sorry I didn't write his name down.
But I've known aircraft navigators who assure me that without their gyroscope-
based instruments, they would not be able to ascertain the present course of
a plane they're navigating. I don't know any maritime navigators, so I can't
comment on that. This is not my opinion I'm relating. I'm talking about what
people have told me, people who do this for a living. Do you know any?
Newton said: Direction with respect to "absolute space". But how do you know that a gyroscope does not change direction with respect to "absolute space"? Is "absolute space" visible so that you can see that your assertion is right? No it isn't! Newton spoke about "fixed stars" which are fixed in "absolute space". So he could as well have said: Direction with respect to the "fixed stars".
Okay, I don't know of any definition of "absolute space" either. Maybe someone
else does around here?? Apparently Newton may have been a little bit like Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin, who dreamed up new terms and used them as if he knew
what he was talking about, without defining them, and used traditional terms in
new contexts as if to attempt to redefine them by malpractice.
But the physics professors of today refer to Isaac Newton as a "great man,"
nonetheless.
Anyway, I might expect that Newton wouldn't like to say "fixed stars" because
that would have made for difficulties with astronomers who would say that
the stars are moving in space. They may not have been saying that all so much
at his time, but he could have been looking forward to the up-and-coming time
when they would do so, and he would have preferred to be on the cutting edge
of innovation rather than on the chopping block of obsolescence!
Now Mach said: Direction with respect to the rest of the matter of the universe.
Now please, tell me: How do you know whether Newton or Mach is right? The gyroscope of your Learjet will detect change of direction with respect to the "fixed stars", and a (working) Foucault Pendulum will (hopefully) show rotation of the earth with respect to the "fixed stars".
Who says either one (Newton or Mach) has to be right in this regard?
What I'm asking, as well, is whether the gyroscope of one's learjet will operate
while the jet is parked on the ground as if it is motionless, OR, will it gradually
rotate like the Foucault pendulum theory claims?
What is that theory? I already explained it as I read it elsewhere. Basically, it
says that the pendulum moves so as to show that it reflects ONLY the earth's
rotation on its own axis. Nobody I have seen can say that it ever reflects the
earth's orbit around the sun OR the solar system's movement through the
galaxy, as astronomers and physicists claim it is doing.
Can you explain why nobody is claiming the Foucault pendulum demonstrates
the orbit of the earth around the sun? Don't you think they should be doing
so if what they say is true about the precession of pendulum of 360 degrees
in 24 hours at the poles, etc.?
As I have understood these things, IF the gyroscope is really acting within the
dictates of "Newton's second law of motion," AND the earth as well as the
solar system moves as they say they do, THEN a really good gyroscope ought
to be capable of verifying those movements. Don't you agree?
Perhaps the movement of the solar system is too faint or subtle or whatever, but
certainly the rotation of the earth should be verifiable, if the gyroscope is really
doing what it's supposed to do - like tell a navigator if he's off course with an
aircraft. Hey, what about the Space Shuttle? I have heard references to them
using gyros on the Shuttle and at the Space Station, but nobody seems to have
any docuмents reporting on their performance. Is this another big secret, like
+Fellay and the Preamble???
So what? I can tell change of direction of my Learjet with respect to the "fixed stars" by looking out of the window!
You can't look out the window of your learjet and do any such thing if it's a
blinding storm outside. That's what they use instruments for: IFR is the term.
There is VFR and IFR, and too many crashes have happened because a VFR
pilot tried to "look out his window" to navigate when he was unable to use only
his instruments (for whatever reason). That's how Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens,
Patsy Cline, John Denver, and thousands of others have died in plane crashes.
I can watch the rotation of the earth with respect to the "fixed stars" by looking at the sky. But that doesn't prove that the "fixed stars" are [truly] fixed. They might as well be rotating around the fixed earth.
Yes, they may as well be rotating around the fixed earth. Or, as some of the more
versatile physicists would say, it doesn't matter which one you presume, because
the mathematics all works out either way. So, like I said before, this is not a
question of mathematics or science. It is a question proper to philosophy, but
only weakly so, for a philosopher may not be able to settle it. It may require the
judgment of a qualified theologian. And, to be so qualified today, he would have
to be also a very good physicist, which means all the calculus, all the physics,
and all the astronomy studies to become so qualified. It's really a tall order, for
anyone going through all that and NOT be contaminated with the unclean spirit
of Modernism in science, would be rather miraculous.
Do you suppose it would be of no use to have a functioning gyroscope visible
immediately next to a Foucault pendulum on display at a public observatory,
like the one at Griffith Park, Los Angeles or at the University of Colorado in
Boulder?
-
Do you have [...] any explanation for how the distant stars and galaxies could effect any force on a moving pendulum or gyroscope in our environment? What is the communicating medium from Alpha Centari to planet earth??
The Centrifugal, Euler and Coriolis forces do not have any special explanation other than the inertia of matter, the property of matter, which manifests itself as a resistance to any change in the motion of a body. These forces are a purely geometrical consequence from inertia alone.
So your question, more generally stated, would be: How can lumps of distant matter cause inertia of local matter?
There is no answer to this question.
Ernst Mach might have answered: OK, there is no known mechanism which can explain how inertia could be the result of the presence of distant matter. But there also is no known mechanism which can explain how inertia could be the result of some so-called absolute space. What is an absolute space other than something which is rather next to nothing and by which mechanism can this quasi-nothing cause inertia?
I was going to reply to cassini but I'm not quite ready with it yet. I don't want the
"ink" to dry before I make all the changes!! :laugh1:
So, in a modern, sophisticated world where scientists think we're so much more
wise and insightful than our ancestors (usually) there are a few things that
physicists (they study and teach the most general forms of our knowledge of the
physical universe) readily admit we cannot explain - what they mean to say is we
can't explain it yet. One professor at MIT said that anyone who can explain
how the mass of an object has no effect on its speed while falling to earth in
general terms, that is, without reliance on experimental data alone, would be
eligible for the Nobel Prize. I found that worth notice.
The Centrifugal, Euler and Coriolis forces do not have any special explanation other than the inertia of matter, the property of matter, which manifests itself as a resistance to any change in the motion of a body. These forces are a purely geometrical consequence from inertia alone.
So your question, more generally stated, would be: How can lumps of distant matter cause inertia of local matter?
There is no answer to this question.
...YET!
You're referring to Newton's Second Law of motion: any object at rest tends
to remain at rest, and any object in straight line motion remains so, unless acted
on by an outside force. Not his words, though.
I mentioned gyroscopes but you did not address that at all.
Today, we have sophisticated gyroscopes used for very delicate measurements
of an aircraft's movements or a ship's orientation:
(http://www.gyroscopes.org/images%5Cgeneral%5Csmallcom.jpg)
"Gyrocompasses are basically navigation aids. Gyroscopes don't like to change direction, so if they are mounted into a device that allows them to move freely (low friction gimbal). Then when the device is moved in different directions the gyroscope will still point in the same direction. This can then be measured and the results can be used in similar ways to a normal compass. But unlike a standard magnetic compass is not magnetic environmental changes and readings are move accurate. Gyrocompasses are commonly used in ships and aircraft."
The grammatical construction of the last paragraph is extremely poor.
-
Sorry, I missed mentioning a few items: Every physics professor I've seen talk
about the relative movement of the earth, sun, planets and stars has said this
same thing, which I find rather self-contradictory. But nobody in the class has
had the courage to question them in front of the class, probably for fear of
ending up on the professor's sour grapes list, and therefore unable to achieve
a grade higher than a C in the physics class, if that good.
What do they say? Physics professors say two things. First, they say that
"everyone knows" that the earth rotates on its axis, and orbits the sun annually,
and "we" (meaning the teaching staff and all the students that get good grades)
believe that the solar system is circling around in the milky way galaxy. Second,
after mentioning a few other things they say to watch the reactions of their
students, probably to see if anyone is making rolling-eyes or shaking-head
gestures, or one of these: :facepalm: they say that the data the class will use
for this course and "we" all agree that for our purposes, this classroom this school
this city and this country are motionless, because it makes our calculations easier
to understand and work through. "We" are all about learning physics, and learning
it well.
Do you see a problem with this?
First they say they're going to presume the earth rotates and orbits and
precesses, because everyone knows this, not because there is any proof for it:
IOW it is an axiom presumed from the start; and second, they say that even
though the earth is presumed to be moving in 3 different ways, nonetheless, the
classroom, which is on the earth, and therefore the earth too, is motionless. And
how does this fundamental contradiction help the students to learn physics?
Why so many words? Why don't they just come out and say it: We say that the
earth moves in three different ways at all times, but we do all our physics work
presuming that the earth is nonetheless absolutely motionless.
My own theory is, that this is how they prepare the students who graduate with
a science major to get a job at JPL or NASA or even a professorship at a college
to keep the Sacred Tradition alive: Because at JPL or NASA or any college, when
a spacecraft or satellite orbits the earth, the control systems are always
programmed to presume the earth is motionless, and they do this for one
reason: it makes their computations easier.
I have a sneaking suspicion they do this and their computations are simplified for
two reasons they are not willing to admit:
A) They do this because the gyroscopes they use in the satellites and
spacecraft are all very important gyroscopes, and each one of them spins and
spins and spins in a stable orientation that always is a mirror image of the
orientation of the earth, that is, the gyroscope, if it were to be enclosed inside
a globe would look like a mini version of the earth they could see outside their
window in a spacecraft in orbit, and this fact freaks out the astronauts, but
they've been sworn to secrecy about it.
B) Their computations are simplified because it's a lot easier to use a gyroscope
for navigation when it always images the orientation of the earth, and therefore
the instrument's position is counted as the "zero motion datum" of all their
formulas, with no need to compensate for diurnal or annual rotation.
But it's just a hunch. Maybe they don't use gyroscopes for computations.
Maybe only navigators on board do that.
-
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH901.html
Claim CH901:
The earth is fixed at (or near) the center of the universe. The sun and other planets travel around it. That is what the Bible plainly says (Ps. 93:1; Ps. 19:1-6; Josh. 10:12-14) and what the evidence indicates.
Source:
Willis, Tom, 2000. "The Laws of Cause and Effect, and the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics have been invalidated by modern science", Part 2. CSA News 17(2) (Mar/Apr): 1-2.
Jones, Steven, 2005. Geocentric universe. http://www.midclyth.supanet.com/
Response:
A rotating earth produces observable, and observed, effects:
The most noticeable is the Coriolis effect, the apparent deflection of the path of an object that moves in a rotating coordinate system. This affects ocean currents, wind patterns (including the path and direction of the spin of hurricanes), and iceberg drift. It must be taken into account when aiming long-range missiles.
The rotation of the earth is also demonstrated by a Foucault pendulum, the swing of which rotates in relation to the earth's surface as the earth rotates beneath it. (The rate of rotation equals the rate of earth's rotation times the sine of the latitude.)
The orbit of the earth around the sun is also observable:
The nearest stars show a parallax. Their apparent position shifts relative to more distant stars as the earth moves from one side of its orbit to the other. (The effect is the same as the apparent movement of a nearby telephone pole relative to distant mountains as you move a few feet to the side.)
Stellar aberration shows up as the need to point the telescope slightly ahead of the star's true position, due to the earth's motion perpendicular to the star. It was first measured by James Bradley in 1728.
Stars near the plane of the earth's orbit show a radial velocity, a slight red shift as the earth moves away from them in its orbit, and six months later, a slight blue shift (Herrick 1935).
Related to radial velocity, the "light time" effect affects the timing of pulsars and short-term variable stars. General relativistic calculations are needed to correct for it.
Since the earth's orbit is elliptical, it is closer to the sun in January than in June. The difference in the apparent size of the sun can be observed.
If the earth were stationary, these effects could only be explained if every star in the universe were moving in unison relative to the earth with a periodic variation that matched the earth's year.
Heliocentrism falls out naturally from the law of universal gravitation.
Heliocentrism is useful. As implied above, it is used for predicting hurricane and iceberg paths and for aiming missiles. The space program would be impossible without it. (The Cassini probe, for example, used the earth's motion around the sun to slingshot the probe to Jupiter.) As with all of creationism, strict geocentrism is useless.
To the vast majority of Christians, the Bible is not plainly saying that the earth is stationary. They have accepted that reality is more important than their interpretation of what is "plainly" said.
See for Yourself:
You can make your own Foucault pendulum with a weight on a long, thin cable in a room with a high ceiling. It must be long enough so that air resistance does not stop it before the rotation is evident, and it should be sheltered from winds and drafts.
References:
Herrick, Samuel, Jr., 1935. Tables for the reduction of radial velocities to the Sun. Lick Observatory Bulletin 470: 85-90.
-
Santo Subito, the Fathers of the Church unanimously believed in geocentrism. All those so-called "proofs" of heliocentrism are so much smoke blown in our faces. Geocentrism has not been disproven at all.
Previously, I posted two videos debunking those "proofs" of geocentrism. I'll post them later.
-
I have given the above post of Santo Subito a thumbs up. This is Not meant to imply that I think jp2 was(is) a true Pope.
-
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH901.html
Claim CH901:
The earth is fixed at (or near) the center of the universe. The sun and other planets travel around it. That is what the Bible plainly says (Ps. 93:1; Ps. 19:1-6; Josh. 10:12-14) and what the evidence indicates.
Source:
Willis, Tom, 2000. "The Laws of Cause and Effect, and the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics have been invalidated by modern science", Part 2. CSA News 17(2) (Mar/Apr): 1-2.
Jones, Steven, 2005. Geocentric universe. http://www.midclyth.supanet.com/
Response:
A rotating earth produces observable, and observed, effects:
The most noticeable is the Coriolis effect, the apparent deflection of the path of an object that moves in a rotating coordinate system. This affects ocean currents, wind patterns (including the path and direction of the spin of hurricanes), and iceberg drift. It must be taken into account when aiming long-range missiles.
The rotation of the earth is also demonstrated by a Foucault pendulum, the swing of which rotates in relation to the earth's surface as the earth rotates beneath it. (The rate of rotation equals the rate of earth's rotation times the sine of the latitude.)
The orbit of the earth around the sun is also observable:
The nearest stars show a parallax. Their apparent position shifts relative to more distant stars as the earth moves from one side of its orbit to the other. (The effect is the same as the apparent movement of a nearby telephone pole relative to distant mountains as you move a few feet to the side.)
Stellar aberration shows up as the need to point the telescope slightly ahead of the star's true position, due to the earth's motion perpendicular to the star. It was first measured by James Bradley in 1728.
Stars near the plane of the earth's orbit show a radial velocity, a slight red shift as the earth moves away from them in its orbit, and six months later, a slight blue shift (Herrick 1935).
Related to radial velocity, the "light time" effect affects the timing of pulsars and short-term variable stars. General relativistic calculations are needed to correct for it.
Since the earth's orbit is elliptical, it is closer to the sun in January than in June. The difference in the apparent size of the sun can be observed.
If the earth were stationary, these effects could only be explained if every star in the universe were moving in unison relative to the earth with a periodic variation that matched the earth's year.
Heliocentrism falls out naturally from the law of universal gravitation.
Heliocentrism is useful. As implied above, it is used for predicting hurricane and iceberg paths and for aiming missiles. The space program would be impossible without it. (The Cassini probe, for example, used the earth's motion around the sun to slingshot the probe to Jupiter.) As with all of creationism, strict geocentrism is useless.
To the vast majority of Christians, the Bible is not plainly saying that the earth is stationary. They have accepted that reality is more important than their interpretation of what is "plainly" said.
See for Yourself:
You can make your own Foucault pendulum with a weight on a long, thin cable in a room with a high ceiling. It must be long enough so that air resistance does not stop it before the rotation is evident, and it should be sheltered from winds and drafts.
References:
Herrick, Samuel, Jr., 1935. Tables for the reduction of radial velocities to the Sun. Lick Observatory Bulletin 470: 85-90.
Are you just back from a long holiday Santo? Have you read any of the posts heretofore? Must we go back over all the above assertions?
Don't you know that since 1905 even science has recognised relative motion prevails in the universe? Don't you know that this means every 'proof' on offer above for heliocentrism also has a geocentric explanation? And because all the above, stellar aberration, stellar parallax, faucault pendulum and corilois effect has a geocentric explanation, couldn't we also claim them proof for geocentrism?
'Heliocentrism falls out naturally from the law of universal gravitation. '
See, the LAW of universal gravitation. Here again we see Newton's mind-magic at work. Since when has a theory become a LAW Santo? Doesn't the writer of this standard piece know the difference? Doesn't he know that Newton contrived his 'LAWS' to explain a heliocentric system? Obviously he doesn't so his proofs are not science mere propaganda.
I note how they even use Cassini's name to keep the world fooled. The truth of course is that Cassini was Isaac Newton's greatest critic and falsified so many of his theories. But nobody is ever told that, only that a probe named after him is used for further propaganda.
-
What is your response to the claim that without heliocentrism the space program wouldn't be possible?
-
What is your response to the claim that without heliocentrism the space program wouldn't be possible?
My response would be: "What a load of nonsense!"
-
This post is in reply to your post, cassini, of Nov. 19th, 12:12 pm PST (20:12 UTC),
which begins, "I have read your thinking on pendulums Neil.." which is post
number 280, or, the first one on page 57 of this thread, if 5 posts per page is
the display setting (currently it's the default global setting).
Oddly enough, I wrote the {following} before I found your reply, so I thought
maybe it doesn't matter now, because you touched on some of this, but then,
since I wrote it in response to your previous reply, perhaps it will be of some
use for you, so I will post it here anyway, but for you or anyone else reading
this thread, it belongs chronologically before your post that begins, "I have
read your thinking on pendulums Neil..."
{Begin ... continues to "End" in braces -- except for the "{EDIT}" segment}
...After all that, I'm looking back and seeing that I didn't really say it much better
the second time. So 'the third time's the charm,' no?
When I said..
It seems you might have a response, cassini, to my question about the Foucault
pendulum. As I'm sure you're aware, it has been tested in many places north
and south in the world, and has been found to behave as the Newtonian
gravitational equations would predict, insofar as the variation in the swing of the
heavy suspended mass progresses in such a way as to give the impression to a
viewer that the earth moves. That is, the oscillation rotates clockwise in the
northern hemisphere, completing a 360-degree precession in 24 hours at the
north pole, and in 48 hours at 30 degrees latitude. In the southern hemisphere it
rotates counterclockwise. At the equator, it does not rotate at all, where it may
be difficult to find a Foucault pendulum on display anywhere. There is one at
Griffith Park, Los Angeles, at the Observatory, at 34 degrees north latitude.
... I was making a description from ignorance of the claims you have mentioned,
namely, of those like Richard G. Elmendorf, who says the many Foucault
pendulums of the world "are forced to do what they do, rather than [allowed to
do] what comes naturally," and I thus made this description, above. The bolded
portion above should therefore be revised to say that, "...the various
displays set up worldwide tend to behave on the average in a manner
that can be theoretically hypothesized to conform to a purely
mathematical formula which is in agreement with the Newtonian
gravitational equations." Furthermore, it would seem that if this is truly
the case, the very mathematical formulas themselves can be viewed as a kind
of "purely subjective reality" inasmuch as they are finely tuned fantasies that
conform to the reality that would seem to first exist only in the mind of their
own designer!
Then, when I said..
However, no one has ever explained, as far as I know, how the pendulum could
possibly "know" that the earth would be moving, nor, how the pendulum could
possibly "know" that the distant stars would "not be moving." In all the
explanations I have read, there seems to be this conspicuous gap where they
talk about the pendulum and then they talk about the earth and/or the sun
and/or the universe, without any explanation of how or by what means the
relative movements of each can be "communicated" between the elements.
... I was referring to that area, a gap, which you have proposed that we
should fill with our deference for the providence of God. While I do not say
that's improper, I would dare to be willing to investigate any proposed theories
that attempt to give a reasoned explanation for what may in truth occupy that
gap.
Then, when I said..
Obviously, gravitational forces, whatever those are, may be presumed to
act through "empty space" but where is the explanation of how they translate
into a force acting perpendicular or a force communicating at a distance a
torsional aspect or a moment, as engineers would say?
... I was alluding to my observation that I have not found anyone who can
adequately explain what gravity is, in its essence, what a magnetic field is, in
its essence, or, how either can be truthfully explained in terms of cause and
effect and their respective medium of communication.
So, if you are able to point me in the direction of anyone's writings that can
do those things, I would greatly appreciate it.
{Edit:
Since the time I wrote that, above, I have found an explanation of
the phenomenon of gyroscopes and such machines, whereby the
rotational movement or inertia of a material body evokes an
internal force on that rotating body that acts at 90 degrees to the
axis of rotation (while the axis is itself always at 90 degrees to the
rotational plane, such as a wheel on an axle, and the two 90-degree
turns effect a sort of U-turn in these directions of motion and force
evoked thereby, always according to a uniform rule of direction that
I am currently at a loss to express), such that when the rotational
momentum is fast enough, the internal force approaches the limit of
being equivalent to the force of the body's weight in a gravitational
field. Also, when a weight is added to the center or axis of this
rotating body (such as a static weight placed on stationary and
suspended axle of a spinning wheel), a weight that is not rotating
with the body, but is motionless with respect to the environment,
suddenly and instantaneously, the rotating body begins to precess
in the direction that is always the same, but I don't know how to
describe it, for it acts in a positive rotational direction on a plane
that is located at 90 degrees to the plane of the rotating body, but
it is also at 90 degrees to the direction of the gravitational force,
only in a third direction, like the z-axis when the first two were the
x- and y-axes. I do not comprehend the implications of this
phenomenon as applied to the movements of a pendulum on the
surface of the earth. At first glance, they would seem to have
nothing to do with each other, but there are at least two
components to this study that have utterly no basis in any
reasonable intuition for what should happen, when one has no
experience in such movements of material bodies. And since
nobody would likely have any experience in the movement of a
pendulum that is free to move in any direction, they would not be
expected to anticipate the precession of a Foucault pendulum. So
these phenomena may have something in common as to cause and
effect.}
My findings about the foucault pendulum may very well
astonish you…The surprising truth is that all foucault
pendulums are fakes. Most of them are fakes because they are forced to do what
they do, rather than doing what comes naturally, and all
the rest of them are fakes insofar as they are used as proof of the earth’s
[supposed] rotation.
I think I may like to write to him and request a list of publications he may offer --
and do you know if that address you gave is one for that purpose? (R.G.
Elmendorf: A Critical Investigation of the Foucault Pendulum, published by
P.C.S., PO Box 267 Bairdford, PA 15006, USA. )
{End}
Now, to your reply, above, post=cassini, of Nov. 19th, 12:12 pm PST
(20:12 UTC), which begins, "I have read your thinking on pendulums Neil..," I
respond with the following:
It seems to me the question of where the energy of an oscillating pendulum
goes, or to where and by what means it is lost as oscillation tends to
gradually slow down over time, can be categorized into 4 areas:
~ Loss of kinetic energy due to air resistance, which could only be somewhat
eliminated by having the display contained in an environment of near-
vacuum, or entirely eliminated by having it contained in an absolute
vacuum (which is practically impossible) -- this also applies to 'wind'
~ Loss of kinetic energy due: to friction with things the moving apparatus
physically touches, such as the "sandy table" some French pendulums are
set up with - the bob pointer traces a path in the sand as it moves, which
tracing by dint of its physically moving the sand grains does work on those
grains of sand by moving them, thus consuming energy, or like the one at
Griffith Park Observatory, the standing wood blocks that it knocks over at
the end of its swing that show observers the progress of the precession;
OR, to the physical contact of the suspending cable with its supporting
structure, usually a ceiling or dome, which has a pivot, hinge, bearing,
ball-and-socket, flare-and-grommet, or any some such design to adequately
suspend the mass of the apparatus safely and durably, yet also so as to
consume as little kinetic energy as possible, and to allow the free
precession of the apparatus
~ Loss of kinetic energy due to any action of the 'nudging device' that gives a
gentle bump to the apparatus, usually during each oscillation, so as to
overcome the natural deterioration of an object in motion in the real world;
this action includes intended action and unintended consequential action
that is introduced by error and would ostensibly be eliminated if possible
~ Loss of kinetic energy due to some kind of external influence, such as a
powerful magnet that a prankster might smuggle in to the display area, or
an electromagnetic pulse force delivered from a mechanical device or any
other entity known or unknown, or, any manner of gravitational surge or
"warp in space" or anomaly, or tug from the gravity of a distant body such
as possibly the sun, moon, planets or stars, or, any other influence that we
may not know about or, if someone does know about it, "They ain't talkin'!"
That last category may be looking like a 'catch-all' and perhaps it should be
subdivided into two or more categories, especially as we acquire more
understanding of this curious thing-a-ma-bob.
You say: 'All clocks like this have a swinging pendulum that only
moves in two directions, left and right. But would the swing gradually rotate
to a forward-back movement if it were allowed to do so? I have not found a
definitive answer to this question. But I suspect the answer is "yes." '
So do I. The unassisted Foucault pendulum does show there is some
movement but not more than 90 degrees.
This is great! So you and I are on the same page with this. However, I must
admit that I don't yet get what you mean by "90 degrees." Apparently this is in
reference to the Colorado exhibit you mentioned:
Richard Elmendorf says ‘almost’ for there are ‘pure’, un-driven Foucault
pendulums to be found which will exhibit a turning,
although always erratic. One such pendulum is in the University of Colorado in
Boulder Co. USA. During its daily stint it will turn
approximately 90 degrees (25% of a rotation). Can it be claimed the students of
Colorado experience proof for a partial rotation of the
earth? The answer is a resounding no. First of all, the very idea that the earth
revolves under the pendulum is utter nonsense. You may
as well try to say that if you jump in the air and hold yourself up with both
shoelaces the earth would turn under you. That is a similar
belief to that asked of us by the Earthmovers with their Foucault pendulums.
But why and how then can a pure Foucault pendulum turn
even 90 degrees as the Boulder one does? The answer is that there is an inertial
field around the earth and it is this effect that causes
the bob to change its position over time, the same effect that Guglielmini and
Coriolis found some years earlier.
Maybe I should take a trip to UC in Boulder to check it out. I have a lot of
questions. Do you mean to say that this apparatus in Boulder CO oscillates like
any other Foucault pendulum, but does not precess in a complete circle, rather,
it precesses only one fourth of a complete circle and there it continues to
oscillate indefinitely? Or, does it return, slowly, precessing backwards to
whence it had come? Or, does it simply precess 90 degrees, such as from
east-west to south-north (in a clockwise manner, since it is in the northern
hemisphere) and there it stops swinging because it is "un-driven," and as such,
must therefore be subject to deterioration of kinetic energy due to the 4
categories of same that I mentioned above? IF SO, a more accurate
description would be, that it oscillates in gradually-decreasing lengths of
arc as it precesses over a range of up to approximately 90 degrees, and by
that time the oscillation has then diminished to nothing.
Do you know if this is the case, or, am I not understanding something here?
Other readers might be perplexed at this point if they do not know about the
phenomenon of all pendulums, by which they are known to always oscillate
with the same period of time, regardless of the length of their arc, or 'swing,' so
long as the pendulum itself is the same - that is, the distribution of mass along
the length of the pendulum arm is the same - and there is no increase or
decrease in its height (not to be confused with "length" of arc). The period of
a pendulum is independent of the mass of the pendulum, that is, one suspended
by a cable or a rigid beam of a fixed length will always have the same period,
regardless of what weight is attached to the end of it. Therefore, as the swing
of any pendulum slows down (due to friction or other loss of kinetic energy),
the time it takes to go from left to right remains the same, since the maximum
speed (at the lowest point of the arc) in the deteriorating swings is slower by
degrees as the swing length decreases.
In physics, this "time" it takes the pendulum to swing from left to right, say, is
known as its "period," and this is why all pendulum clocks are able
to keep time, because, as the pendulum's swing is decreased (or increased)
over hours or days or weeks, or months or whatever, the time of each swing
of the pendulum is always the same. That is, the period is a fixed constant
for a given length, meaning the mass distribution does not change, e.g., no
mass moves up or down the length of the supporting arm. You can therefore
speed up your clock by moving the weighted object at the bottom up a
sufficient amount, because by moving the weight up, you change the weight
distribution on the pendulum arm, and that weight distribution is one of the
things that cannot change if you do not want to make the period change.
Demonstration Videos (http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01-physics-i-classical-mechanics-fall-1999/video-lectures/)
(http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01-physics-i-classical-mechanics-fall-1999/video-lectures/801SwingA.jpg)
Here is MIT professor Walter Lewin "putting his life on the line" to demonstrate
his absolute faith in the doctrines he preaches: "Professor Walter Lewin
demonstrates that the period of a pendulum is independent of the mass
hanging from the pendulum." This demonstration can be viewed on the
video of Lecture 10 (http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01-physics-i-classical-mechanics-fall-1999/video-lectures/lecture-10).
(Image courtesy of Markos Hankin, Physics Department
Lecture Demonstration Group).
This video also demonstrates how a weighted spring oscillates at
the same rate regardless of the mass of the weight, so long as
the spring is not damaged during its use (it behaves according to
Hooke's Law).
At minute 29:50 he presumes a pendulum has no unknown forces.
Note: this does not mean there are none, in reality!
At minute 46 Lewin uses his body as the weight of the pendulum.
(As seen in the picture above)
In video number 11 (http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01-physics-i-classical-mechanics-fall-1999/video-lectures/lecture-11/) he risks his life and limb to demonstrate that
a pendulum's arc does not increase -- the "conservation of energy"
by placing his own head in the path of a swinging 150 kg wrecking
ball.
See minute 45:30
According to our discussion here, there are perhaps unknown
forces that act on pendulums giving them unpredictable
"perturbations" in their swings, which means that Professor
Lewin is risking his life to demonstrate something that
arguably could have unpredictable outcomes, based on
unknown variables! Even so, he states that he presumes
"the pendulum has no unknown forces" (see above).
Video 28 contains theory on gyroscopes, which Professor
Lewin says is the most difficult and non-intuitive topic in all
of physics. I can't help but wonder if his marvel at the so-
called non-intuitive elements have anything to do with
whether a gyroscope operating on the surface
of the earth does not move in the way you would expect it
to (does it??) -- if the earth were spinning on its axis,
orbiting the sun and parading around the galaxy, like Lewin
asserts in video 6 without offering any proof whatsoever.
Video 6, Newton's First, Second and Third Laws, contains some
noteworthy statements, such as while the earth rotates on its
axis, and the earth orbits the sun, and the sun goes around the
galaxy, we can nonetheless presume that this classroom,
26.100, is motionless. We believe in Newton's Laws not
because we can prove them (we can't) but because all
experimental data supports them. See my comments on
video 28 on gyroscopes.
I have gotten the impression that it has become commonplace
at college physics classrooms for any student, who shows
a predilection to investigate measurements and experiments
and theory regarding the movement or non-movement of
the earth, to become suspect and marginalized as some kind
of troublemaker -- which, ironically, was the same thing (but
in opposite direction) that the Church did to Galileo in
his day. This phenomenon seems to be curiously analogous
to Newton's Third Law: If one object exerts a force on
another, the other exerts the same force in opposite direction
to the one; action = -reaction. (Popularly stated as "every
force and action has an equal and opposite force and
reaction.")
That is to say, that the "negative reaction" that the prevailing
pedagogical society currently exhibits toward students who
are suspect of harboring geocentrist inclinations is analogous
to the "negative reaction" that the Church had toward
Galileo, while Galileo's opposition to the Church's longstanding
doctrine was a kind of "negative reaction" to begin the process.
And even more curiously, it is the same thing that is happening
to Bishop Richard Williamson: he has become suspect and
marginalized by his own Society; only his Society is treating
him in a much more abusive and hard-hearted way than the
Church ever did to Galileo!!
I'm not sure what to say about quantum mechanics, for everyone
I've talked to about that gives me the impression that they're
one step away from the loony bin, and I don't really want to
even "go there" if you catch my drift.
Here above Neil you give the 'mass of the sun' as a cause. One of the
reasons that few can accept the geocentric doctrine is because of the illusion
that Newton's theories are LAWS. It [seems] few will understand that if H or G
cannot be established or falsified, then the LAWS of the universe cannot
either. Therefore the mass of the sun as a scientific cause is only a theory
and might not be true at all. Moreover, ever go into the area of Newtonian
'mass'? It is a nightmare theory to try to explain. For example, how come a 1
pound plastic ball and a 200 pound cannonball dropped from a heights will
hit the ground at the same time? How come MASS has no influence on this
experiment?
I've noticed two anomalies about this "Laws" term. Newton's "Universal
Law of Gravitation" was a term he himself proposed, even though he was
unable to quantify the gravitational constant of the earth, G, in his equation.
It was quantified by experiment only 75 years after his death. Also, along
came Albert Einstein, whose theory (how humble of him!) of Relativity is
a REPLACEMENT of Newton's "Universal Law" when dealing with very large
masses and very large densities. But the "scientific community" continues
to honor Newton's term, "Universal Law."
While I gave the mass of the sun as "a cause" I was careful to
not presume it is the ONLY cause. (I wouldn't be at all
surprised if Professor Lewin heartily disagrees with me!) We
just had the journey of the exploratory spacecraft "Curiosity"
traveling to Mars, with a whole army of experts running every
step of the process, by which we can observe the Newtonian
gravitational equations at work. So I think it isn't
unreasonable to say the sun's mass is "a cause" of how
objects will move, as they go traveling through outer space
between these planets we have in our vicinity (if we can
believe what we see with our eyes and the telescopes that
help them). But as you suggest, it would be presumptuous
for us to say that the mass and distance to nearby visible
objects such as the sun are the ONLY factor to consider in
understanding or predicting the movement of such objects
through outer space.
If, however, as you suggest, "the mass of the sun as a scientific
cause is only a theory and might not be true at all," then in
order for a project like Curiosity to be possible, God would
have to be providing an awful lot of deliberate deception for
us to get confused over, so that the craft could land "in one
piece" and operate as it does. Or, are you of the mind that
the whole thing was a ruse, a Hollywood stunt, a big lie, and
that there is no such craft presently on the surface of Mars
doing anything at all?
Also, the speed of a falling cannonball compared to the speed of
a falling pebble might seem difficult to grasp from a human
standpoint, because we're prone to think that something heavier
is somehow 'more work to move' or 'requires greater effort for
us to move it.' We should remember that it is not a human
being that is moving the cannonball and/or the pebble. They
fall toward the earth at the rate of acceleration that they do,
according to the Newtonian predictions, because of the mass
of the earth and the average distance to its center of mass.
There are a lot of heavy objects nearby, such as perhaps
a mountain, or a dense mineral deposit, or some international
bank with warehouse rooms stacked to the ceiling with gold
bricks, but you don't find the cannonball or the pebble falling
in the direction of the mountain or the gold bricks, do you?
By repetitious and consistent experiment, we find that things
fall in a vacuum toward the center of the earth at a rate of
32 feet per second per second (+/-), and we can do this all
day, every day, in and out of season. And all manner of
erstwhile reliable technology is built on this premise, like the
aircraft industry, land surveying, navigation of ships, mining
that uses descriptive geometry for the direction of excavation,
and on and on. It would have to be quite a matter of illusion
for all this to be going on only to lead everyone that uses any
of it into the deception that it is 'real' when it's actually all
fake and 'a ruse.'
The cannonball falls at the same rate as the grain of sand in
a vacuum because the earth does not have to "work harder"
to pull the cannonball. The earth doesn't have to "work" at
all. The earth simply is, or so it would seem. The cannonball
and the speck of dust are equally subject to the acceleration
of gravity (according to the Newtonian equations) because the
variables are the mass of each body and the distance between
their respective centers. "But the speck of dust is so much
less heavy than the cannonball!" Well, yes, that's true, and
therefore, the cannonball would seem to be predicted to fall
faster, but only by a very small amount, for what we are
comparing is the difference between the function of the mass
of the earth divided by the square of the distance between its
center of mass and each of two things, respectively: the mass
of a cannonball and the mass of a speck of dust.
Note: we don't like to say "weight" in these situations and
the term "mass" is better because, when a body is in motion
its weight can change, depending on the combination of
any two or more forces acting on the body at the same time.
In contrast, the body's weight does not change (or so they
say!) due to the effect of the forces (or anything else?), that
is, until the effect is such that the body approaches the
speed of light, at which time the special theory of relativity
says the mass of the body increases exponentially, with a
limit at the speed of light that approaches infinity, etc.).
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/f/3/0f36df929ac9d711a8ba8c5658c3bfee.png)
F = G frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}
If m1 is the mass of the earth: 6 x 10^24 kg
and m2 is the mass of the grain of sand (1/10 gram): 0.0001 kg
or, alternatively, m2 is the mass of the cannonball: 100 kg (220 lbs)
and the distance r is 6,400 km = 6.4 x 10^6 m
and the constant G is 6.67 x 10^-11 N m^2/(kg^2)
Force (in Newtons) = mass (in kilograms) x acceleration (in
meters per second per second)
The force on the grain of sand is:
9.8 N/kg* x 0.0001 kg = 0.00098 N = 9.8 x 10^-4 N
and on the cannonball it is:
9.8 N/kg x 100 kg = 980 N =9.8 x 10^2 N
The two falling objects are acted on by forces different by
6 orders of magnitude (6 powers of 10), and this can be
seen as the same 6 orders of magnitude difference that there
exists in the measurement of their respective masses.
But they fall at the same rate of acceleration and therefore
speed because the acceleration due to gravity is the same
for both. The difference in the force due to gravity on
each is directly proportional to the difference in their
mass. Expressed in terms of weight, that would entirely
depend on how the forces of gravity are affecting them.
If they are falling, they are at that time, by definition,
weightless, so they have zero weight as they fall, as do
all material bodies. But they nonetheless have inertia that
is duly proportional to their respective mass. A fat person
falling has lost a lot of weight, but is still just as fat.
*(acceleration due to gravity is: 6.67 x 10^-11 N m^2/
(kg)^2 x 6 x 10^24 kg /(6.4 x 10^6)^2 = 9.8 N/kg)
Physics professors sometimes avoid this aspect of the
topic, or maybe leave it for an extra credit question on
a mid-term exam. Sometimes, they say, "we believe this
to be true based on the preponderance of experimental
evidence that supports it."
If you take the same cannonball and golf ball to the moon, for
example, and drop them, they'll take longer to "fall down" and
that is due to the fact that the moon has less mass, even
though you would be much closer to its center of mass on the
lunar surface than you were to the center of earth's mass at
sea level. So, if you drop the cannonball on the moon and
compare that to dropping the sand grain on earth, the sand
grain is going to fall faster, because the acceleration due to
gravity on the earth is 32 ft/sec^2 compared to 5 ft/sec^2 on
the moon.
ILLUSTRATION OF PLANETS AS SEEN FROM EARTH SHOULD
BE SHOWN HERE
What Abraham saw as a sign of God.
On the left, as observed from the earth, we have the apparent movements
of Saturn in twenty-nine years, Jupiter in twelve years and Mars in two years.
On the right we have the apparent movements of Mercury over seven years.
Here are a few images I found on the Internet:
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT898fzF780R0PgfIK3M19d6efqCbmjf-ca_2YAO2ndGtys0dz_)(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS5F-Llw-kYk1YGVovBIXUSQkxKXeMQulF-GdZAdBa1wQkiI4pq)(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR3-UgTSbVztYK8qVvIvL9raGxrjo7wkyjxEnD-CCt7OuogxS2Eng)(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRzzXuk4Ys2b95SOt8QUXD_dxrupmhslkHdW2XuqxsRwJOmpxdxgw)
I have the impression that you're referring to some website image of the
planets as seen from earth, but you have not provided the Internet address
for the image, so I can't help you.
If you'd like to learn how to post images, I can tell you. It's basically very
simple, but there are a few snares you have to avoid if you want to be
successful. Ultimately, you can build an entire website with all kinds of
moving images or graphics or whatever, but I'm just talking about posting
a picture or two on one of the CI threads.
You mention Josephus and Abraham in the context of the Faith, and I am
amused at how so many people today, especially young people, are wont
to watch the news or reports of things like Curiosity, and are thereby led
to a 'faith in science' instead of THE FAITH that Abraham was led to by his
watching of the stars without even so much as a simple Galileian telescope!
Here is a segment from a website on geodesy (http://geography.about.com/od/physicalgeography/a/geodesyearthsize.htm):
Geodesy and the Size and Shape of the Planet Earth
Measuring the Size and Shape of Earth
...
Earth's Shape
Earth's circuмference and diameter differ because its shape is classified as an oblate spheroid or ellipsoid, instead of a true sphere. This means that instead of being of equal circuмference in all areas, the poles are squished, resulting in a bulge at the equator, and thus a larger circuмference and diameter there.
The equatorial bulge at Earth's equator is measured at 26.5 miles (42.72 km) and is caused by the planet's rotation and gravity. Gravity itself causes planets and other celestial bodies to contract and form a sphere. This is because it pulls all the mass of an object as close to the center of gravity (the Earth's core in this case) as possible.
Because Earth rotates, this sphere is distorted by the centrifugal force. This is the force that causes objects to move outward away from the center of gravity. Therefore, as the Earth rotates, centrifugal force is greatest at the equator so it causes a slight outward bulge there, giving that region a larger circuмference and diameter.
Notice it is not explained how this cause and effect relationship is known
to exist, as if the "planet's rotation and gravity" are the only causes of the
measured bulge.
-
But I've known aircraft navigators who assure me that without their gyroscope-based instruments, they would not be able to ascertain the present course of a plane they're navigating. I don't know any maritime navigators, so I can't comment on that. This is not my opinion I'm relating. I'm talking about what people have told me, people who do this for a living. Do you know any?
No, I don't know any. But I do know that gyroscopes are not sufficiently accurate to detect one 360° revolution per day. Using a simple heading indicator, the pilot will have to periodically reset the gyroscope to the heading shown by a magnetic compass. More advanced gyroscope devices use a magnetic flux sensor and a servo to adjust the gyroscope frequently. Even more advanced gyroscopes, like fiber optic gyroscopes, that use the interference of light (Sagnac effect) to detect mechanical rotation, are not sufficiently accurate.
But the physics professors of today refer to Isaac Newton as a "great man," nonetheless.
Well, Pope Benedict XVI probably venerates pre-conciliar popes, though he surely does not see them on the cutting edge of innovation.
What I'm asking, as well, is whether the gyroscope of one's learjet will operate while the jet is parked on the ground as if it is motionless, OR, will it gradually rotate like the Foucault pendulum theory claims?
Theoretically the gyroscope of one's parked Learjet will show 360° revolution per day. If the axis of the wheel is horizontally east-west aligned, it theoretically will turn around a horizontally north-south earth fixed axis 360° per day. It theoretically will prove rotation of the earth with respect to the "fixed stars" just like the Foucault pendulum theoretically should do.
Can you explain why nobody is claiming the Foucault pendulum demonstrates the orbit of the earth around the sun? Don't you think they should be doing so if what they say is true about the precession of pendulum of 360 degrees
in 24 hours at the poles, etc.?
It's not really sufficiently accurate to show 360° per day (see what cassini wrote above about real world Foucault pendula), so there is no chance it might show a superposed movement indicating another 360° per year. It's not easy to keep a pendulum free from perturbations for a long time.
Yes, they may as well be rotating around the fixed earth. Or, as some of the more versatile physicists would say, it doesn't matter which one you presume, because the mathematics all works out either way. So, like I said before, this is not a question of mathematics or science. It is a question proper to philosophy, but only weakly so, for a philosopher may not be able to settle it. It may require the judgment of a qualified theologian. And, to be so qualified today, he would have to be also a very good physicist, which means all the calculus, all the physics, and all the astronomy studies to become so qualified. It's really a tall order, for anyone going through all that and NOT be contaminated with the unclean spirit of Modernism in science, would be rather miraculous.
I wouldn't say that it's not a question of science. Science today is the science of a godless erring society. This may change in the future. But even the science of a godless erring society may in the future be able to prove what it can't prove today. This is not to say that I am optimistic. I just say, it may be possible.
Theologically the question is clearly answered by Scripture, the Fathers and the Magisterium. See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghZktd-PCOo
Please excuse my awkward English.
-
What is your response to the claim that without heliocentrism the space program wouldn't be possible?
SPACE FLIGHT
‘But what about space flight’, we hear some ask. ‘These days, don’t the newspapers and journals show us diagrams of rockets blasting off from an earth rotating and orbiting the sun? How could they get probes, crafts and even men to land on the planets unless they know for certain where the earth is supposed to be at any time in its orbit relative to the other planets also in orbit? Surely all those astrophysicists and rocket-science whiz kids that fill the computer halls of NASA’s launch site have to keep ongoing calculations of this heliocentric circus of shifting bodies moving at 67,000mph, more than the speed of a bullet? And when aimed at a planet, then the planet too will have shifted some thousands of miles in one second. Now do not tell me they can do this if they do not KNOW the earth really spins and orbits the sun?’
The answer of course is that this concept too is fiction, as a letter to the New Scientist magazine of Aug. 16, 1979 confirmed:
Royal Air Force College
Cranwell, Linclonshire, England.
‘Sir, ...One can of course believe anything one likes as long as the consequences of the belief are trivial. But when survival depends on that belief, then it matters that belief corresponds to manifest reality. We therefore teach navigators that the stars are fixed to the Celestial sphere, which is centred on a fixed earth, and around which it rotates in accordance with laws clearly deducible from common-sense observation. The sun and moon move across the inner surface of this sphere, and hence perforce go around the earth. This means that students of navigation must unlearn a lot of confused dogma they learned in school. Most of them find this remarkably easy, because dogma is as may be, but the real world is as we perceive it to be. If Andrew Hill will look in the Journal of Navigation he will find that the Earth-centred Universe is alive and well, whatever his readings of the Spectator may suggest.
Yours, Darcy Reddyhoff.’
Martin Gwynne completes our education:
‘Not the least interesting thing in the passage just quoted is the officer’s use of the term “confused dogma” when speaking of modern astronomy. For the sake of completeness I shall now fill in any gaps he left that might interest readers by giving the following summary of the principles of celestial navigation. (1) Celestial navigation is based on the premise of two concentric spheres – one (celestial) larger than the other – sharing a common pole, with the smaller and inner sphere remaining stationary while the outer revolves about it. (2) Calculations are based on the laws of spherical trigonometry. The measurements used to translate the computations into a position or “fix” on the earth are done in nautical miles (even in these days of almost universal metrication). Each of these 360 degrees of the circle is divided into 60 minutes. The nautical mile is defined as the length of one minute of longitude on the equator, or 6,080 feet. (3) The tables used to reduce or compute the resultant observations are based on 360 degrees. (4) All the navigators of the world use the same basic system, their calculations and charts being based on a fixed earth and the basic unit of the nautical mile.’
Yes, unbelievable isn’t it, they use the old geocentric system of navigation and it works for them. If any doubt how they calculate where the sun, moon, planets will be at any given time go to the Encyclopedia Britannica (Eclipse, p.869) and you will find the following propaganda:
‘For this purpose it is convenient first to consider the earth as fixed and to suppose the observer looking out from its centre…’
Of course it is, very convenient indeed. No doubt, for planetary flight, they could use a heliocentric system, taking into account all the moving bodies and the 15,000 Newtonian variables they say is necessary to work past the ‘perturbations’ in Kepler’s ellipse to find them, but, as the odds will confirm, there is no guarantee they would actually get their calculations right. I for one, if I were blasting off, would make sure they base their directions on geocentric reality, not heliocentric rhetoric.
-
Neil, I am amazed at the passion you have for trying to get to the true physics of all that is involved in trying to explain heliocentrism and geocentris,. For myself, I base my beliefs on faith. It is sufficient for me to have established science has not proven or falsified geocentrism or for that matter heliocentrism. I am glad that Faber has a greater knowledge of physics than I so can debate with you on these matters.
Of interest to me is the gyroscope theory, that the universe itself acts like a gyroscope. like a spinning top, inside of which the spinning is generation electromagnetic forces that determine the movements (or nat as with the earth) of celestial bodies.
in the year 1740, the world became the richer in knowledge when Domenico Cassini’s son, Giacomo (Jacques) (1677-1756) published his book Elements d’Astronomie. In it he shows his father's illustration of the universe the plane of the ecliptic that is shown tilted, that is the axis of the universe passes through the earth's magnetic poles rather than the terrestrial north and south poles as illustrated today.
Now a spinning top gyroscope universe should behave like a spinning top. A spinning to while rotating itself also forms little circles ar the tip of the spinning top. Place a spinning top on a table and it will at a certain speed do little circles. In Cassini's illustration of the universe, the stars do indeed do this circle movement. It is known as the precession of the stars. Precession of stars can be explained in two ways, spinning top earth, or gyroscope (two spinning tops joined to give two points - like a rugby ball end on end.) Personally I like the theory of the spinning universe generating electromagnetic forces moving celestial bodies in a certain way, and holding the earth as immobile at the centre.
Here is a segment from a website on geodesy (http://geography.about.com/od/physicalgeography/a/geodesyearthsize.htm):
Geodesy and the Size and Shape of the Planet Earth
Measuring the Size and Shape of Earth
...
Earth's Shape
Earth's circuмference and diameter differ because its shape is classified as an oblate spheroid or ellipsoid, instead of a true sphere. This means that instead of being of equal circuмference in all areas, the poles are squished, resulting in a bulge at the equator, and thus a larger circuмference and diameter there.
The equatorial bulge at Earth's equator is measured at 26.5 miles (42.72 km) and is caused by the planet's rotation and gravity. Gravity itself causes planets and other celestial bodies to contract and form a sphere. This is because it pulls all the mass of an object as close to the center of gravity (the Earth's core in this case) as possible.
Because Earth rotates, this sphere is distorted by the centrifugal force. This is the force that causes objects to move outward away from the center of gravity. Therefore, as the Earth rotates, centrifugal force is greatest at the equator so it causes a slight outward bulge there, giving that region a larger circuмference and diameter.
Notice it is not explained how this cause and effect relationship is known
to exist, as if the "planet's rotation and gravity" are the only causes of the
measured bulge.
Isaac Newton proposed the theory that a spinning earth should cause its mass to bulge around the equator. Others went out and proved him correct. Domenico Cassini, a master surveyer as well as astronomer, knew this was not a genuine confirmation so measured the shape of the earth for himself and found it to be pear shaped not orange shaped. But they needed an orange to confirm heliocentrism so they ignored Cassini's findings and invented more confirmations of Newton's theory.
In 1959 another measurement for the earth was achieved, this time using a satellite called Vanguard. It found Newton’s ‘bulge’ was 25 feet (7.6 meters) - yes a mere 25 feet - higher south of the equator, and announced the earth was shaped like a pear, that is, it has a bulgier bulge in the southern hemisphere.
Given the history and importance of the measurement, wouldn’t you think the whole scientific world would have shook with excitement and intrigue at what is undoubtedly a complete falsification of Newton’s prediction of a uniform bulge (and its resulting precession) with his theory of gravitation? You would of course, but alas, to these people such conclusions are only a nuisance. Accordingly, as Asimov writes, with a sign of relief, by careful management, of course:
‘Fortunately, the use of the expression [pear shape] quickly died.’ ---Isaac Asimov: Guide to Earth and Space, Ballantine Books, 1993,
So, does that settle it for once and for all then, getting down to a few feet one way or another, about the depth of a good refuse pit? Again, no it does not, for let us read what the real experts were saying in 1988. In the Journal of Surveying Engineering, commenting on the current state of Astronomy and Space Geodesy, we find the following:
COORDINATE SYSTEMS USED IN GEODESY
BASIC DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS
By Tomás Soler and Larry D. Hothem, Member, ASCE
‘INTRODUCTION
The principal problem of geodesy may be stated as follows (Hirvonen 1960): “Find the space coordinates at any point P at the physical surface S of the earth when a sufficient number of geodetic operations have been carried out along S.” Therefore, in order to know the position P, the definition of an appropriate frame to which these spatial coordinates refer is of primary importance. Due to the nature of the rotational motions of the earth and to other geodynamic phenomena, a rigorously defined, earth-fixing coordinates system at the degree of accuracy of our current observational capabilities is not presently available.’
This of course, means that in 1988, long after Newton’s bulge is confirmed as a heliocentric ‘fact’, here are geodesists attempting to convey meetings, colloquiums and workshops organised jointly by the International Association of Geodesy and the International astronomical Union attempting to coordinate the work of different groups in the international scientific community for the future definition and selection of reliable reference frames so that they can measure the combined shape of the earth? It seems with so much movement of cosmic bodies it is impossible to coordinate multiple reference frames necessary for an accurate measurement of the earth’s supposed bulge. In other words, here we have the modern experts in this field telling us that no accurate shape for the earth has ever been achieved. Maybe now we can see just how far the they will go to assure the world that Newton was correct, that his ‘laws’ prove the earth spins and orbits the sun in a heliocentric solar system. But more than that, for in our next quote they use the fraud to say their bulge shows the earth was once an evolving molten mass.
‘The earth is nearly spherical, having a diameter of 7,928 miles (12,756 km) at the equator but only 7,902 miles (12,714 km) from pole to pole. The slight broadening at the equator is the result of centrifugal forces from the earth’s spin, and originally set in when the planet was molten.’ ---Pratchett, Stewart and Cohen, The Science of Discworld, op. cit., 1999, p.123.
The Devil never rests.
-
Now I see you have another post, cassini, which I have not yet read, but I
will get to it later today. For now, this reply is for Faber. I hope you don't
mind waiting - my last reply took two days!!
When I read this, it first seemed you were saying that the axle of the
gimballed gyroscope has to be oriented in a certain direction, such as
"east-west aligned" before it can operate reliably:
If the axis of the wheel is horizontally east-west aligned, it theoretically will turn around a horizontally north-south earth fixed axis 360° per day.
But it makes no difference which way the axis of the wheel is aligned,
because the gyro detects rotational movement in any direction, since it is
in a three-axle gimballed framework, the design of which enables the gyro
axis to remain oriented in the same direction regardless of the rotation of
the gyroscope frame.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR00YPVq7eryJMFHsBZFJvR9BcIRKBOxGwoS_0DkuyrPccMnP74SQ)
That outermost frame is attached to, or rests securely on, the environment
around it: such as a plane, a spacecraft, a ship -- or, it could be a room of
a building which is securely attached to the earth. If the latter, any
rotational movement of the earth should be detectable in the gradual re-
orientation of the gyro axis over 24 hours.
IF - however, in an operational gyro whose outermost framework is
secured to the earth (via a parked plane or a room of a building founded
on the earth) - IF the axis of the functioning gyro does not change
orientation over a period of 24 hours, that would indicate that the earth
is motionless.
When the gyroscope frame moves up or down, forward or back, the gyro
does not show any difference in its position. The frame can move to
the right or to the left as well, so long as the compass direction of the
outer framework is not changed, the gyro will show no difference in the
orientation of the gyro axle.
IF gyroscopes change their orientation constantly due to the rotation of
the earth, THEN in order to use them for navigational instruments over a
period of hours, especially nearer to the north pole or the south pole (and
therefore further from the equator), the navigator would have to make
small adjustments to compensate for the earth's rotation lest the gyro
would be unreliable for navigational purposes. Such compensation would
be rather complicated for a plane traveling northeast, for example,
because the rate of compensation would increase the further the plane
travels north, and depending on the eastward component of the plane's
motion, the rate of compensation for that direction would have to vary
as well. In a great circle route, the compass bearing usually is changing
constantly, according to a preset formula, so the plane has to turn
slightly either port or starboard, depending on the course. In the following
example, the turn would be a consistent starboard (right) turn for the
duration of the flight:
{A navigation website}:
Source (http://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html)
Bearing
Baghdad to Osaka
(http://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/baghdad-to-osaka.jpg)
Baghdad to Osaka –
not a constant bearing!
In general, your current heading will vary as you follow a great circle path (orthodrome); the final heading will differ from the initial heading by varying degrees according to distance and latitude (if you were to go from say 35°N,45°E (Baghdad) to 35°N,135°E (Osaka), you would start on a heading of 60° and end up on a heading of 120°!).
This formula is for the initial bearing (sometimes referred to as forward azimuth) which if followed in a straight line along a great-circle arc will take you from the start point to the end point:1
Formula: θ = atan2( sin(Δλ).cos(φ2), cos(φ1).sin(φ2) − sin(φ1).cos(φ2).cos(Δλ) )
where φ is latitude, λ is longitude, R is earth’s radius (mean radius = 6,371km)
note that angles need to be in radians to pass to trig functions!
{End of reference to navigation website}
In that example, a plane traveling from Baghdad to Osaka would be generally
moving in a manner that amplifies the effects of the "earth's rotation" or, makes
the sun seem to move across the sky FASTER than it normally does. If the
navigator is using a gyro to verify his course, and the gyro is sensitive to the
rotation of the earth, it seems it would tend to change its orientation twice as
fast, since the plane is moving eastward twice as fast as the earth "rotates"
eastward.
There is no mention anywhere I can find for how to compensate for the
"error" of a gyroscope during flight, due to the gyro's axis moving in an
abiding response to the rotating earth. I am led to suspect none is necessary,
because I'm thinking that the gyroscope behaves as if the earth does not
rotate. Do you see anything to the contrary anywhere?
You're saying that gyros are not accurate enough to detect the rotation of
the earth: well, then what good would they be for navigation, since the
route of an eastbound plane doubles the effect of said rotation, and a
westbound plane cancels it? If the plane is flying directly over the equator,
there would be no change in the gyro, just as there is no change in a
Foucault pendulum on the equator. But the further the plane's east-west
course is to the north or to the south (toward either of the earth's poles),
the more the gyro would change orientation during flight, the same way the
Foucault pendulums change more as they are located closer to the poles.
Foucault pendulums all over the world swing day in and day out at public
museums and observatories by the hundreds, and not one of them
precesses (rotates or turns around) at a rate of 360 degrees in a day, nor
are they
theoretically expected to do so, even by geocentrists.
-
When I read this, it first seemed you were saying that the axle of the
gimballed gyroscope has to be oriented in a certain direction, such as
"east-west aligned" before it can operate reliably:
If the axis of the wheel is horizontally east-west aligned, it theoretically will turn around a horizontally north-south earth fixed axis 360° per day.
But it makes no difference which way the axis of the wheel is aligned,
because the gyro detects rotational movement in any direction, since it is
in a three-axle gimballed framework, the design of which enables the gyro
axis to remain oriented in the same direction regardless of the rotation of
the gyroscope frame.
True, what you say, but if the spin axis is parallel to the earth's axis, then it will stay parallel to the earth's axis while the earth is rotating with respect to the firmament. Consequently you can't notice any change of the axis that could be interpreted as a sign that the earth is rotating with respect to the firmament.
Neil Obstat, I see no need for us, to discuss the details of gyroscopes and Foucault pendula. I am an engineer and I don't doubt that gyroscopes and Foucault pendula are principally able to show that the earth rotates with respect to something.
All that matters here - we are discussing geocentrism - is: Does the earth rotate with respect to absolute space like Isaac Newton said, or does the earth rotate with respect to the rest of the matter in the universe like Ernst Mach said.
Now, nobody has ever seen absolute space. Absolute space is neither visible, nor detectable. There are good reasons to say: absolute space is not existent. Absolute space is just an idea. And it is an idea that contradicts Newtons third "law", actio = reactio. If absolute space causes inertial forces, then acceleration should cause some effect, some reactio on absolute space. But absolute space is defined to be absolute and invariably unaffected. So absolute space is an idea that can neither be verified not falsified and it contradicts Newtons third "law".
If we accept divine revelation, if we accept Scripture, the Fathers, and the Magisterium, we know for sure that there is absolute space. Absolute space is where the earth rests. But for sake of the argument we have to ignore divine revelation, because if we accept divine revelation, the case is already settled: geocentrism is true.
If we ignore divine revelation, there is no difference between the postulate "absolute space is causing inertial forces" and the postulate "God created some species of angels which cause inertial forces". Ignoring the given divine revelation, both postulates are scientifically not acceptable, because the revelation about absolute space has to be ignored and there is no divine revelation about inertial force angels.
We all assume, that mass causes gravity. We don't know how mass could cause gravity, but experimental physicist can detect a relation between mass and gravity. Now Ernst Mach said: It is more reasonable to assume that inertial forces also are caused by mass, than to invent some invisible and undetectable absolute space as a cause.
Consequently Foucault pendula and gyroscopes use all the mass of all the matter in the universe as a reference frame. If they show rotation of the earth, then they show (relative) rotation of the earth with respect to the firmament. So: the earth is rotating with respect to the firmament. That is nothing new, we all can see that by looking at the sky for a while.
So finally one thing is settled:
1.) the earth rotates (relatively) with respect to the firmament
and four options are unsettled:
2.) the firmament is at rest while the earth rotates
3.) the firmament rotates while the earth is at rest
4.) both rotate, nothing is at rest
5.) we can't usefully talk about rest, it's all relative
Divine revelation says, the Church says: 3.)
Now science found out that there is another aspect to be thought about: Light, or more generally EM-waves. Light undisputedly moves at a certain speed with respect to some reference frame. The reference frame of light traditionally is called luminiferous ether. Modern physics has abolished the idea of the luminiferous ether, but it has not abolished the fact, that there is a reference frame, with respect to which light propagates. In Einstein's funny theory this reference frame is some sort of an oddish, peculiarly chopped version of an absolute space. In other theories it's like some special fluid that is everywhere, even penetrating matter.
Experimental science found out that the earth does neither rotate with respect to the reference frame of light, nor does it move with some tens of thousands of mph through the the reference frame of light, to orbit the sun. That is the reason, why heliocentrism was abandoned by science. All experiments about the propagation of light have confirmed geocentrism. But as the Einsteins, Hawkings and Hubbles detest geocentrism, they found a solution in form of a dubious theory, which says: OK, Galilei was no more right than the Church, but the Church wasn't right either. We abolish heliocentrism, but we continue to reject geocentrism and invent everywhereandnowherecentrism.
But this dubious theory is not science. It is based on an arbitrary postulate. It is based on Friedmanns second assumption which is the so-called Copernican principle, which states: geocentrism is wrong (the Church is wrong).
Meanwhile, experiments (Michelson-Morley, Sagnac, Airy, ... ) confirm geocentrism, and some other observations confirm geocentrism, as Hawking and Hubble admit (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=14504&min=125&num=5).
-
Faber, I'm stuck on something.
Now, nobody has ever seen absolute space. Absolute space is neither visible, nor detectable. There are good reasons to say: absolute space is not existent. Absolute space is just an idea. And it is an idea that contradicts Newtons third "law", actio = reactio. If absolute space causes inertial forces, then acceleration should cause some effect, some reactio on absolute space. But absolute space is defined to be absolute and invariably unaffected. So absolute space is an idea that can neither be verified [nor] falsified[,] and it contradicts Newtons third "law".
According to Newton's Third Law: "If one object exerts a force on another,
the other exerts the same force in opposite direction on the one."
(Walter Lewin at MIT says action = -reaction since the reaction is always in the
opposite direction, opposing the action, therefore "negative." It seems to me
he could equally say that action = |reaction| but he doesn't because it's not
quite as impressive.)
Absolute space is neither visible nor detectable, and has never been seen.
The very existence of absolute space is reasonably questionable.
Newton defines absolute space as absolute and invariably unaffected by any
movement of matter.
Absolute space is Newton's own idea, by which he postulates that it is the
cause of inertial forces, and the entity whence all matter, in proportion to its
mass, derives inertia, and such derivation is instantaneous and ostensibly
inherent, such that the effect of absolute space is as if it is contained within
matter itself, as though it were inseparable.
Logically, if that were true, then acceleration should cause some reaction on
absolute space, since action = |reaction|, as a "law" of the physical universe,
would necessarily apply universally to all physical reality.
But you, Faber, assert, when they say absolute space is unaffected by any
movement of matter, that contradicts Newton's own third "law."
It seems to me that this quandary may be merely a consequence of the degree
of precision in the definition. It seems to me that Newton's idea of absolute
space is one whereby absolute space absolutely and universally affects all of
matter, however it, at all times and in all places, is absolutely unaffected by
the movement of matter. In other words, its effect is a one-way effect, the
effect of a kind of "god" if you will, making absolute space into a thing that
affects all matter but is not affected by any matter. It seems to me that
Newton would have us believe that absolute space is part of the physical
universe, but somehow exempt from the "third law" of same. Furthermore,
once one grasps this principle and hangs on to it, the idea appears to have its
own 'gravitational' power, which (makes it) more difficult to 'let go of it' the
longer one holds onto it.
As such, it seems we would have to grasp it without holding on to it, if
we would be free to discuss it.
Therefore, without holding onto its principle, do you propose that, given the
third "law," it is impossible for a thing such as absolute space to exist? That is
to ask, do you propose that it is impossible for this thing to be part of the physical
universe, effecting force against all of matter universally, yet unaffected itself by
the movement of matter? -- And therefore, the third "law" is brought into
question, and so on?
It seems to me this may lead to an alternative definition of the physical universe.
-
Therefore, without holding onto its principle, do you propose that, given the third "law," it is impossible for a thing such as absolute space to exist? That is to ask, do you propose that it is impossible for this thing to be part of the physical universe, effecting force against all of matter universally, yet unaffected itself by the movement of matter? -- And therefore, the third "law" is brought into question, and so on?
No, that is not what I propose. I believe in God who would be able to create an absolute space which is not subject to Isaac Newtons third law. He could command that that absolute space should provoke inertia of matter without any intelligible mechanism and without any retroaction.
But then this part or aspect of Gods creation would be non-intelligible. So we have to ask Isaac Newton: "How would you know about absolute space, and that it provokes inertia of matter? Did God reveal that to you?"
The proposal of Ernst Mach is not much better. Same applies to Isaac Newton's and Albert Einstein's ideas about gravity. They all well knew that their ideas are nothing more than a rather esoterically sounding guess, and that they didn't even have a vague idea about how their ideas might be able to be proven right or wrong.
-
You seem to be doing fine with English, Faber.
It seems to me that Newton may have been thinking the same thing that
you are saying you believe, but he was instead committed to keeping God
out of his doctrines, and therefore he left this absolute space doctrine
incomplete and ambiguous, in order to avoid the aspect of God's power.
Do you think it's possible that Newton was unwilling to explain himself
in this regard in particular, and in various other things in general, because he
was unwilling to address for the record his faith in God, or lack thereof?
-
Neil,
I think you hit on something key. These scientists seem to presume no God, presume an evolutionary framework, presume the big bang, etc. then they work whatever evidence they find to fit this pre-conceived framework.
Creationists use the exact same evidence, but simply posit different theories of how it all fits together. But their theories are discounted by the scientists because they contradict the presuppositions of the scientists.
-
You seem to be doing fine with English, Faber.
It seems to me that Newton may have been thinking the same thing that
you are saying you believe, but he was instead committed to keeping God
out of his doctrines, and therefore he left this absolute space doctrine
incomplete and ambiguous, in order to avoid the aspect of God's power.
Do you think it's possible that Newton was unwilling to explain himself
in this regard in particular, and in various other things in general, because he
was unwilling to address for the record his faith in God, or lack thereof?
Newton said that it is an undisputed fact that God exists. There is a famous quote with respect to that. I can only quote a German translation, the original is in latin. „Dass die Existenz des höchsten Gottes eine unausweichliche Tatsache ist, ist allgemein anerkannt.“
Newton also said, that no sane person would swallow his (Newton's) law of gravity, as it implies action at a distance with infinitely fast agents (angels).
-
It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact...That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent, acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers.
-
:smoke-pot:
-
Hmmm........... :scratchchin:
That couldn't be one of his more popular quotes..............
-
Neil,
I think you hit on something key. These scientists seem to presume no God, presume an evolutionary framework, presume the big bang, etc. then they work whatever evidence they find to fit this pre-conceived framework.
Creationists use the exact same evidence, but simply posit different theories of how it all fits together. But their theories are discounted by the scientists because they contradict the presuppositions of the scientists.
Not quite correct Steve, it is modern science that presumes NO GOD. It is immeterial whether the scientist is a theist or atheist. Both kinds now work whatever evidence they find to fit this pre-conceived framework.
'Take. a phenomenon that can be observed, such as a weight falling to the ground, produce a mathematical measurement for it which fits, concoct a hypothesis which, however far fetched, could possibly account for the phenomenon, and finally call the hypothesis and the mathematical formula a law and, regardless of whether or not there is any theoretical justification for it whatever, apply it throughout the universe. '
quoted from ALL YOU EVER WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT NEWTON
http://www.alcazar.net/newton.pdf
-
This, BTW, is the OP for this thread with 308 posts over 19+ months:
I just came across this fascinating item:
http://www.amazon.com/Galileo-Was-Wrong-Church-Right/dp/0977964000/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t
Notice how dogmatic are the negative reviews.
At any rate, if you're a geocentrist, indicate it like so:
:applause:
If not, like so:
:facepalm:
The customer reviews, whether negative or positive, were never posted on
this enormous thread, so what's a few more kiobytes here or there?
The most helpful favorable review vs. The most helpful critical review
FAVORABLE:
33 of 70 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
A closed mind will see what it wants to see
I have to ask this question to most of the "reviewers" of this book: Have you actually read and understood the arguments put forth? Or, do you simply know that geocentrism is false because you "know" it is false? Most of us have been told that heliocentrism is the truth for so long that we've never bothered to even think to question it. But, as the authors point out from numerous scientific sources, heliocentrism cannot actually be proven. It can only be assumed. The mathematical equations behind geocentrism work equally as well as the math behind heliocentrism - perhaps better. And, to quote:
"Not only can it be demonstrated mechanically, mathematically and scientifically that the sun and stars can revolve around the Earth, but using already-performed scientific experiments it can also be demonstrated that the Earth is in the center of the universe and motionless in space."
"A whole host of experimenters in the 1800s ... confirmed to their satisfaction that the Earth was having no effect on the speed of light. In fact it can be safely said that no experiment has ever been performed with such agonizing persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable way, as that of determining whether the Earth is indeed moving through space. The haunting fact is: all of them have failed to detect any motion."
So, geocentrism has been ruled out, "... not by any scientific proof but only because, after having five hundred years of Copernicanism drummed into one's head since childhood, it was 'unthinkable' to believe that mankind got it wrong and that the Earth was actually motionless in space. ... Einstein was forced to answer both the results of the interferometer experiments and Maxwell's electromagnetic equations. His only 'alternative' was to invent a whole new physics; in fact, it was necessary to adopt a whole new way of looking at the world. If the Earth wouldn't budge, then the science had to budge! ... all in an effort to answer the numerous experiments that showed the Earth was motionless in space."
If one is simply looking for the truth, what harm can come from exploring ALL possible avenues through which it might be found? And the truth is that neither position can be scientifically or mathematically disproven. So, what difference would it make to the average person whether geocentrism or heliocentrism was, in fact, true? How would it change our lives other than to make us give up beliefs that we have been force-fed since childhood? If all we want is the truth, then it shouldn't matter what that truth is!
Published on October 12, 2010 by tarbaby2
› See more 5 star, 4 star reviews
CRITICAL:
96 of 150 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars
I am more afraid now for the future of humanity than I have ever been --
Honestly... the future of humanity is now officially looking more and more like "Idiocracy" than I ever thought possible.
Geocentricism? In 2010? Are you kidding me?!?
The fact that this has any reviews higher than 1 star only adds to my worry. This is pathetic. The fact that anyone could be so retarded (yes, I said it) to STILL think that the earth is the center of the Universe and the sun revolves around it is just... well, there are no words.
We prove the heliocentric model every time a satellite completes an orbit of our planet, every time we send a rocket into space, every time one of our space telescopes or earth-based telescopes takes a picture of space, and so on. Relativity proves it, physics proves it, astronomy proves...
I looked up the organization, too... unfortunately, I can't write this off as a Poe, as badly as I want to. This is pathetic... somehow, it's worse than Young-Earth Creationism. Don't ask me how, but it is. These people are seriously a danger to the education of future generations. I hope the movement eventually dies off because the future generations get smarter and leave it behind for the incredible level of stupid it is.
Published on September 13, 2010 by Jimmy Page
› See more 3 star, 2 star, 1 star reviews
++++++++++++++ analysis +++++++++++++++++++
I find it most informative, that here, the two most helpful reviews on Amazon
when summarized, give all we need to know about the topic.
[my comments in brackets]
First, the critical review (could have been written by oldavid, for example):
~ This is pathetic. [dogmatic and opinionated generalization without basis]
~ There are no words. [but more words are coming, anyway, which see]
~ We prove the heliocentric model every time a satellite completes an orbit
of our planet [false statement], every time we send a rocket into space [false
statement - JPL presumes a stationary earth in all its orbital calculations], every
time one of our telescopes takes a picture of space [false statement], and so on.
~ Relativity proves it [no, it does not], physics proves it [no, it does not],
astronomy proves (it) [no, it does not].
~ This is pathetic. [repeating the same 'dogmatic' unprincipled proposition]
~ It's worse than Young-earth Creationism: don't ask me how but it is. [dogmatic and false]
~ These people are seriously a danger to the education of future generations. [dogmatic falsehood]
~ I hope the movement eventually dies off because the future generations get smarter and leave it behind for the incredible level of stupid it is. [dogmatic, pompous and ignorant opinion without substance]
Next, the FAVORABLE review:
~ A closed mind will see what it wants to see.
[right out of the gate, a reasonable generalization that cannot be disproven,
and is not objectionable to anyone upon calm reflection - prove me wrong if
you will - but find anyone in the history of written language who has any
substantive opposition to this proposition, "A closed mind will see what it
wants to see." This could be among the foundational tenets of a studied
refutation of false modern philosophy.]
~ I have to ask this question to most of the "reviewers" of this book: Have you actually read and understood the arguments put forth? Or, do you simply know that geocentrism is false because you "know" it is false?
[Again, a very reasonable question, and one that has no answer forthcoming,
perhaps because those who would answer it would, by their answer show how
unreliable their opinion is, since it would be based on ignorance and 'feeling' alone.
~ Most of us have been told that heliocentrism is the truth for so long that we've never bothered to even think to question it.
[Again, a very reasonable proposition, the denial of which would be utter
nonsense, because anywhere you go you will find it corroborated with the
evidence: show me one person alive today who, having had public school
education as a child, who was NOT taught dogmatically heliocentrism all along.]
~ But, as the authors point out from numerous scientific sources, heliocentrism cannot actually be proven. It can only be assumed. The mathematical equations behind geocentrism work equally as well as the math behind heliocentrism - perhaps better.
[Again, a very reasonable statement, and a principled observation based on
the facts at hand, the book in question, and not some dogmatic, knee-jerk
reaction to the subject that gets the author upset and foaming like a rabid dog
at the mouth.]
~ And, to quote: "Not only can it be demonstrated mechanically, mathematically and scientifically that the sun and stars can revolve around the Earth, but using already-performed scientific experiments it can also be demonstrated that the Earth is in the center of the universe and motionless in space."
[Again, a reasonable, factual quote from the book being reviewed, to which the
"most helpful critical review" provides no response whatsoever, perhaps because
any response would be one and the same as a resignation of its untenable
position.]
~ "A whole host of experimenters in the 1800s ... confirmed to their satisfaction that the Earth was having no effect on the speed of light. In fact it can be safely said that no experiment has ever been performed with such agonizing persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable way, as that of determining whether the Earth is indeed moving through space. The haunting fact is: all of them have failed to detect any motion."
[Again, simply stated, a proposition that is an observation of the facts, and where
is the rejoinder? "This is pathetic." No, this is not a rejoinder, but a falsehood.]
~ So, geocentrism has been ruled out, "... not by any scientific proof but only because, after having five hundred years of Copernicanism drummed into one's head since childhood, it was 'unthinkable' to believe that mankind got it wrong and that the Earth was actually motionless in space.
[Again, a reasonable observation and a proposition to be dealt with, but where
is the opposition? Who has the answer? Where is it? "This is pathetic" is not
an answer, BTW.]
~ Einstein was forced to answer both the results of the interferometer experiments and Maxwell's electromagnetic equations..
[Again, a reasonable observation of the book's contents, and where is the
answer? Where is the opposition? It does not exist!!]
~ ..His only 'alternative' was to invent a whole new physics; in fact, it was necessary to adopt a whole new way of looking at the world.
[Again, a simple, concise reference to the book's contents, and there is no
answer to be found by those who contemn against it with irrational platitudes.]
~ If the Earth wouldn't budge, then the science had to budge! ... all in an effort to answer the numerous experiments that showed the Earth was motionless in space."
[Again, a calm, reasoned summary of the facts of history, the ignorance of
which the pundits and purveyors of evolution rely upon, to perpetuate their
house of cards fairy-tale for grown-ups.]
~ If one is simply looking for the truth, what harm can come from exploring ALL possible avenues through which it might be found?
[We're still waiting for an answer, and we might well be waiting FOREVER.]
~ And the truth is that neither position can be scientifically or mathematically disproven.
[Truth has a penchant for making things difficult for falsehood.]
~ So, what difference would it make to the average person whether geocentrism or heliocentrism was, in fact, true?
[Now we are getting close to the essential matter: why is the opposition so
dogmatically focused on proclaiming their erroneous opinions? What drives them?]
~ How would it change our lives other than to make us give up beliefs that we have been force-fed since childhood?
[What is their attachment to these force-fed beliefs, anyway? What is the point?]
~ If all we want is the truth, then it shouldn't matter what that truth is!
[If all we want is the truth, then it should not matter what the truth is -- unless,
of course, we don't really want the truth at all. Maybe the truth isn't
"comfortable." Maybe the truth means we'll have to give up something we like,
something like illicit sex, or selfishness, or false religion, or divorce, or the sin
of Sodom, or worship of false gods, or wife-swapping, or torturing people or
animals, or maybe, just maybe, some real estate.]
-
I know it's been a long time, cassini, and I apologize for the delay.
Neil,
I think you hit on something key. These scientists seem to presume no God, presume an evolutionary framework, presume the big bang, etc. then they work whatever evidence they find to fit this pre-conceived framework.
It is a method that is contrary to what the Church teaches: putting 'science'
before divine revelation, which is actually making a false god of 'science' -
a most serious sin against the First Commandment. In another thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=19926&min=4&num=5), I
have quoted Professor Edward Bourdreaux from the University of New Orleans (http://www.wayoflife.org/database/scientistswhobelieve.html),
who explains that the big-bang hypothesis was constructed entirely to support
the hypothesis of evolution, and that without evolution theory, there would
be no big-bang. For evolution is the presumption upon which the big-bang
is built. And they are both unsupported by any evidence from the real world.
We should be paying attention to scientists who dare to have faith in God.
Creationists use the exact same evidence, but simply posit different theories of how it all fits together. But their theories are discounted by the scientists because they contradict the presuppositions of the scientists.
I would go even further, stevusmagnus, for creationists use ALL the evidence,
looking for the truth, whereas evolutionists deliberately exclude any evidence
that is inconvenient for their agenda - an agenda that proclaims from the
beginning that there is no God.
Not quite correct Steve, it is modern science that presumes NO GOD.
I have to disagree, cassini. There are plenty of modern scientists who do not
presume there is no God. And it is not fair to say that "science" presumes any
such thing, for science, per se, is not a person and is only a tool for
persons to use. That is, "modern science" does not "presume" anything at all.
It is the practitioners of modern science, individual modern scientists, acting
not as scientists, but acting as philosophers, that is, outside their field,
and doing so with impudence and deliberate subterfuge, who presume things,
or ignore facts and data that they judge 'inconvenient'.
For these are the ideological offspring of Galileo, who opposed the Church,
lied boldly, and MOCKED his opposition.
Evolutionites and Big-Bangers do so likewise!
Professor Machi Giertych (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Evolution-is-not-science-but-bad-philosophy), from the Polish Academy of Science Institute of
Dendrology said: "The good scientist is one who bases his conclusions on
experimental data and observation. The genetics, psychology, anatomy or
any other field of experimental sciences, is good and reliable, regardless of
what he thinks of evolution. Science works everywhere this way. Where
things do go wrong, is where someone claims to be an expert in evolution.
... Evolution is not a science!! It is a philosophy."
It is actually a falsification of the scientific method, because it pretends to use
RANDOM sampling of the data, but uses BIASED sampling of the data, instead.
It is immaterial whether the scientist is a theist or atheist. Both kinds now work whatever evidence they find to fit this pre-conceived framework.
This is not a fair statement. It is a common practice to be sure, that is now
entrenched in many, many years of habitual use, but it is not universal. I will
admit, however, that the "levers of power" are in control of liars who do not
grant any favors to scientists who dare to let their faith in God guide their
moral decisions even in their professional duties. There is conspicuous
discrimination in scientific communities against men who believe in God and
dare to say that they do. This is why we are obliged to give them our support,
and it is not helping when we deny their existence.
Denying the existence of Godly scientists is not far removed from denying the
existence of God Himself!
'Take a phenomenon that can be observed, such as a weight falling to the ground, produce a mathematical measurement for it which fits, concoct a hypothesis which, however far fetched, could possibly account for the phenomenon, and finally call the hypothesis and the mathematical formula a law and, regardless of whether or not there is any theoretical justification for it whatever, apply it throughout the universe. '
quoted from ALL YOU EVER WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT NEWTON
http://www.alcazar.net/newton.pdf
Thanks for the link!
I had to come in here to look up some things, because I heard a traditional
priest recently say in a teaching position, that we respect the Laws of Motion
that Newton discovered, not because he has any religious authority (for he
does not) but that the laws he discovered are "true for our real universe now,
just as they have always been," for Newton's discovery of them does not
change the laws in any way.
I was asking him why Catholics would attribute any kind of assent of faith to
"Newton's laws of motion" when he has no religious authority or jurisdiction.
Obviously, the priest has not studied these matters, so I did not want to
proceed to embarrass him.
But not finding any specific answer, I'm looking for comments from the
members. Do you have any ideas on what to say to such a priest, in private,
of course?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
These scientists are saying that it makes no difference whether it is a
cannonball and a feather or a pallet of bricks - they all would fall to earth
subject to the pure acceleration factor of 32 ft/sec^2, without any resistance
due to air friction - that is, in a vacuum.
But what if the extremes are not sufficient? For if you go to the moon, the
acceleration due to gravity is about 1/6th that of Earth's. True? And why
so? They say it's because the moon is smaller and of less mass than Earth.
EXAMPLE
Well, what if we were to hold - theoretically, of course - the moon close
to the earth, at one mile apart (5,280 ft.), and also hold our famous
cannonball the same distance away from earth, that is, at one mile (these
would be distances as measured between the respective surfaces of earth,
moon and cannonball). But also, we would hold the cannonball only 1/6th
of a mile (880 feet) above the surface of the moon. Tested independently,
our cannonball would take the same time to fall to earth from one mile
elevation, as it would take to fall to the moon from 880 ft. elevation. But
in our example, we have both the moon AND the earth at these two
distances from our trusty cannonball.
So, we have the earth, and the moon one mile away, and our cannonball
somewhat between them, but closer to the moon. Now, "let go" of the moon
and the cannonball (and, so to speak, the earth) at the same time, and which
is going to "fall faster" toward the earth?
Why?
Newton's 'law' of gravity would have us ADD the two forces due to gravity,
that is, the earth's and the moon's, which would be:
a(1 earth) + a(1 moon) = 32 ft/sec^2 + 5 ft/sec^2 = 37 ft/sec^2
(These are my approximate figures for a at a distance above these
respective surfaces, but they could be way off, since the moon's gravity
would be acting on the earth's center of mass, which, being 6,000 miles away,
would be much less than it is at the surface of the moon, etc., but these
estimates are more for the purpose of the cannonball's motion and
therefore I presume these discrepancies may be ignored for this example.)
That's the acceleration due to gravity relative to BOTH the moon AND the
earth. That is to say, that the moon would move toward the earth more
quickly (due to the earth's greater gravitational pull), and the earth would
move toward the moon more slowly (due to the moon's lesser gravitational
pull). The earth would "fall" toward the moon, according to Newton's 'law',
with the acceleration of 5 &c., and the moon would "fall" toward the earth
with the acceleration of 32 &c. Since these two movements would be
happening at the same time and along the same line of force and motion,
the two accelerations would be added together, 5 + 32 = 37 which is
the total combined acceleration that would be acting between the moon and
the earth. (Acceleration acts on the mass of the object, and when
multiplied by the mass, the product is force, F = m(a).)
But the cannonball would "fall" toward both of them at the same time.
NOT ONLY would the moon seem to fall faster toward the earth than the
cannonball would seem to fall toward earth, but the cannonball would "fall"
toward the moon at a rate of 5 ft/sec^2, EXCEPT for the fact that the
earth's gravitational pull is stronger, and what we have now is a vector
problem with two different forces acting on the cannonball at the same
time: the earth pulling at 32 &c., and the moon pulling at 5 &c.
So ALL THREE BODIES WOULD CONVERGE. That is, the cannonball "falls"
toward a point that is possibly outside the surface of the moon, and would
therefore be moving at an angle "overhead" if viewed from the moon's
surface. This is to say, if the point toward which the cannonball falls is
outside the moon's surface, the cannonball would impact the earth first.
(And if that were the case, then the cannonball would have to be falling
toward the earth faster than the moon.)
But if the point toward which the cannonball falls is at or "under" the moon's
surface (closer to the center of the moon), then the cannonball would impact
the moon first. (And if that were the case, then the cannonball would have
to be falling toward the moon faster than toward the earth.)
To complicate this scenario, the point toward which the cannonball falls
would most likely CHANGE as it falls, and that change would be in a direction
toward the earth, because the closer the cannonball gets to the earth, the
stronger the gravitational pull of the earth would be, and it would increase
more quickly than the force of gravity from the moon would increase due
to the approach of the moon to the cannonball as both are falling to earth.
The vector problem can be represented graphically by drawing the
surface of the earth (a broad arc) and the surface of the moon at 1 mile
distance (another arc, but with a smaller radius), and the cannonball as a
dot. Draw one arrow from the cannonball pointing toward the center of the
earth, and another arrow from the cannonball pointing toward the center of
the moon. The diameter of the earth and of the moon should be
proportional, and the distances between the earth, moon and cannonball
should likewise be proportional, but not necessarily to scale with the
diameters of the earth and moon (you might need a lot of paper if they
are all drawn to scale).
The length of the earthbound arrow is 32 units and the length of the moon-
bound arrow is 5 units. (You should choose units to fit on the page, and so
long as the same length is used for each unit, such that the 32 vector is
a bit more than 6 times as long as the 5 vector.) Now, make those two
arrows into a parallelogram using two more arrows: the third arrow is
drawn parallel to the moon-bound arrow but starting from the tip of the
earth-bound arrow and 5 long, and the fourth arrow is drawn parallel to
the earth-bound arrow and 32 long - which should end touching the tip of
the third arrow. Finally, draw one long arrow from the cannonball to this
meeting point, and measure its length. The length is the acceleration
due to combined gravity of moon and earth on the cannonball, and the
direction of the arrow is the direction that this force acts on the cannonball,
in this case, at the moment this example begins its motion.
In my own drawing it looks like the acceleration acting on the cannonball
is right around 29 ft/sec^2. This means that the proximity of the moon is
causing the cannonball to accelerate more slowly than it would if the moon
were not there at all and the cannonball were falling toward earth from an
elevation of one mile above the earth's surface. Also, the cannonball is
not falling directly toward the earth, but at an angle of about 15 degrees
inclined towards the moon. This is entirely based on the graphical solution,
and my judgments as described above, and not on any Newtonian
calculations in physics. Any members capable of doing them, I would like
to see what you come up with!
As I said, the point would likely move, and the magnitude of the
resultant vector would increase (but not by much), as the moon and
cannonball start moving toward the earth. But initially, the cannonball
would have to be accelerating more slowly than the moon, since its vector
is shorter, but that is not the same thing as "falling more slowly" because
"falling" implies acceleration TOWARDS the center of a host, in this case,
the earth, or alternatively, towards the moon.
The cannonball's aggregate acceleration is toward neither center, but
toward a theoretical point somewhere between the two centers.
And it is a point that keeps moving as the moon and earth come closer
to each other.
Simply stated, the cannonball would fall toward the point which is the
mathematical center of mass of the earth and moon combined, and since
the mass of the earth is so much greater than the moon's, that point would
be a good deal closer to the center of the earth than it is to the center of
the moon, and would be on a theoretical line that connects the earth's
center of mass with the moon's center of mass. Without checking this, it
seems the cannonball would "fall" at an angle approximately tangent to
the surface of the moon, and toward a point on the earth's surface that is
near the line that connects the moon's center with the earth's center. Also,
and most curiously, as the motion progresses, the more rapid acceleration
of the moon (37&c. vs. 29&c. for the cannonball) would result in the surface
of the moon "catching up" to the cannonball, such that the moon actually
interferes with the cannonball's path, causing the cannonball effectively to
"fall to the moon" first, before the cannonball "falls to the earth."
That is to say, whereas I anticipated that the moon and earth would contact
each other before the cannonball contacts either one of them, after seeing
the graphic solution, it becomes evident that the cannonball would impact
the moon first, and then the moon would impact the earth second, with
our trusty cannonball lying on the surface of the moon, with all the moon
rocks and Apollo Spacecraft debris.
This is all ignoring the fact that the approach of the moon to the surface of
the earth would probably cause some other disturbances such as
atmospheric, especially since the moon would be displacing air as it moves
through the earth's atmosphere, perhaps blowing our trusty cannonball right
off the moon from whence it arrived! I am only talking about a theoretical
moon and cannonball theoretically held one mile above the earth's surface,
as a theoretical exercise.
If Newton's "universal law of gravity" is applied in this case, the earth would
have to move toward the "falling" moon, just as it moves toward the falling
cannonball, although the gravitational force from the cannonball is
infinitesimally small, practically speaking equal to zero. But relative to
"absolute space" the moon would be "falling" toward the earth subject to the
same rate of acceleration as the cannonball as it "falls" toward the earth.
The only difference is, the moon and the cannonball would be getting closer
to each other as they both "fall" toward the earth.
Now, how a geocentrist would deal with this I cannot say, because he would
have the earth not moving toward the moon; but then would the force of
attraction toward the earth be greater for the moon than for the cannonball?
To further complicate this comparison, "the heliocentrist" might not
appreciate having this same problem repeated with the sun replacing the
position of the earth, and some other planet, like a solid surface Jupiter,
replacing the moon, and we can keep our trusty cannonball. For then, the
sun would be required to move in the direction of Jupiter, and heliocentrists
don't like to have the sun moving anywhere, as I understand them.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-
S is in motion: this does not assume that it revolves around E. It is going somewhere else. :reporter:
-
You needn't have gone on with all that pretentious palaver, Neil.
The "sideways pull" of of a large mass like a mountain is quite detectable at ground level. Even the brick that our friend should have dropped on his head would have had it's trajectory affected by all the other masses in the Universe but, of course, most of them are so relatively remote that their effect would be quite negligible in comparison to that of the Earth.
Neptune was discovered because he pulled Uranus slightly out of his predicted orbit (around the Sun, in fact).
Now, if gravity and inertia are indeed "facts of life" "out there", for the Sun to orbit the Earth daily it would have to be vastly smaller and closer than the moon (which takes about 29 days to go round (and pulls all the oceans to and fro as she does so)).
You see that your problem is vastly greater than just making up simulated circles about what could be (if gravity and inertia didn't apply). The Sun would have to be something like the distance of all those geostationary satellites that go round with the Earth every day.
I repeat: unless you can demonstrate that gravity and inertia don't apply geocentrism is just an elitist's superstition.
-
It's just a fact you keep on repeating the same old nonsense that gravity and inertia don't apply to geocentrism. It's been refuted time and again, but you're holed up in the dogmatic Newtonianism which is now quite obsolete!
-
It's just a fact you keep on repeating the same old nonsense that gravity and inertia don't apply to geocentrism. It's been refuted time and again,
Not within my earshot has it been.
-
It's just a fact you keep on repeating the same old nonsense that gravity and inertia don't apply to geocentrism. It's been refuted time and again,
Not within my earshot has it been.
Oh, yeah, it has; you just are chained by your dogmatic prejudices, that's all there is to it.
-
It is an optical illusion that S rev around E. :detective:
-
It is an optical illusion that S rev around E. :detective:
That's not what the Church thought!
-
I have been accused by the prev poster as 'sounding Protestant for ' defending the Pope.
Luther, Calvin, James, & Bacon all believed that S rev around E. It should be evident who 'sounds Protestant'. :heretic:
-
I have been accused by the prev poster as 'sounding Protestant for ' defending the Pope.
Luther, Calvin, James, & Bacon all believed that S rev around E. It should be evident who 'sounds Protestant'. :heretic:
You sounded Protestant for accusing Catholics of "Marian idolatry" because they believe the Consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart hasn't been performed.
Such a statement makes me wonder if you even accept the Church's teachings on the Blessed Virgin Mary.
-
roscoe, you're not too good at arguments. All you come up with is guilt by association? :rolleyes: The Church, also under a Pope, authoritatively condemned Galileo's ideas! That's all there is to it!
And I never accused you of being Protestant, but of using bad logic at defending Pius XII's failure to consecrate Russia with all the bishops of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
-
Are u saying that the Church condemned all of Galileo's ideas?
If not then specifically which ideas did the Church 'condemn'?
Whatever the action of the Church at the time, those proscriptions were eliminated in two steps which have been posted here b4. I believe they are about 1760 & 1835.
-
No, the Church's condemnation of Galileo's 2 ideas as contrary to Holy Scripture (1, that the sun was immobile and 2 the earth was mobile) was never rescinded. They remain in force until they are explicitly made null by future Popes (which I doubt). None of those decrees you mention did that!
-
:facepalm:
My general response as requested at the beginning of this tread, not a response to Cupertino's post.
I cannot believe that people are now questioning that the earth revolves around the sun on this forum. :facepalm: It is actually good symbolism for a Christian that we revolve around the sun (light being symbolic of God). In the age to come, the Scriptures say that God will Himself be our light (replacing the sun and moon). Children feel that their parents revolve around them. God has created an environment where we feel at the center with Him too, but we aren't. This is mere scientific fact: the earth is round, rotates on it's axis (every 24 hours), and orbits the sun approximately every 365 days...
Not all stories in Scripture are meant in a strict literal way. These are the same errors that many fundamentalists make (I don't mean heretical errors, but lack of scrutiny). Some here have taught a "literal 6-day creation" making it clear that it "must be 6 days of 24 hours each." Why? Yes, we had first parents. Yes, they disobeyed God. Yet even some early Church Fathers disputed how the description of The Creation,The Garden, and Original sin played out beneath the obvious symbolism of Genesis. Some wondered just what "fruit" was meant in the description of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil.". It didn't bother St. Paul that Christ had said they were "in the last days"Look forward in Scripture to where St, Paul says,"one day is as a thousand years to God"(or a million years) If you take the literal rendering too far, then you truly believe that all snakes are crawling on the ground because they are descended from the serpent of the Garden? The mere fact that the Fall was told in a somewhat symbolic fashion never meant that it wasn't real. It was a different type of literature, explaining very complex events and giving prophecy: "The Woman" prophesied in Genesis is Mary, and the "snake"(Satan) would wait (thousands of years) for the heel of her "seed"(Jesus). This is the deeper meaning, certainly not something to do with literal snakes or fruit-trees.
When Jesus says "stars will fall to earth," does this mean that other suns (that's what "stars" are) will fall TO something so tiny as earth? Reason will not reject truth or be hung up on literalism. Meteorites fit the description too. When Christ speaks figuratively, as He often does in Scripture, "stars" can also refer to angels or demons. Christ did that often, saying,"destroy this Temple and I will rebuild it in three days." The pharisees didn't know He meant the "temple of His body." It may be deeper still. After 3 millennia, His Mystical Body might rise (O.T. prophecy)
Science itself is not any enemy of God, because it is supposed to deal in proof. Some "men of science" now distrust the Church and create their own dogmas (like the idea that "natural selection" created humans). Man's creation by mere "natural selection" has never been proven. On the contrary, it is a scientific postulate that nothing living can arise from non-living matter, despite many unfruitful attempts to do so, the only life on earth came from the Creation long ago. Recent studies have shown that the entire population of earth shared just one common male parent. Studies years earlier showed one common female parent. Sometimes, men of science get it right.
-
You needn't have gone on with all that pretentious palaver, Neil.
The "sideways pull" of of a large mass like a mountain is quite detectable at ground level. Even the brick that our friend should have dropped on his head would have had it's trajectory affected by all the other masses in the Universe but, of course, most of them are so relatively remote that their effect would be quite negligible in comparison to that of the Earth.
Neptune was discovered because he pulled Uranus slightly out of his predicted orbit (around the Sun, in fact).
Now, if gravity and inertia are indeed "facts of life" "out there", for the Sun to orbit the Earth daily it would have to be vastly smaller and closer than the moon (which takes about 29 days to go round (and pulls all the oceans to and fro as she does so)).
You see that your problem is vastly greater than just making up simulated circles about what could be (if gravity and inertia didn't apply). The Sun would have to be something like the distance of all those geostationary satellites that go round with the Earth every day.
I repeat: unless you can demonstrate that gravity and inertia don't apply geocentrism is just an elitist's superstition.
Thanks for your comments!
-
BTW Neil, I know that the earth revolves around the sun because of a lifetime's study, not a glance at a "wiki-page." Do you think all measurements of the earth in relation to the sun, all formulas proving how the seasons are affected by the earth's orbit, all pictures taken from satellites, etc are made up? What, if anything, do you accept from Copernicus ? Do you believe in a flat earth? Do you believe that pictures of men walking on the moon were made in a conspiracy?
I don't mean to offend, I truly do not know your views or what motivates them.
-
No, you don't really know the earth revolves around the sun at all! All experiments performed to prove the earth's movement failed completely! Robert Sungenis in his book "Galileo Was Wrong" details how the views of heliocentrists really don't have any real proof, other than mathematics, which can be subverted to agendas. I accept the Church authoritatively declared Galileo (and thus Copernicus) to be wrong in saying the earth is mobile, going around the sun and the sun is immobile (which everyone now doesn't believe.
As for a flat earth, :rolleyes:. That is pure anti-Catholic propaganda. Only one early Church Father put any stock in that nonsense; the rest believed the earth was a sphere.
-
:facepalm:
My general response as requested at the beginning of this tread, not a response to Cupertino's post.
I cannot believe that people are now questioning that the earth revolves around the sun on this forum. :facepalm: It is actually good symbolism for a Christian that we revolve around the sun (light being symbolic of God). In the age to come, the Scriptures say that God will Himself be our light (replacing the sun and moon). Children feel that their parents revolve around them. God has created an environment where we feel at the center with Him too, but we aren't. This is mere scientific fact: the earth is round, rotates on it's axis (every 24 hours), and orbits the sun approximately every 365 days...
Not all stories in Scripture are meant in a strict literal way. These are the same errors that many fundamentalists make (I don't mean heretical errors, but lack of scrutiny). Some here have taught a "literal 6-day creation" making it clear that it "must be 6 days of 24 hours each." Why? Yes, we had first parents. Yes, they disobeyed God. Yet even some early Church Fathers disputed how the description of The Creation,The Garden, and Original sin played out beneath the obvious symbolism of Genesis. Some wondered just what "fruit" was meant in the description of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil." It didn't bother St. Paul that Christ had said they were "in the last days." Look forward in Scripture to where St. Paul says, "one day is as a thousand years to God" (or a million years).
If you take the literal rendering too far, then you truly believe that all snakes are crawling on the ground because they are descended from the serpent of the Garden? The mere fact that the Fall was told in a somewhat symbolic fashion never meant that it wasn't real. It was a different type of literature, explaining very complex events and giving prophecy: "The Woman" prophesied in Genesis is Mary, and the "snake" (Satan) would wait (thousands of years) for the heel of her "seed" (Jesus). This is the deeper meaning, certainly not something to do with literal snakes or fruit-trees.
When Jesus says "stars will fall to earth," does this mean that other suns (that's what "stars" are) will fall TO something so tiny as earth? Reason will not reject truth or be hung up on literalism. Meteorites fit the description too. When Christ speaks figuratively, as He often does in Scripture, "stars" can also refer to angels or demons. Christ did that often, saying,"destroy this Temple and I will rebuild it in three days." The pharisees didn't know He meant the "temple of His body." It may be deeper still. After 3 millennia, His Mystical Body might rise (O.T. prophecy)
Science itself is not any enemy of God, because it is supposed to deal in proof. Some "men of science" now distrust the Church and create their own dogmas (like the idea that "natural selection" created humans). Man's creation by mere "natural selection" has never been proven. On the contrary, it is a scientific postulate that nothing living can arise from non-living matter, despite many unfruitful attempts to do so, the only life on earth came from the Creation long ago. Recent studies have shown that the entire population of earth shared just one common male parent. Studies years earlier showed one common female parent. Sometimes, men of science get it right.
Anne Catherine, I don't blame you for having a knee-jerk emotional reaction
to this, but tell me something: When you say "stars will fall to earth" ... and
"Meteorites fit the description too," are you saying that meteorites fall to earth?
I'm not sure I understand you here.
This is mere scientific fact: the earth is round, rotates on it's axis (every 24 hours), and orbits the sun approximately every 365 days...
And you are quoting someone here? If so, who? Are you quoting someone's
words? If so, whom? If you had read this thread from the beginning (obviously
you have not) you would have seen that Albert Einstein, Edwin Hubble, Ernst
Mach and others are on record for having said otherwise. So where do you get
this "mere scientific fact" anyway? From a public school textbook that misquotes
the experts it purports to revere?
If you take the literal rendering too far, then you truly believe that all snakes are crawling on the ground because they are descended from the serpent of the Garden?
I have more on that quote, but I'll wait for your response to the former ones.
-
It's rather amusing that people act as if geocentrism is so crazy, but the Church used to believe in it and condemned Galileo as a heretic for stating otherwise!
-
It's rather amusing that people act as if geocentrism is so crazy, but the Church used to believe in it and condemned Galileo as a heretic for stating otherwise!
Geocentrism has never been a Church teaching. It has been a commonly held belief and that a pope and a few bishops sought to use their influence to protect the "scientific" status quo does not make it so.
I suggest that if Galileo wasn't such an arrogant prick we would never have heard of him because he would not have got up the nose of the Inquisition and made his former friend the pope want to cut him down to size.
politics is not a new invention... and popes have been unhappily involved in some pretty sordid politics even way back.
Every opinion of every pope does not become a "Church teaching".
-
Geocentrism has never been a Church teaching. It has been a commonly held belief and that a pope and a few bishops sought to use their influence to protect the "scientific" status quo does not make it so.
I suggest that if Galileo wasn't such an arrogant prick we would never have heard of him because he would not have got up the nose of the Inquisition and made his former friend the pope want to cut him down to size.
politics is not a new invention... and popes have been unhappily involved in some pretty sordid politics even way back.
Every opinion of every pope does not become a "Church teaching".
Every Church doctor taught geocentrism as found in Holy Scripture. The Pope authoritatively condemned Galileo's two ideas. The idea that this condemnation is optional for Catholics to reject or accept is truly absurd!
-
The Pope authoritatively condemned Galileo's two ideas. The idea that this condemnation is optional for Catholics to reject or accept is truly absurd!
I'm not an expert, but didn't the Church later reverse its decision against Galileo and say it was okay to believe the earth moves around the sun?
-
No, you don't really know the earth revolves around the sun at all! All experiments performed to prove the earth's movement failed completely! Robert Sungenis in his book "Galileo Was Wrong" details how the views of heliocentrists really don't have any real proof, other than mathematics, which can be subverted to agendas. I accept the Church authoritatively declared Galileo (and thus Copernicus) to be wrong in saying the earth is mobile, going around the sun and the sun is immobile (which everyone now doesn't believe.
As for a flat earth, :rolleyes:. That is pure anti-Catholic propaganda. Only one early Church Father put any stock in that nonsense; the rest believed the earth was a sphere.
Mere assertions.
I assume that "all the experiments to prove the Earth's movement" referrs to the Michelson Morley experiment... which did not "prove" anything convenient to either geocentrists or relativityists although you both make your own unjustifiable assumptions and then claim it to "prove" your case.
QVP, I believe you were privvy to the protracted arguments on IA on this matter. I can only presume that you are illiterate or dishonest as you just keep reasserting thouroughly discredited slogans. geocentrism, as it stands, is a mere superstition relying on a crass misrepresentation of everything it relies on.
-
I'm not an expert, but didn't the Church later reverse its decision against Galileo and say it was okay to believe the earth moves around the sun?
She hadn't; those decrees supposedly reversing Galileo actually only concerned the Index of Prohibited Books, allowing some of the heliocentric writers to be read. I repeat, just books were allowed to be read again. It does give the impression of heliocentrism being ok to believe, but just that far; it doesn't actually rescind the decree of 1633.
-
Mere assertions.
I assume that "all the experiments to prove the Earth's movement" referrs to the Michelson Morley experiment... which did not "prove" anything convenient to either geocentrists or relativityists although you both make your own unjustifiable assumptions and then claim it to "prove" your case.
QVP, I believe you were privvy to the protracted arguments on IA on this matter. I can only presume that you are illiterate or dishonest as you just keep reasserting thouroughly discredited slogans. geocentrism, as it stands, is a mere superstition relying on a crass misrepresentation of everything it relies on.
There were other experiments I mentioned like Airy, Fizeau, but I guess you missed that. Michelson-Morley proved that there was some movement (unlike their conclusions to say null which they drew to avoid acknowledging the small positive result they actually got).
Your last argument is mere ad hominem without any substance. IMHO, you're the one doing what you say I do: again, pot calling the kettle black. Geocentrism hasn't been refuted by you at all.
-
The Pope authoritatively condemned Galileo's two ideas. The idea that this condemnation is optional for Catholics to reject or accept is truly absurd!
I'm not an expert, but didn't the Church later reverse its decision against Galileo and say it was okay to believe the earth moves around the sun?
John Paul II did, but obviously we shouldn't care what he thought.
-
Actually, we must be fair to John Paul II; he probably did want to rescind it, but the Commission's findings to reach a result concerning Galileo were inconclusive, only other than saying the 1633 decree was reformable, hardly authoritative. So he left the decrees still not rescinded.
-
The Pope authoritatively condemned Galileo's two ideas. The idea that this condemnation is optional for Catholics to reject or accept is truly absurd!
I'm not an expert, but didn't the Church later reverse its decision against Galileo and say it was okay to believe the earth moves around the sun?
John Paul II did, but obviously we shouldn't care what he thought.
No he didn't. That's why Benedict XVI was not welcome and not received at La Sapienza University recently.
-
They were not Galileo's ides and there were not 2 of them. Copernicanism( which Galileo is indicted for) is a 3 part doctrine
1-- E rev around S( right)
2--- S is therefore fixed(wrong)
3--- S is center of U(wrong)
-
Earth revolving around sun: condemned by Church!
-
Even If it is true( which i don't believe) that the Church 'condemned' E revolving around S, it is not so any more.
1758 & 1835 saw the Church lift sanctions on Copernicanism. Links to the info have been posted numerous times--- sorry.
-
No, it hasn't. Not at all. You posted nothing of the sort saying the Church's condemnation of Galileo being rescinded. You commit the same fault as all heliocentrists do: assuming facts not in evidence!
-
The prev poster hasn't been here very long as the info has indeed been posted here numerous times.
If I go to the trouble to find the passage in von Pastor & post it AGAIN, will u believe it?
It is in vol 25. I doubt the poster even knows who von Pastor is.
-
The info is in vol 25 on pg 300 & is right in front of me. If the poster says he will believe von Pastor i will post the info AGAIN. Otherwise i won't bother.
-
Possibly the poster would benefit by perusing my Real Galileo at http://firstjesuits.wordpress.com
-
I know who von Pastor is, but I doubt you will show me the 1633 condemnation was rescinded in 1835. But let's see what he says. It'll just probably be interpretation of the docuмent in question.
BTW, your website just repeats the same tired old arguments refuted time and again by geocentric scientists.
-
The prev poster is a very fast reader.
I am not going to bother posting the info. If he wants it he can go to Wikipedia and search von Pastor vol 25 pg 300.
-
It doesn't tell me what I don't know. I already knew the prohibition on reading Galileo and others was lifted; my contention is the 1633 condemnation wasn't rescinded at all, not to do with the Index.
-
Von Pastor's understanding of Copernicanism is somewhat flawed. At one point he confounds the terms revolution & rotation.
He also says that Copernicanism had( by 1835) 'long ago prevailed even in Catholic schools'. This is not correct because we now know that articles 2 & 3 are false, rendering the doctrine false as a whole. S is Not fixed and Not the center of U.
What has prevailed in Catholic schools is article one-- that E rev around S.
MO is that the 2 actions of 1758 & 1835 DO amount to a lifting of the condemnation--- If that is what it even was.
My understanding is that in the end, Galileo is censored for his atomist, epicurian physical theories.
-
Point 1 has been condemned in the 1633 decree against Galileo, and never rescinded, despite it being taught in Catholic schools.
-
I am awfully glad that the chaps who make aeroplanes have more respect for the facts of life than geocentrist egomaniacs do.
That is, they need to have constancy (therefore predictability) and universality in gravity and inertia to determine how big the wings need to be and how fast it has to go to keep it up and how big an engine it takes to get it moving and how much brakes it takes to stop it.
The fact remains that unless you can somehow dispose of gravity and inertia a large mass cannot possibly orbit a smaller one and no pronouncement of any pope can make it otherwise.
Papal infallibility is limited to matters of Faith and Morals (does not include physics) otherwise his authourity is a mere political authourity in matters of Church discipline and temporal affairs. More than that and one is getting into a form of idolatry known as papalatry... directly contrary to the First Commandment.
In my dealings with you lot I have come to regard geocent. as a diabolical confidence trick designed to discredit Church and Faith and Reason (as proposed by the Angelic Doctor).
It also effectively undermines all reasonable arguments against Darwinism because if natural laws can be ignored to make geo work they can be ignored to make darwin's proposals work.
Geo's only selling point is the attraction it has to huge egos addicted to esoterica and elitism.
-
Point 1 has been condemned in the 1633 decree against Galileo, and never rescinded, despite it being taught in Catholic schools.
What about the 1616 Decree? How about articles 2 & 3--- have they been rescinded?
-
I am awfully glad that the chaps who make aeroplanes have more respect for the facts of life than geocentrist egomaniacs do.
That is, they need to have constancy (therefore predictability) and universality in gravity and inertia to determine how big the wings need to be and how fast it has to go to keep it up and how big an engine it takes to get it moving and how much brakes it takes to stop it.
Show me one scientist who can adequately explain how gravity works, or
magnetism for that matter. How does one object become affected by another
at a distance? What is the foundation of this "law" they credit to Newton? What
did Newton himself say about it? Do you even care? Probably not.
What does stopping an airplane have to do with geocentrism? Nothing? Oh yeah,
that's it: nothing.
The fact remains that unless you can somehow dispose of gravity and inertia a large mass cannot possibly orbit a smaller one and no pronouncement of any pope can make it otherwise.
You're obviously not an engineer nor a physicist. Strike one.
Papal infallibility is limited to matters of Faith and Morals (does not include physics) otherwise his authourity is a mere political authourity in matters of Church discipline and temporal affairs. More than that and one is getting into a form of idolatry known as papalatry... directly contrary to the First Commandment.
There you go off on another tangent again. Who was it that brought up papal
infallibility in this discussion? Oh, right. You did. Strike two.
In my dealings with you lot I have come to regard geocent. as a diabolical confidence trick designed to discredit Church and Faith and Reason (as proposed by the Angelic Doctor).
It also effectively undermines all reasonable arguments against Darwinism because if natural laws can be ignored to make geo work they can be ignored to make darwin's proposals work.
And you have contributed how much to arguments against Darwinism? Oh, yeah,
that's right: nothing. Strike three. You're out.
Geo's only selling point is the attraction it has to huge egos addicted to esoterica and elitism.
...........But then again, you might be a Freemason.........
...........Or at least, you don't mind acting like one..........
-
Show me one scientist who can adequately explain how gravity works, or
magnetism for that matter. How does one object become affected by another
at a distance? What is the foundation of this "law" they credit to Newton? What
did Newton himself say about it? Do you even care? Probably not.
One doesn't need to know how gravity works to know that it exists any more than one has to know all about electricity to turn on a light.
What does stopping an airplane have to do with geocentrism? Nothing? Oh yeah,
that's it: nothing.
If the 'plane didn't have inertia it wouldn't need brakes.
You're obviously not an engineer nor a physicist. Strike one.
One doesn't need to be an engineer or physicist to make some very simple commonsense observations.
There you go off on another tangent again. Who was it that brought up papal
infallibility in this discussion? Oh, right. You did. Strike two.
QVP was trying to use papal (Church) authourity to circuмvent commonsense observations.
And you have contributed how much to arguments against Darwinism? Oh, yeah,
that's right: nothing. Strike three. You're out
. How would you know?
Geo's only selling point is the attraction it has to huge egos addicted to esoterica and elitism
...........But then again, you might be a Freemason.........
...........Or at least, you don't mind acting like one..........
Masons are almost universally addicted to elitism and esoterica. How else could intelligent men be induced to swallow all the twaddle that they do?
-
oldavid here shows that he disdains to follow the anathema against Galileo's ideas done by a Pope (not opinion!) just because it allegedly goes against commonsense. oldavid, you haven't proven that by a long shot! Not by a long shot! Authoritative Church declarations do not go against commonsense. Not one! Other than this alleged break with commonsense, cite me any other teaching by the Church that breaks against commonsense.
Yes, one doesn't need to be an engineer, etc., to use commonsense. But how are you so sure you're using it, especially with the now discredited dogmatic Newtonian ideas that the sun is closer to the center of mass than earth (with the unproven assumption that earth and sun are only a closed system, free from the influence of the stars, other planets, etc.)?
I find it funny that you refer to Masons as desiring esoteric knowledge and the such, yet ignore their very promotion of heliocentrism, opposing the position of the Church (which lasted till at least 1833).
-
Could a source be provided for the claim that the word anathema was used against Galileo's 'ideas' If u are speaking of the astronomical doctrine of Copernicanism pls say so as these are not originally Galileo's 'ideas'.
-
Yes, one doesn't need to be an engineer, etc., to use commonsense. But how are you so sure you're using it, especially with the now discredited dogmatic Newtonian ideas that the sun is closer to the center of mass than earth (with the unproven assumption that earth and sun are only a closed system, free from the influence of the stars, other planets, etc.)?
I find it funny that you refer to Masons as desiring esoteric knowledge and the such, yet ignore their very promotion of heliocentrism, opposing the position of the Church (which lasted till at least 1833).
A very Alinskyist tactic... accusing me of an absurd proposition that you made up yourself to try to enhance your credibility.
Anyhow, I say to hell with Newton... I don't need him for this exercise.
It might surprise you to know that people had discovered that gravity was very handy stuff for holding their houses down thousands of years before Newton was even a twinkle in his father's eye.
They had also discovered that inertia is handy stuff too as soon as they started throwing things at one another.
You're telling me that I must believe that the Sun and Earth are a closed system. Why? Because it suits your purpose? I think it's an absurd proposition.
-
:applause:
"Telluris ingens Conditor terram dedisti immobilem." (Gregory the Great)
-
It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact...That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent, acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers.
This is a good partial confession from Newton. To carry it further, "gravity" is not even a "force". It's certainly not universal, and it is certainly not significant other than as a mere coextensive attribute of being, of things in quale quid.
The apple didn't fall on Newton's head because of the "force of gravity". It fell on his head because of the elemental structure and design of things in quale quid.
-
Thousands of years passed before heliocentrism was even considered as even viable, so don't try that ridiculous argument of gravity on me. You haven't even proven geocentrism violates inertia or gravity. There are quite a few heliocentrists who admit such, unlike you, who are so hopelessly dazzled by Newtonianism, despite your remarks about "to hell with Newton."
Your arguments are all hinging on the assumption that earth and the sun are a closed system, whether you like it or not. Why is it that you use those bodies only, and not including the influence of the whole universe? You will deny it, of course, but no amount of denial will change that!
-
Thousands of years passed before heliocentrism was even considered as even viable, so don't try that ridiculous argument of gravity on me. You haven't even proven geocentrism violates inertia nor gravity. There are quite a few heliocentrists who admit such, unlike you, who are so hopelessly dazzled by Newtonianism, despite your remarks about "to hell with Newton."
Your arguments are all hinging on the assumption that earth and the sun are a closed system, whether you like it or not. Why is it that you use those bodies only, and not including the influence of the whole universe? You will deny it, of course, but no amount of denial will change that!
72 pages makes a big thread. To whose comments are you referring?
-
Sorry, I thought it was obvious, but I guess not. It was to the poster accusing me of using Alinskyite tactics and thinking geocentricists a bunch of egotistical elitists for believing that "nonsense."
-
It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact...That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent, acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers.
This is a good partial confession from Newton. To carry it further, "gravity" is not even a "force". It's certainly not universal, and it is certainly not significant other than as a mere coextensive attribute of being, of things in quale quid.
The apple didn't fall on Newton's head because of the "force of gravity". It fell on his head because of the elemental structure and design of things in quale quid.
That Newton was perplexed by the "mechanics" of gravity and he made some philosophical observations about it he was not so foolish as to assert that it therefore cannot exist or that it is just an arbitrary whim of some spirit.
Gravity must be caused by an agent, acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers
Just how or why gravity works is being investigated by some brilliant minds, and I am aware of a couple of very interesting and credible possibilities that have been proposed.
-
Thousands of years passed before heliocentrism was even considered as even viable, so don't try that ridiculous argument of gravity on me. You haven't even proven geocentrism violates inertia or gravity. There are quite a few heliocentrists who admit such, unlike you, who are so hopelessly dazzled by Newtonianism, despite your remarks about "to hell with Newton."
Your arguments are all hinging on the assumption that earth and the sun are a closed system, whether you like it or not. Why is it that you use those bodies only, and not including the influence of the whole universe? You will deny it, of course, but no amount of denial will change that!
Earth and Sun are no more a closed system than you and that brick you should have dropped on your head are a closed system.
Just as the Earth and moon orbit their combined centre of mass, just as Jupiter and his moons orbit their combined centre of mass, so do all the objects in the Solar System orbit their combined centre of mass as do all the objects in the Galaxy orbit their combined centre of mass. How can any of that be a "closed system"?
Now I'm going to spell out for you a couple of the diabolically cunning deceptions used to sell this stuff.
Because Newton was a bit of a queer bird you can, therefore, ignore the implications of gravity and inertia when it suits your purpose to do so.
Combined centre of mass is not the sum of all the masses being considered and thus a point that "contains" all the gravity of all the bodies. It is instead, a gravitationally neutral point where all the "gravities" of all the bodies exactly cancel one another. There is no gravity at all at this point. No matter with any mass could ever stay at this point because even to stray a millimicron from that point would mean that gravity on one side would be stronger than the other.
There are quite a few heliocentrists who admit such, unlike you, who are so hopelessly dazzled by Newtonianism, despite your remarks about "to hell with Newton."
I keep hearing about these anonymous "heliocentrists" but I still have no idea of who or what they are as your implied definition changes to suit your purpose.
-
That Newton was perplexed by the "mechanics" of gravity and he made some philosophical observations about it he was not so foolish as to assert that it therefore cannot exist or that it is just an arbitrary whim of some spirit.
Gravity must be caused by an agent, acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers
Just how or why gravity works is being investigated by some brilliant minds, and I am aware of a couple of very interesting and credible possibilities that have been proposed.
Is "gravity" intelligent, as an agent? Would "gravity" also separate light from darkness and have a voice? Is it the demiurge?
Newton developed his theories from Gilbert, Kepler, and Galileo, and they were all mistaken in following Copernicus. The sun cannot be the stationary center of the cosmos, as it is moving through all the signs of the ecliptic every year, whereas the earth is in all signs of the ecliptic all the time.
Modernist physics is an embarrassment to mankind. And even it will have to admit that "gravity" is by far the weakest of all "forces". It is weaker than the tiniest refrigerator magnet or littlest kitten. In fact, gravity is not even a lateral force, and it cannot be what is moving the moon around the earth from east to west every day, clockwise when viewed from above the North pole.
"Gravity" is not even a vertical "force" either, since the earth and the cosmos are spherical. It really is only a popular term of some attractive usage, and it merely expresses coextensive attributes of being, of things around here and there in quale quid ... things with various degrees of density and mass or not.
Without Newton's theories of "universal gravitation" and Einstein's theories of relativity, the false doctrine of heliocentrism falls completely apart. The moon goes around the earth from a celestial momentum generated in its sphere, not because of gravity.
Aristotle sometimes would have "gravity" too and would be like garlic to Newton and Einstein, "vacuous vampires" of scientific materialism in the dark.
-
Show me one scientist who can adequately explain how gravity works, or
magnetism for that matter. How does one object become affected by another
at a distance? What is the foundation of this "law" they credit to Newton? What
did Newton himself say about it? Do you even care? Probably not.
One doesn't need to know how gravity works to know that it exists any more than one has to know all about electricity to turn on a light.
I'm talking about the engineer, not the technician or the janitor. And the
engineers presume a motionless earth when they figure orbits of satellites.
Otherwise, when astronauts flip on the switch, the lights won't work.
What does stopping an airplane have to do with geocentrism? Nothing? Oh yeah,
that's it: nothing.
If the 'plane didn't have inertia it wouldn't need brakes.
You're obviously not an engineer nor a physicist. Strike one.
One doesn't need to be an engineer or physicist to make some very simple commonsense observations.
And you insinuate that geocentrists do not make such observations? That's a
switch. Edwin Hubble or Albert Einstein would not agree with you. What does
geocentrism have to do with disregard of inertia? Nothing, that's what.
There you go off on another tangent again. Who was it that brought up papal
infallibility in this discussion? Oh, right. You did. Strike two.
QVP was trying to use papal (Church) authourity to circuмvent commonsense observations.
And among those observations would be that since the sun is bigger and heavier
that the earth must therefore move and the sun must not move? Okay, then
who is it that you refer to this time - someone with credibility this time.
And you have contributed how much to arguments against Darwinism? Oh, yeah,
that's right: nothing. Strike three. You're out.
How would you know?
You exhibit your thinking in your posts, which have contributed nothing, but
perhaps a few sour grapes.
Geo's only selling point is the attraction it has to huge egos addicted to esoterica and elitism
You forgot the period.
Your opinion isn't law. Say what you want, in the shadow of your father, the
condemned Galileo.
...........But then again, you might be a Freemason.........
...........Or at least, you don't mind acting like one..........
Masons are almost universally addicted to elitism and esoterica. How else could intelligent men be induced to swallow all the twaddle that they do?
As are you, and so you do.
-
That Newton was perplexed by the "mechanics" of gravity and he made some philosophical observations about it he was not so foolish as to assert that it therefore cannot exist or that it is just an arbitrary whim of some spirit.
Gravity must be caused by an agent, acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers
Just how or why gravity works is being investigated by some brilliant minds, and I am aware of a couple of very interesting and credible possibilities that have been proposed.
Is "gravity" intelligent, as an agent? Would "gravity" also separate light from darkness and have a voice? Is it the demiurge?
Newton developed his theories from Gilbert, Kepler, and Galileo, and they were all mistaken in following Copernicus. The sun cannot be the stationary center of the cosmos, as it is moving through all the signs of the ecliptic every year, whereas the earth is in all signs of the ecliptic all the time.
Modernist physics is an embarrassment to mankind. And even it will have to admit that "gravity" is by far the weakest of all "forces". It is weaker than the tiniest refrigerator magnet or littlest kitten. In fact, gravity is not even a lateral force, and it cannot be what is moving the moon around the earth from east to west every day, clockwise when viewed from above the North pole.
"Gravity" is not even a vertical "force" either, since the earth and the cosmos are spherical. It really is only a popular term of some attractive usage, and it merely expresses coextensive attributes of being, of things around here and there in quale quid ... things with various degrees of density and mass or not.
Without Newton's theories of "universal gravitation" and Einstein's theories of relativity, the false doctrine of heliocentrism falls completely apart. The moon goes around the earth from a celestial momentum generated in its sphere, not because of gravity.
Aristotle sometimes would have "gravity" too and would be like garlic to Newton and Einstein, "vacuous vampires" of scientific materialism in the dark.
You're claiming that gravity doesn't exist? You should try the brick-over-the-head experiment.
Tortuous, high-faluting blather, and dropping famous names might intimidate your poor old granny... but not me.
-
I'm talking about the engineer, not the technician or the janitor. And the
engineers presume a motionless earth when they figure orbits of satellites.
Otherwise, when astronauts flip on the switch, the lights won't work.
I have already dealt with arbitrarily (pragmatically) chosen frames of reference on another forum. I'll see if I can dig it up. It would be a complete waste of my time for me to do it all again.
Otherwise, when astronauts flip on the switch, the lights won't work.
Oh? Why?
-
Wow, oldavid, with your posts, you bring yourself to a new low, IMHO, with that nonsense of yours. You say all that but when it comes to it, you just use earth and sun, ignoring the rest of the universe. I knew you would deny that you are proposing a closed system, but your reason for the denial is quite preposterous. You're just blowing hot air all this time. You, with your intellectual arrogance, can't even see that geocentrism wasn't even refuted, allegedly because then inertia and gravity would operate quite differently from the heliocentric system.
-
Wow, oldavid, with your posts, you bring yourself to a new low, IMHO, with that nonsense of yours. You say all that but when it comes to it, you just use earth and sun, ignoring the rest of the universe. I knew you would deny that you are proposing a closed system, but your reason for the denial is quite preposterous. You're just blowing hot air all this time. You, with your intellectual arrogance, can't even see that geocentrism wasn't even refuted, allegedly because then inertia and gravity would operate quite differently from the heliocentric system.
Fascinating bluster.
Just show me how
you just use earth and sun, ignoring the rest of the universe. I knew you would deny that you are proposing a closed system,
implies any kind of "closed system" proposed by me.
-
You always just try to prove that the earth must move around the sun since it is a smaller object than the sun, as if these two things were the only important bodies and citing gravity and inertia as opposing the falsity of geocentrism.
-
Tortuous, high-faluting blather, and dropping famous names might intimidate your poor old granny... but not me.
"Gravity" is admitted by modernist scientific materialism to be the weakest of interactions. It is weaker than the tiniest regrigerator magnet, and even down until today its hypothetical cause remains unassigned.
"The gravitational force is extremely weak compared with other fundamental forces. For example, the gravitational force between an electron and proton one meter apart is approximately 10−67 newtons, while the electromagnetic force between the same two particles is approximately 10−28 newtons. Both these forces are weak when compared with the forces we are able to experience directly."
Even more to the point, "gravity" is more than just the weakest when compared with forces we are able to experience directly. In all practical terms it is nonexistent as a force.
First, consider that gravity is not a lateral force. It does not move falling objects sideways. Only impetus from an assignable cause, not "gravity", would move any falling object laterally.
Also, the earth is a sphere. Therefore, "gravity" cannot be an exclusively vertical force, since it is not a lateral one. The only way that it could be an exclusively vertical force around the earth is if the earth were flat, and, of course, the earth is not flat.
Secondly, Newtonian physics would say that gravity is universal and natural. They speak in terms of "universal gravitation". If it were universal, its motion(s) would have to be instantaneous, but natural motion cannot take place in an instant.
To find an anti-gravity device at home, simply light a match and point it down. The flame defies gravity even to burn the fingers. Smoke a cigarrete and watch the smoke defy gravity as well. To verify "gravity", what is needed is something with elemental density and weight like a paper weight or a little old fashioned cannon ball.
Falling bricks may seem to demonstrate a "force of gravity" but what they really demonstrate is elemental design in things in quale quid. Things that are denser than air naturally fall to the ground for elemental reasons, not because of an unassigned occult-action-at-a-distance that Newton called "gravity".
Besides errors in dynamics and impetus, Newton had the moon going the wrong way, and falsely taught that the moon affects the earth's tides because of "gravity". Rather, there is an extensive "neutral gravity zone" between the earth and the moon, which even NASA and heliocentrics admit. And also, they forgot to add, that any neutral gravity zone must necessarily be complete and cover the entire distance between any two test objects like the earth and the moon.
This follows from logic that any neutral gravity zone must necessarily be complete, because of the theory of Newtonian "gravitation" itself.
"Gravity" is really merely a coextensive attribute of dispositions and impetus in quale quid. It is not a legitimate force in real physics.
-
Scientific materialism cannot really explain why the sun and the moon are even there, much less why they are in motion around the earth.
-
'Scientific materialism'( acc to Bradley And Newton) proves that E rev around S. It is not the job of science to explain the why of anything. :detective:
-
Only someone irrational enough to think S rev around E, could conceive that science should be able to explain why something is true.
-
Only someone irrational enough to think S rev around E, could conceive that science should be able to explain why something is true.
The terms of the proposition adhering in a scientific argument are self-evident per se. If someone advocates an accidental theory of chaos to explain the cosmos, the conclusion of the theory is inherent in the terms themselves.
Catholics should recall that heliocentrism is anti-biblical, and Galileo was condemned by the magisterium of the Church for teaching it. Newton was born the year Galileo died, and he was heretical to the degree that he was not really even a Christian. Newton did not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is fundamental to Christian faith. If one does not belive in and pray to the Trintiy, one is not Christian.
Newton was deeply involved in alchemy and suffered from recurrent bouts of insanity and mercury poisoning. He had a very difficult and sore personality. Some who knew him have described him as a "monster".
He developed his theory of "universal gravitation" from the work of Kepler, Gilbert, and Galileo. It is strictly an abstract thesis and is not valid empircal science. The English speaking world from Canada to Australia has been propagandized and brainwashed into crediting his theory as though it were realistic and scientific, however it is not.
Kepler's theory of magnetism and Galileo's false "Law of Falling Bodies" provided an important basis for it, and Newton used abstruse and excessively complicated math and terminology to mask all it with an impenetrable disguise. But if one takes the time to remove Newton's mask, one will see he is not any better than Einstein, and he treats readers and students like mushrooms. He feeds them a lot of bull and keeps them in the blind.
In the world of golf instruction, for example, Newtonian pollution is everywhere, but people are still able to communicate "effectively" because the problem is not with the underlying reality of physics but the naive misuse of Newtonian terms and expressions.
People use the term "gravity" and "inertia" all the time but what they mean are things like momentum, impetus, freedom, disposition, weight, mass, pressure, tension, and fullness, authentic rest, and partiality.
"Gravity" and "inertia" are not bad terms of usage, but the Newtonian theory of heliocentrism and "universal gravitation" and "relative inertial frames" are a ship off its moorings.
In heliocentrism and relativity, nothing is ever authentically at rest. This should remind Catholics of the psalm where God swore in his anger at Meribah, that "they shall not enter into my rest". Heliocentrism and relativity are planks of worldwide liberalism and communism, and they deny the clear Biblical teachings of creation and geocentrism, and they will never into the rest of the Holy Spirit and the truth.
"Science" should never serve such a purpose. It is against the fundamental teaching of the catechism.
-
"Gravity" is admitted by modernist scientific materialism to be the weakest of interactions. It is weaker than the tiniest regrigerator magnet, and even down until today its hypothetical cause remains unassigned.
"The gravitational force is extremely weak compared with other fundamental forces. For example, the gravitational force between an electron and proton one meter apart is approximately 10−67 newtons, while the electromagnetic force between the same two particles is approximately 10−28 newtons. Both these forces are weak when compared with the forces we are able to experience directly."
Was this supposed to say 10^-67 and 10^-28? That is, 10 raised to the power
of negative 67 and negative 28, respectively?
Even more to the point, "gravity" is more than just the weakest when compared with forces we are able to experience directly. In all practical terms it is nonexistent as a force.
But no scientist should be saying that gravity is "a force." The formula, F = ma
says that Force equals mass times acceleration. Therefore, acceleration is not
a force per se, but when it acts on a mass, a force is consequent. When they
say "the force of gravity" they are not saying that gravity is the force. They are
saying that the force is OF GRAVITY. The force belongs to gravity. Gravity
possesses the force, but gravity is not the force.
It's like when you write a letter to a friend, the letter is not you. Nor are you
the letter. The letter belongs to you because you brought it into existence, and
it is yours, but it is not the same as you. When the letter is delivered to your
friend, your friend does not receive you, but rather he receives something you
wrote, something you caused. He is receiving the EFFECT of you.
Likewise, the force of gravity is the EFFECT of gravity, but is not gravity, per se.
And gravity is not a force, but it is thought to be the cause of the force, the
principle or form (if you will) of the force. An object is thought to move because
of the principle of gravity acting on the object's mass.
And that principle is "acceleration," the acceleration due to gravity, which on
the surface of the earth is approximately 32 feet per second per second, or,
32 ft(/sec)(/sec), or, 32 ft/sec^2, or, 32 ft(sec^-2).
First, consider that gravity is not a lateral force. It does not move falling objects sideways. Only impetus from an assignable cause, not "gravity", would move any falling object laterally.
Also, the earth is a sphere.
You should say it is roughly a sphere. Because very accurate measurements
have identified irregularities in the true shape of the earth. It is more closely
described as "pear-shaped" and not "bulging at the equator," as was anticipated
long before this measurement technology was developed. The difference is not
enormous, but it is enough to raise a lot of questions:
~ How can the oceans lie on the earth's surface with different mean sea levels?
~ Why is the "force of gravity" (meaning the acceleration due to gravity - but
hardly anyone goes to the trouble of spelling that out except for some particularly
scrupulous physics professors and meteorologists) different at different places
on the surface of the earth?
~ Why do these differences themselves change, most of them gradually but
some have been observed to change rapidly?
~ Are the changes in the earth's acceleration due to gravity caused by things
we can identify?
~ Are they caused by things we can discover by some series of logical
arguments based on empirical measurements and observations?
~ Are they caused by something we can ever expect to know?
~ Or, will they always be a mystery?
Therefore, "gravity" cannot be an exclusively vertical force, since it is not a lateral one. The only way that it could be an exclusively vertical force around the earth is if the earth were flat, and, of course, the earth is not flat.
Here, it seems a lot depends on what you mean by "vertical." Conventionally,
when we say "vertical" we mean perpendicular to a level line at the place where
we are making the judgment. It consists, therefore, of a theoretical line that
is drawn from the center of the earth's mass through our point in question and
extending into infinity. Theoretically, everywhere you stand on the surface of
the earth has a different definition of what is "vertical," due to the curvature of
the earth. Meteorologists, land surveyors, geologists and physicists (among
others) deal with this doctrine every day.
Therefore, an object that moves "up and down" only, like a yo-yo in its simple
vertical use, for example, may seem to operate on an "exclusively vertical force"
which is the force due to the acceleration of gravity acting on the mass of the
yo-yo. However, anyone who has used a yo-yo knows that something else is
going on with it. For when a spinning yo-yo is rotated by an external force
acting in a plane (x) perpendicular to its plane of rotation (y), the yo-yo
responds by rotating in the third plane (z) that is perpendicular to BOTH of them.
This same phenomenon can be observed by removing the front wheel of your
bicycle and holding its axle with your two hands, and having a friend or some
device like a grinder wheel make the wheel spin quickly on its axle. Now, try
to make the wheel "turn right" as if you were riding on it, by pulling your right
hand toward you and pushing your left hand away from you. The result is
quite surprising. If you have not tried this you would not believe what I would
have here to describe, so just go and try it for yourself and see.
This phenomenon appears to be universal, that is, the same results are found
wherever the experiment is tried, even in outer space. But does that mean it
is necessarily unrelated to the effects of gravity?
Secondly, Newtonian physics would say that gravity is universal and natural. They speak in terms of "universal gravitation". If it were universal, its motion(s) would have to be instantaneous, but natural motion cannot take place in an instant.
I have a quote from a book that I would like to introduce here. See the end of
this post. I tend to disagree. The motion we are talking about is not like a
flashing strobe light that is either "moving at full speed" or else "stopped." So if
that is what you mean by "instantaneous," it isn't legitimate.
The "natural" motion that Newtonian physics links to the acceleration due to
gravity begins with a value of zero and proceeds to accelerate up to a maximum
velocity, and then either remains at that speed, or begins to slow down, or else
continues to accelerate faster, depending on environmental factors. I could
provide several examples, but let's not get off on tangents here.
You can observe this 'natural motion' in a pendulum, such as a mechanical
clock's. I'm looking at a fine example right now. By all appearances, the
movement seems to be abrupt and constant, but we know that it is not. When
the pendulum swings, it moves the fastest at the bottom of its arc, and it moves
the slowest at the extremities of its swing right and left. In fact, each time it
swings, it slows down to zero at the extreme side and then reverses direction
to swing to the other side, repeating this action pretty much indefinitely (so long
as there is a tiny nudge from the mainspring each time). Now I do not know of
any place on earth where one can go, bringing his clock, and find that the
pendulum does not swing in this manner. Do you? I mean, you could be a
wise guy and say that on a rowboat at sea the pendulum clock won't work. For
my answer would be that yes, it would work just fine so long as you stabilize
the movement of the boat so as to make the support of the clock motion free.
This could be done, for example, with the help of an apparatus that is used in
the movie business to give a movie camera a motionless mounting, regardless
of the movement of the cameraman who is holding it.
Then, it is logically not the physical location but the fact of the boat's movement
due to the water surface in motion that would disrupt the 'natural' motion of
the clock's pendulum.
To find an anti-gravity device at home, simply light a match and point it down. The flame defies gravity even to burn the fingers. Smoke a cigarrete and watch the smoke defy gravity as well. To verify "gravity", what is needed is something with elemental density and weight like a paper weight or a little old fashioned cannon ball.
I'm sorry, I do not see this at all. Are you presuming that a burning flame
should fall to the ground if gravity were universal? If so, that's nonsense.
The flame does not have any mass, per se, that would be acted upon by the
acceleration due to gravity. A flame is not like a flashlight which has mass. A
flame is a process of combustion of fuel with latent heat, and the presence of
ambient oxygen, without movement of air (gaseous matter) sufficient to disrupt
the process. When fuel combusts thusly, it renders a rapid expansion of the
ambient gasses, such that the PRESSURE nearest the combustion is LESS than
that which surrounds it, and therefore the flame tends to move "upward."
Note: if a flame is lit in a weightless environment, it does not appear this way.
You may now suddenly realize that we have not been shown any motion
pictures of an astronaut on a space shuttle lighting a match or flicking his Bic.
Why is that? Is it because such an action would be too dangerous for the
space mission? Well, perhaps in most situations, but you can hardly suppose
that an apparatus could not be devised whereby a safe and contained
ignition of a flame could be tested.
The point is, why have we not seen one? And, beyond that, if we were to see
one, what would it look like? I imagine that it would appear something like a
sparkler, a handheld firework on a stick. The flame would project in all
directions at once, and the smoke from the flame would expand like a growing
sphere of a circular cloud in 3 dimension. That is to say, a burning candle in
weightless outer space would not have a "tongue of fire" lapping "upwards" at
all. So a candle would not burn like it does on earth, for the flame would more
aggressively attack the wax surrounding the unburnt wick, and the wax that
melts would not run "down" the candlestick but would accuмulate in a large
blob right where it melts, and the wick would then be exposed faster for
the hot wax more aggressively would attack the solid wax, and perhaps the
flame would extinguish as it becomes buried in the hot wax blob, or else the
whole thing might explode because the wax would become superheated.
In any event, a burning flame in a weightless environment would look much
different from the way it looks with ambient gravity.
BTW the word "weightless" finds legitimacy in the situation where a system's
in a state of "free-fall" that is, moving freely due to the effects of gravity, or,
the forces consequent to the acceleration due to all ambient gravitational
entities are unhindered. Objects in such a system can have mass but be
weight free at the same time, because weight is the effect of the force due
to gravitational acceleration. Weight is a function of mass acted on by
acceleration, in the relationship F = ma. Weight is a force which changes as
the acceleration changes, even while mass remains constant.
Falling bricks may seem to demonstrate a "force of gravity" but what they really demonstrate is elemental design in things in quale quid. Things that are denser than air naturally fall to the ground for elemental reasons, not because of an unassigned occult-action-at-a-distance that Newton called "gravity".
You are presuming the existence of an atmosphere. Some large bodies in
space have no atmosphere, such as the moon. So, without any "air" around,
the density of things is unimportant, as there is no air to compare them to.
If you're attempting to use a philosophical allusion based on simple observation
in our natural environment with an atmosphere on earth, you are going outside
the realm of that observation by attempting to make generalizations that
go beyond the existence of the atmosphere.
Besides errors in dynamics and impetus, Newton had the moon going the wrong way, and falsely taught that the moon affects the earth's tides because of "gravity". Rather, there is an extensive "neutral gravity zone" between the earth and the moon, which even NASA and heliocentrics admit. And also, they forgot to add, that any neutral gravity zone must necessarily be complete and cover the entire distance between any two test objects like the earth and the moon.
This follows from logic that any neutral gravity zone must necessarily be complete, because of the theory of Newtonian "gravitation" itself.
"Gravity" is really merely a coextensive attribute of dispositions and impetus in quale quid. It is not a legitimate force in real physics.
Gravity is not a force at all in real physics.
Gravity is a component of a force, but not a force.
Before you can get "FORCE" out of a scenario involving gravity you must
have some body of mass under consideration. The mass is acted upon
instantaneously by the acceleration due to gravity, and the consequent effect
is a force due to the combined effect of acceleration due to gravity AND the
mass acted upon by that acceleration. In mathematical terms (the nature of
which is pure quantity) we call this combined effect "multiplication."
Here is the quote I was talking about, above:
This is in the context of the cosmological argument for the existence of God,
in which an "eminent scientist" of the 19th century, Professor du Bois-Reymond,
found 7 "Riddles of the Universe, that is, seven things which are matters of
daily experience, but which can never be explained if we recognize no other
god than Matter." One of these Enigmas is, "What is the cause of Motion?"
It seems to me that a great deal of controversy has surrounded the
existence, understanding, conceptualization, thought and perception of Motion
ever since the dawn of philosophy itself. And even with all our fancy gadgets
and science today, we still have very little deep comprehension of Motion in
its fundamental essence.
The quote continues:
"By Motion, we understand all changes that take place in [sic] things.
Materialists claim that Motion is an original property of matter, that matter
always has been and always will be in uninterrupted movement and
transformation. But this is in direct opposition to the first of Newton's
Laws, [sic] which are universally recognized as the most firmly
established and unquestionable of all scientific conclusions. This law tells us
that a body at rest will continue at rest forever unless compelled by some
force to move, just as a body in motion will continue to move at the same
rate and in the same direction unless compelled by force to arrest or alter
its course. Upon the universal certainty of this law the whole of our Natural
Philosophy depends: but it absolutely blocks the way for the idea that
Matter has an innate tendency to move itself, which is thus quite
unscientific. Not self-movement but Inertia is the property which science
ascribes to Matter (Gerard, The Old riddle and the Newest Answer, p. 14).
"From this is follows that all movement or change must proceed from some
Motive Power that is not itself set in motion, that is not subject ot change. This
Power we call God."
This is from Catholic Apologetics, by Fr. John Laux, M.A., c. 1928 Benzinger
Bros., New York.
Benzinger's was the fortune that Fr. Hector Bolduc inherited and which he used
to purchase all that real estate for the SSPX before he was expelled.
I would like to take a look at this statement, that "Upon the universal certainty
of this law the whole of our Natural Philosophy depends...," the law, of course,
being Newton's "first law of motion."
How could a priest, writing a book on Catholic apologetics in 1928 say that the
whole of our Natural Philosophy depends on the universal certainty of
Newton's first law of motion? Moreover, how could a traditional Catholic
priest who is teaching a catechism class today, answer a question about this
quote by saying that, "Our natural philosophy predates Newton's laws of motion,
but that does not mean that prior to his discovery of the laws they did not
exist, for they were as real before our philosophy was developed as they
are today."
It might be useful to recall how Newton originally formulated his "first law (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/newton1g.html)":
"Every object persists in its state of rest or in uniform motion in a straight line
unless it is compelled to change its state by forces impressed upon it." This is
normally taken as the definition of inertia.
-
Only someone irrational enough to think S rev around E, could conceive that science should be able to explain why something is true.
The terms of the proposition adhering in a scientific argument are self-evident per se. If someone advocates an accidental theory of chaos to explain the cosmos, the conclusion of the theory is inherent in the terms themselves.
Catholics should recall that heliocentrism is anti-biblical, and Galileo was condemned by the magisterium of the Church for teaching it. Newton was born the year Galileo died, and he was heretical to the degree that he was not really even a Christian. Newton did not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is fundamental to Christian faith. If one does not belive in and pray to the Trintiy, one is not Christian.
Newton was deeply involved in alchemy and suffered from recurrent bouts of insanity and mercury poisoning. He had a very difficult and sore personality. Some who knew him have described him as a "monster".
He developed his theory of "universal gravitation" from the work of Kepler, Gilbert, and Galileo. It is strictly an abstract thesis and is not valid empircal science. The English speaking world from Canada to Australia has been propagandized and brainwashed into crediting his theory as though it were realistic and scientific, however it is not.
Kepler's theory of magnetism and Galileo's false "Law of Falling Bodies" provided an important basis for it, and Newton used abstruse and excessively complicated math and terminology to mask all it with an impenetrable disguise. But if one takes the time to remove Newton's mask, one will see he is not any better than Einstein, and he treats readers and students like mushrooms. He feeds them a lot of bull and keeps them in the blind.
In the world of golf instruction, for example, Newtonian pollution is everywhere, but people are still able to communicate "effectively" because the problem is not with the underlying reality of physics but the naive misuse of Newtonian terms and expressions.
People use the term "gravity" and "inertia" all the time but what they mean are things like momentum, impetus, freedom, disposition, weight, mass, pressure, tension, and fullness, authentic rest, and partiality.
"Gravity" and "inertia" are not bad terms of usage, but the Newtonian theory of heliocentrism and "universal gravitation" and "relative inertial frames" are a ship off its moorings.
In heliocentrism and relativity, nothing is ever authentically at rest. This should remind Catholics of the psalm where God swore in his anger at Meribah, that "they shall not enter into my rest". Heliocentrism and relativity are planks of worldwide liberalism and communism, and they deny the clear Biblical teachings of creation and geocentrism, and they will never into the rest of the Holy Spirit and the truth.
"Science" should never serve such a purpose. It is against the fundamental teaching of the catechism.
This poster seems to be possessed of a double mind. At one point he is dismayed because science cannot explain why something happens & now we are told that science should not serve such a purpose. :confused1:
It is a given in the theory of heliocentrism that S is fixed(at rest) so i am not sure what is meant by the phrase 'nothing is ever authentically at rest' . Science has proven that Both S AND E are in motion.
Galileo's mistakes( astronomically) were insisting on articles 2 & 3 of Copernicanism when only article one has been shown as true.
-
Here (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895553945/ref=cm_cr_rev_prod_img) is the Amazon page for the Apologetics book by Fr. Laux that I was quoting from, above.
Be sure to use Matthew's Amazon link before you make any Amazon purchase!!
-
Does geocentrism explain how satellites can remain in geosynchronous orbit?
-
It has done so, though you'd have to get probably Robert Sungenis' book Galielo Was Wrong to see a layman's view (there are more technical explanations by Dr. Bennett in the book also, for those interested).
-
Does geocentrism explain how satellites can remain in geosynchronous orbit?
The answer that geocentrism has is the same one that heliocentrism has,
effectively, because neither system can explain HOW any body effects a
force on another body at a distance.
It is entirely commonplace for critics to presume that geocentrism denies the
possibility of geosynchronous orbit of satellites. But it does not. It is only a
matter of how you think about it. As Newton admitted and never denied, nor
did he ever answer the question, we do not have any explanation for how a
body of matter, such as the earth, can effect a force at a distance on another
body of matter, such as a satellite. So the heliocentrists have no answer. Nor
does physics have an answer. All there is to work with is empirical evidence,
and repetitious examples. We are told by all the physicists and engineers
that "by the preponderance of experimental data" we are confident that it
will be this way in the future.
We do not know WHY or HOW it is this way, we only know that it has always
been this way whenever we have set to work observing and measuring it,
and therefore we can expect that it will continue to be this way.
There is another problem, that nuclear physicists are up against a lot, and
that is, that the fact of observing some things causes them to change their
behavior, and therefore only by looking at them they stop behaving the way
they do when you are not looking at them. This is very frustrating, kind of
like Sponge Bob Square Pants and his pet snail, Gary, if you know what I
mean. If it applied to astronomy all the time, then stars would start to move
around in different ways so long as you've got your telescope trained on
them, and when you take your eye away from the telescope, they would
resume their regular motions.
So the fact that a satellite can be positioned at a particular height above the
earth's surface, and AT THE EQUATOR (geosynchronous orbit cannot be
established at more than a few degrees north or south, which makes for a
dangerous clutter of stuff out there!) fits equally well in either theoretical
system. And this equality of calculation applies to all of physics, so far.
That is, if anyone has discovered some aspect that works in one and not in
the other, they have somehow kept it from going public. I suspect there is
something to be learned there, but you can be sure that if you were to find
it, you would have a very hard time making it public because your findings
would be devastating to the big deception that anti-Christianity has foisted
upon the world for the past several centuries since Galileo.
Think of it this way: The Rings of Saturn. Saturn isn't the only planet to
have rings, but they are most prominent there, for whatever reason. The
rings of Saturn only go around the equator. There is a small amount of
variation in the north/south margin of error, but it amounts to the thickness
of the rings, perhaps about 50 to 100 meters. I'm not so sure, but it isn't
much, considering the size of the planet! All the material of the rings is
"at rest" so to speak, within that band, and is "unstable" outside that band.
It is where the material "wants to be," and that is why it is there.
The same calculations can be made for the rings of Saturn as for the
satellites orbiting the earth. Does that mean that geocentrism is false?
I'll put it to you this way: no more than it means that heliocentrism is
false, for the same calculations can be made for the sun!
In the case of the earth, it is a lot easier to tell how fast the surface is
in apparent rotation with respect to the stars in the distance, and you can
see the only thing that geocentrism needs in that sentence is the word,
"apparent." For we would say that it is the stars that are in motion around
the earth, not the earth rotating amidst the stars.
You might be inclined to counter that the most distant stars would have to
be "moving" at a rate much too fast for it to be possible. But then again,
all of them are "moving" together, so what is this "moving" really?
Nor do we know, as I mentioned above, anything about what those distant
stars "know" about our Earth, or Sun, or Saturn. For we have no tested
theory that can explain the MEDIUM of communication between bodies of
matter at a physical distance away from each other.
You probably have held magnets to see and feel how they attract or repel
each other. They even have a 'north' and 'south' pole on them. Physicists
have no way of explaining HOW or WHY these little blobs of iron (or actually
rare earth elements are MUCH more powerful in magnetism than iron) can
'know' what is nearby them. Engineers draw fancy pictures showing the
'lines of magnetic force' that a magnet throws out, but they cannot tell you
exactly what those 'lines' are, for they are apparently not material. They
'pass through' other material barriers, apparently, and therefore, these
'lines' are said to be 'artists' conception only' and in some estimations, are
not helpful except as a reference, for to show where a force would be if
the barrier were missing, and yet, even when the barrier is present the
force still occurs on another magnet in that location.
So, after all that, the bottom line is, you use the same mathematics for
geocentrism as you do for heliocentrism or moon-centrism or Jupiter-
centrism or satellite-centrism or any-other-thing-centrism. It makes no
difference from a standpoint of mathematics, because mathematics is a
study of pure quantity, and has nothing to do with philosophy. The two
studies are more in diametrical opposition to each other than they are in
agreement.
And it is mathematics that acts somewhat as a wild beast that must be
tamed, lest it get loose and destroy the fragile and marvelous treasure
that is philosophy, not unlike a "bull in a china closet."
-
The answer that geocentrism has is the same one that heliocentrism has,
effectively, because neither system can explain HOW any body effects a
force on another body at a distance.
The geocentric model of the solar system has a stationary Earth at the center. In this model, a geosynchronous satellite would be hovering motionless in space. The gravitational pull from the Earth would cause the satellite to come crashing down.
There is another problem, that nuclear physicists are up against a lot, and
that is, that the fact of observing some things causes them to change their
behavior, and therefore only by looking at them they stop behaving the way
they do when you are not looking at them. If it applied to astronomy all the time, then stars would start to move
around in different ways so long as you've got your telescope trained on
them, and when you take your eye away from the telescope, they would
resume their regular motions.
You seem to be describing the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics. It only affects objects on a very small scale (eg sub-atomic particles). This has no relevance to objects on a planetary scale.
So the fact that a satellite can be positioned at a particular height above the
earth's surface, and AT THE EQUATOR (geosynchronous orbit cannot be
established at more than a few degrees north or south, which makes for a
dangerous clutter of stuff out there!) fits equally well in either theoretical
system.
How does a satellite in geosynchronous orbit in the geocentric model stay stationary? What keeps it from moving or falling? Why is it important in the geocentric model that geosynchronous satellites are above the equator? Why can't they remain motionless anywhere around the Earth?
Think of it this way: The Rings of Saturn. Saturn isn't the only planet to have rings, but they are most prominent there, for whatever reason. The
rings of Saturn only go around the equator. There is a small amount of
variation in the north/south margin of error, but it amounts to the thickness
of the rings, perhaps about 50 to 100 meters. I'm not so sure, but it isn't
much, considering the size of the planet! All the material of the rings is
"at rest" so to speak, within that band, and is "unstable" outside that band.
It is where the material "wants to be," and that is why it is there.
The same calculations can be made for the rings of Saturn as for the
satellites orbiting the earth. Does that mean that geocentrism is false?
I'll put it to you this way: no more than it means that heliocentrism is
false, for the same calculations can be made for the sun!
The Rings of Saturn are not evidence for a geocentric model. Saturn can be observed to rotate on an axis with the rings above the equator. This has no connection to a geocentric system where the Earth is motionless.
-
The answer that geocentrism has is the same one that heliocentrism has,
effectively, because neither system can explain HOW any body effects a
force on another body at a distance.
The geocentric model of the solar system has a stationary Earth at the center. In this model, a geosynchronous satellite would be hovering motionless in space. The gravitational pull from the Earth would cause the satellite to come crashing down.
You're wrong. You don't understand what you are talking about, and in a
typically uninformed reaction presume to attack a straw man. It's not working.
See the rings of Saturn topic, below. Saturn's rings do not need to be "moving"
around Saturn to remain in position above the planet's surface. Once again,
and maybe you're paying attention this time (but maybe not!) it makes no
difference from the standpoint of mathematics whether one object or another
or no object at all is considered to be the "center of the universe" since it is
not the place of mathematics (and therefore physics or astronomical
calculations) to make philosophical judgments on the laws of the universe,
such as Newtons so-called laws of motion. Nor did Newton himself propose
that they do, which is actually to his credit, even if he was a flaming agnostic
or worse.
There is another problem, that nuclear physicists are up against a lot, and
that is, that the fact of observing some things causes them to change their
behavior, and therefore only by looking at them they stop behaving the way
they do when you are not looking at them. If it applied to astronomy all the
time, then stars would start to move around in different ways so long as
you've got your telescope trained on them, and when you take your eye
away from the telescope, they would resume their regular motions.
You seem to be describing the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics. It only affects objects on a very small scale (eg sub-atomic particles). This has no relevance to objects on a planetary scale.
Now, from your uninformed position you presume to have better knowledge
than nuclear physicists on the matter. Fascinating, or, actually, NOT!
So the fact that a satellite can be positioned at a particular height above the
earth's surface, and AT THE EQUATOR (geosynchronous orbit cannot be
established at more than a few degrees north or south, which makes for a
dangerous clutter of stuff out there!) fits equally well in either theoretical
system.
How does a satellite in geosynchronous orbit in the geocentric model stay stationary? What keeps it from moving or falling? Why is it important in the geocentric model that geosynchronous satellites are above the equator? Why can't they remain motionless anywhere around the Earth?
Once again, you're speaking from ignorance. The math that anticipates the
rotational energy and momentum of a spinning earth is the same math that
anticipates the rotational energy and momentum of a rotating universe. There
is not a whit of difference in the math, only a difference in the PHILOSOPHY of
how to interpret the math. Math has nothing to do with philosophy, and it has
absolutely no comment on the frame of reference whether it is the earth or
ANYTHING ELSE in the universe that is presumed motionless. This has been
explained many times in this thread but you just don't want to read it and
think about it, I guess. Do you have a better reason why you do not get it?
Think of it this way: The Rings of Saturn. Saturn isn't the only planet to
have rings, but they are most prominent there, for whatever reason. The
rings of Saturn only go around the equator. There is a small amount of
variation in the north/south margin of error, but it amounts to the thickness
of the rings, perhaps about 50 to 100 meters. I'm not so sure, but it isn't
much, considering the size of the planet! All the material of the rings is
"at rest" so to speak, within that band, and is "unstable" outside that band.
It is where the material "wants to be," and that is why it is there.
The same calculations can be made for the rings of Saturn as for the
satellites orbiting the earth. Does that mean that geocentrism is false? I'll
put it to you this way: no more than it means that heliocentrism is false,
for the same calculations can be made for the sun!
The Rings of Saturn are not evidence for a geocentric model. Saturn can be observed to rotate on an axis with the rings above the equator. This has no connection to a geocentric system where the Earth is motionless.
The rings of Saturn are not evidence for any kind of model, actually. I was
using them to exemplify the fact of how satellites orbiting a planet hang out
at the equator. We were talking about a geosynchronous orbit, remember?
You can think of Saturn as stationary if you so choose and the math works
out the same. You're fighting a straw man, again. You're putting words into
my mouth, again. I never said that it was "evidence" of geocentrism. But
it's not "evidence" of any other kind of centrism, either -- or maybe you
think it is???
-
For all your verbosity, NO, not even you, with all your verbal diarrhea, has explained why gravity and inertia don't apply "out there". :nunchaku:
-
The dogmatic geo-centrists will never be able to comprehend that the physical laws of the Universe are constant at all times & in all places. Nothing in the universe is at rest( fixed). :judge:
-
In your arguments, roscoe, you violate metaphysics. Earth is only moral center of the universe, but not at rest?! Give me a break! Not one physicist or astronomer has truly proven the earth goes around the sun.
You sure don't believe in the authority of the Pope to hand down authoritative decisions concerning faith and morals, especially concerning the 1633 condemnation of Galileo's opinions, which you haven't proved to be rescinded, only the lifting of the prohibition of books in the Index by Galileo, Copernicus, and others.
-
Of course, you would downvote me, roscoe, because you really don't believe the Pope's authoritative decrees aren't worth anything, whereas he specifically states this is a doctrinal issue, of opinions being in conflict with Sacred Scripture. Apparently, you (and unfortunately, many others) don't believe the literalness of the history of the Creation contained in Holy Scripture. In a way, I can't blame you, since many Churchmen abandoned the Church Fathers, Doctors, and other respected scientists and theologians since the 1700s.
-
Of course, you would downvote me, roscoe, because you really don't believe the Pope's authoritative decrees aren't worth anything, whereas he specifically states this is a doctrinal issue, of opinions being in conflict with Sacred Scripture. Apparently, you (and unfortunately, many others) don't believe the literalness of the history of the Creation contained in Holy Scripture. In a way, I can't blame you, since many Churchmen abandoned the Church Fathers, Doctors, and other respected scientists and theologians since the 1700s.
And you would have us all believe that every utterance of every pope is an infallible Church teaching?
Pope QVP declares papalotry a dogma of the faith! Even the most commonsense observations are subject to papal convenience and politics. :scared2:
-
i did not thumbs down the post by QVP because i don't read his posts.
For the record specifically --which 'authoritative decrees' of which Popes have i said are not 'worth anything'?
-
Geocentrism is the truth.
And it is Catholic.
The book "Galileo Was Wrong" by Robert Sungenis is excellent.
http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/
http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.co.uk/
-
The forum is aware that the poster od is responding to has been absurd enough to claim that demonic/ all--seeing eye/ pyramid symbolism was somehow originally Roman Catholic. When asked for evidence of this joke( :roll-laugh1: ) there was no response.
Sungenis is also a joke as he denies what Galileo really is---- a physicist. His whole trip is to deflect attention from Galileo's real heresy--- which is his Physical doctrines, which are in(or lead to) a denial of the Real Presence.
I haven't plugged my article of late so
http://firstjesuits.wordpress.com
-
The forum is aware that the poster od is responding to has been absurd enough to claim that demonic/ all--seeing eye/ pyramid symbolism was somehow originally Roman Catholic. When asked for evidence of this joke( :roll-laugh1: ) there was no response.
Um, aren't you the same person who refers to those who push for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary as "Marian idolaters", and aren't you the same person who advocates smoking pot?
Considering those facts, you have no place to portray QVP as making any "absurd claim".
-
As for geocentrism:
It's really quite simple. Galileo was condemned by the Church. The Church adhered to geocentrism, and was an opponent of heliocentrism.
-
Geocentrism is the truth.
And it is Catholic.
The book "Galileo Was Wrong" by Robert Sungenis is excellent.
http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/
http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.co.uk/
Geocentrism cannot possibly be "the truth" unless well known, easily demonstrated, facts of life like gravity and inertia don't apply.
"Galileo Was Wrong" is, indeed, an excellent example of a crafty salesman selling snake-oil to unaccompanied minors and "intellectually challenged" others.
-
How does a satellite in geosynchronous orbit in the geocentric model stay stationary? What keeps it from moving or falling? Why is it important in the geocentric model that geosynchronous satellites are above the equator? Why can't they remain motionless anywhere around the Earth?
Once again, you're speaking from ignorance. The math that anticipates the
rotational energy and momentum of a spinning earth is the same math that
anticipates the rotational energy and momentum of a rotating universe. There
is not a whit of difference in the math, only a difference in the PHILOSOPHY of
how to interpret the math. Math has nothing to do with philosophy, and it has
absolutely no comment on the frame of reference whether it is the earth or
ANYTHING ELSE in the universe that is presumed motionless. This has been
explained many times in this thread but you just don't want to read it and
think about it, I guess. Do you have a better reason why you do not get it?
I am not speaking from anything. You are getting defensive and argumentative over questions. Stop dodging questions by making vague statements about there being no "difference in the math." If you can answer my questions, do it. Your position is that the Earth is motionless.
1.)How does a satellite in geosynchronous orbit in the geocentric model stay stationary?
2.)What keeps a satellite in geosynchronous orbit from moving or falling?
3.)Why is it important in the geocentric model that geosynchronous satellites are above the equator?
4.)Why can't satellites in geosynchronous orbit remain motionless anywhere around the Earth?
If you are relying on mathematics, be specific. Are you taking into account gravity? Are you acknowledging that objects outside our solar system have little to no gravitational impact on our solar system?
-
QVP, your posts on this thread are excellent.
Please keep up this very good work of yours.
-
QVP, your posts on this thread are excellent.
Please keep up this very good work of yours.
Do you really need the likes of him to justify to your Mum that you gave your lunch money to a con-man in the street?
-
oldavid, unfortunately you're buying the scientific conmen. And you're very dishonest as well, too, in repeating the same old nonsensical matras, and haven't responded to my accusation that you really treat the earth and the sun as a closed system, despite your supposed agreement that the all forces in the universe affect the movements of each body.
Bored of being in IA, aren't you?
-
tomd, you're very dishonest as well. Geocentrism doesn't violate gravity at all. Any honest heliocentric physicist and astronomer admits this as well, despite his opposition to geocentrism.
-
And you would have us all believe that every utterance of every pope is an infallible Church teaching?
Pope QVP declares papalotry a dogma of the faith! Even the most commonsense observations are subject to papal convenience and politics. :scared2:
:rolleyes: As usual, oldavid loves his non sequiturs and red herrings. Every utterance of the Pope that deals with dogmatic questions (like geocentrism) is to be adhered to at least with full assent, as if it were infallible, pending any rescinding.
And you haven't even read Galileo Was Wrong, so how dare you try to review it as if you're qualified! How very suitable that tomd, a Novus Ordoite, is your supporter!
-
It seems we have the three stooges of heliocentrism onboard here on Cathinfo: oldavid, tomd, and roscoe!
-
Another example of QVP as an outright Liar. Not only is the the pyramid/ all-seeing eye claim a fraud & a joke, but i have always rebuked helio-centrism. Let's see if there will be an apology-- i doubt it. :jester:
-
Another example of QVP as an outright Liar. Not only is the the pyramid/ all-seeing eye claim a fraud & a joke, but i have always rebuked helio-centrism. Let's see if there will be an apology-- i doubt it. :jester:
You may want to give some apologies that you owe people first, before anyone apologizes to you.
-
roscoe, your attacks against geocentrism are nothing but pure hot air. And I'm not a liar. You are a heliocentrist for saying the earth goes around the sun.
-
The Sun is in motion. A perusal of my posts will show that anyone accusing me of 'helio-centrism' is a liar.
-
The Sun is in motion. A perusal of my posts will show that anyone accusing me of 'helio-centrism' is a liar.
My definition of heliocentrism is that the earth goes around the sun, regardless of whether the sun is in motion or not. Since no one nowadays believes in a fixed sun. Surely you should have seen that in my posts, roscoe.
-
Mr QVP is only revealing himself as desperate by resorting to out right lies. This is not new however as the pyramid/ all-seeing eye trick is just as low. :roll-laugh1: :scared2:
btw-- i am not surprised that QVP has been defended by the admin of this v2 anti-church forum.
-
More ad hominems without any proof. This is the best argument you can make? :rolleyes: Apparently, you haven't following my arguments at all. I label any system as heliocentric one which proposes the earth going around the sun. To the earth, the sun is center of the solar system, according to you!
That's rich: calling the forum owner a Vatican II defender. :laugh2: :laugh2:
-
Admin has defended u in your absurd claim that all--seeing eye/ pyramid symbolism was originally Catholic. This together with SSPX recognition of the v2 anti-popes. I don't see why my conclusion is so hard to comprende.
-
Even if it's not Catholic in the beginning, things like the all-seeing eye can be appropriated for Catholics to have a Catholic meaning.
As for recognition of the Conciliar Popes, it doesn't equal recognition that Vatican II is to be 100% adhered to. Your definition of a Vatican II Catholic is way off, even from your fellow sedes.
-
I wonder if the prev poster reslises how dumb he appears when accusing me of things that are easily proved to be lies by anyone who can read.
1-- My posts have always denied 'helio-centrism' --the Sun is in motion.
2-- There is No Such Thing as A 'sede' so i could not be one or even be in league with those who have fallen for this heresy.
Nice try :smoke-pot:
-
If geocentric is a valid idea, then astrology is equally valid. God would not place planets in retrograde unless there was a purpose.
Astrology was "defeated" not by Christians, who on and off tolerated it for centuries, but by Age of Enlightenment "rationalists", who believed astrology was out of the mythological ages and have nothing to do with science.
-
God would not place planets in retrograde unless there was a purpose.
Who's to say that He doesn't have a purpose for it being that way? "For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor?" Just because we can't think of a reason for it, doesn't mean that there isn't a very important reason for it being so.
-
If geocentric is a valid idea, then astrology is equally valid. God would not place planets in retrograde unless there was a purpose.
Astrology was "defeated" not by Christians, who on and off tolerated it for centuries, but by Age of Enlightenment "rationalists", who believed astrology was out of the mythological ages and have nothing to do with science.
There is no comparison between geocentrism and astrology.
-
God would not place planets in retrograde unless there was a purpose.
Who's to say that He doesn't have a purpose for it being that way? "For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor?" Just because we can't think of a reason for it, doesn't mean that there isn't a very important reason for it being so.
Magi knowing the birth of Christ by the placement in the heavens. Visiting and the first to bestow kingly gifts to the newborn Jesus. Welcomed by Mary and Joseph.
Not something to be living your daily life by, the order of the heavens is below the King of Kings, the Christ. Creation below the Creator.
-
If geocentric is a valid idea, then astrology is equally valid. God would not place planets in retrograde unless there was a purpose.
Astrology was "defeated" not by Christians, who on and off tolerated it for centuries, but by Age of Enlightenment "rationalists", who believed astrology was out of the mythological ages and have nothing to do with science.
There is no comparison between geocentrism and astrology.
Astrology can be used for fortune telling, something incompatible with Catholic faith. Does not mean the placement of the heavens is meaningless. New moon, waxing moon, full moon, waning moon all have a purpose. Plants react to the lunar cycle. Ancient people knew when to harvest herbs based on lunar cycles. Our solar cycle is four seasons. Plants react to the solar cycle. The non-luminaries bodies have less effect, but still effect our own planet. Not something for a Catholic to care much about, but not something to discard.
-
By comparing geocentrism with something that is from the New Age movement, you're implying that the Church leaders who adhered to geocentrism and condemned Galileo were adhering to the New Age! Do you not realize the consequences of making a post like that?
-
By comparing geocentrism with something that is from the New Age movement, you're implying that the Church leaders who adhered to geocentrism and condemned Galileo were adhering to the New Age! Do you not realize the consequences of making a post like that?
Linking astrology or herbal medicine or acupuncture to some new age movement is incorrect. These are valid ancient beliefs that are returning in reaction to forced "science". Astrology came back to Catholic Europe during the Renaissance.
Emperors and popes became votaries of astrology—Charles IV and V, and Popes Sixtus IV, Julius II, Leo X and Paul III. When these rulers lived astrology was, so to say, the regulator of official life; it is a fact characteristic of the age, that at the papal and imperial courts ambassadors were not received in audience until the court astrologer had been consulted. Regiomontanus, the distinguished Bavarian mathematician, practised astrology, which from that time on assumed the character of a bread-winning profession, and as such was not beneath the dignity of so lofty an intellect as Kepler. Thus had astrology once more become the foster-mother of all astronomers. In the judgment of the men of the Renaissance—and this was the age of a Nicholas Copernicus—the most profound astronomical researches and theories were only profitable insofar as they aided in the development of astrology. Among the zealous patrons of the art were the Medici. Catherine de' Medici made astrology popular in France. She erected an astrological observatory for herself near Paris, and her court astrologer was the celebrated "magician" Michel de Notredame (Nostradamus) who in 1555 published his principal work on astrology—a work still regarded as authoritative among the followers of his art. Another well-known man was Lucas Gauricus the court astrologer of Popes Leo X and Clement VII who published a large number of astrological treatises.
Astrology was attacked by the fore-runners of early modernist, the "Enlightened Scientists", also attacking the superstitions of the Catholic Church.
-
I wonder if the prev poster reslises how dumb he appears when accusing me of things that are easily proved to be lies by anyone who can read.
1-- My posts have always denied 'helio-centrism' --the Sun is in motion.
2-- There is No Such Thing as A 'sede' so i could not be one or even be in league with those who have fallen for this heresy.
Nice try :smoke-pot:
Nice try to deny my definition of heliocentrism, that it consists of anything not geocentric in any way, but total failure to show how it doesn't stand up to authoritative condemnation in 1633 and not rescinded!
-
As for Agobard, I think he is talking about astrology used correctly, not the false one. At first I thought as SSS did, but now I realize this.
-
As for Agobard, I think he is talking about astrology used correctly, not the false one. At first I thought as SSS did, but now I realize this.
Constantine banned astrology because the astrologers of the time were not Orthodox or even Arian. They were Magi converts to Christianity. I won't be getting into the religious or political decision in 321, very complex.
Someone who studies music will understand the validity to the study of the music of the heavens.
-
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=14504&min=395#p0)
How does a satellite in geosynchronous orbit in the geocentric model stay stationary? What keeps it from moving or falling? Why is it important in the geocentric model that geosynchronous satellites are above the equator? Why can't they remain motionless anywhere around the Earth?
Once again, you're speaking from ignorance. The math that anticipates the
rotational energy and momentum of a spinning earth is the same math that
anticipates the rotational energy and momentum of a rotating universe. There
is not a whit of difference in the math, only a difference in the PHILOSOPHY of
how to interpret the math. Math has nothing to do with philosophy, and it has
absolutely no comment on the frame of reference whether it is the earth or
ANYTHING ELSE in the universe that is presumed motionless. This has been
explained many times in this thread but you just don't want to read it and
think about it, I guess. Do you have a better reason why you do not get it?
I am not speaking from anything.
Well, then we are not speaking the same language.
If you "are not speaking from anything," then you have nothing to say.
Every effect has a cause. What you say comes from you, but it must have
some basis in your intellect, for your will to act on that and for you to make
a post. In order for what you say here to make anything close to a real
connection with intelligence, I would have to presume that your will is not
acting on an informed intellect, and that you are simply spouting words,
without having any thought behind the words.
Therefore our conversation would be useless. But let's see, anyway...........
You are getting defensive and argumentative over questions.
Right out of the gate, your conspicuous penchant toward ad hominem
mudslinging, typical of liberals, comes to the fore. I am speaking in terms
of LOGIC and COMMON SENSE, and maybe the problem is you don't know
how to deal with that. I can't blame you, for this is commonplace in our age
of Modernism and Rationalism and the Hegelian dialectic a.k.a., one of the
errors of Russia.
Stop dodging questions by making vague statements about there being no "difference in the math."
My references to "the math" was an attempt to give you something you can
understand, as math is held up as a demigod in the new scientism that would
replace God in defiance of the First Commandment from the top of Mt. Sinai,
complete with fire, smoke, earthquakes and lightening. But for modern man,
such descriptions are grist for the Modernist mill of thesis, antithesis and
synthesis.
Woops. More "just words" you won't understand, or, choose not to.
If you can answer my questions, do it.
I already did, but you are not paying attention.
Your position is that the Earth is motionless.
It is the common informed opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church,
from their reading and study of Sacred Scripture, even under the guidance
of the Holy Ghost Who created the universe (and therefore ought to know a
thing or two about how it was made) and, last but not least, by the very
words of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, who taught them personally, that
the earth (small e) is motionless. Otherwise the Church would not have been
so confident to have condemned the false teachings of Galileo not once but
twice, in subsequent generations, no less. So it's not an "overnight
sensation" or a "shooting from the hip" kind of judgment.
1.)How does a satellite in geosynchronous orbit in the geocentric model stay stationary?
I already explained it. The earth is not a closed system. If it were then you
could be said to have a valid question. But you cannot have just the earth
and a stationary satellite there all by itself the same way you can have the
earth and a stationary satellite there with all the rest of the universe beyond.
They are apples and oranges.
2.)What keeps a satellite in geosynchronous orbit from moving or falling?
I already explained it. You might as well ask why the rings of Saturn don't fall
to the planet. But you don't like talking about the rings of Saturn, I know. The
satellite has more than the earth below it, for it has the sun, moon, planets
and stars above it as well. They all are important in the geosynchronous orbit
of the satellite. But just as neither Einstein, Hubble, Sagan or Hawking can
explain how or by what means gravity is communicated at a distance, your
demand that I explain something you don't demand that they explain is,
frankly, a bit unfair. Why don't you quote them instead? Why do you insist
that I answer a question nobody demands that they answer?
3.)Why is it important in the geocentric model that geosynchronous satellites are above the equator?
If it were not for the entire universe moving as it does all around it, and us,
it would not matter. But the universe does so move, and it does not move
otherwise, nor does it change its direction of movement -- yet! According
to Scripture, at the end of the world, those distant bodies in the sky will
lose their regular motion. Then, we will have a LOT more to talk abuout,
but, unfortunately, there won't be any more TIME to talk about it, because
time itself will lose its regular motion for it will come to an END.
4.)Why can't satellites in geosynchronous orbit remain motionless anywhere around the Earth?
The movement of the distant bodies define the position of stability at the
place above the equator, and the allowable distance from the surface of
the earth (small e) is a function of the size and density of the earth itself,
in relation to the size, distance, density and motion of the rest of the
universe. It's all in the math -- woops. You don't like math. Sorry.
If you are relying on mathematics, be specific. Are you taking into account gravity? Are you acknowledging that objects outside our solar system have little to no gravitational impact on our solar system?
How specific do you want, all of a sudden? You didn't want to talk math
before and now you do. Is angular momentum specific enough? How about
moment of inertia? Shall we get into the integral aspects of mass, acceleration,
distance, consequent forces, and their relationship with planets?
You like to harp on gravity. How much "impact" on our solar system could
there be, due to distant galaxies that have always been there -- while there is
no way for us to see what everything would be like if they were to be excluded
from our frame of reference?
You seem bent on relying on physical science to answer questions that are
OUTSIDE its realm of expertise.
If you want to know the answer to a question on the morality of dropping
a nuclear weapon on a population, is it proper to ask a nuclear physicist or
a moral theologian? Should you ask a mathematician or a priest? But now
some priests are mathematicians, so it gets confusing. Is it a question of
quantity divorced from all aspects of good and evil, of being and justice, of
spirit and truth?
I'm here trying to explain that the study and consideration of mathematics
cannot ever possibly answer whether the earth is motionless in regards to
the rest of the universe. Any way you slice it, math cannot answer the
question.
So do not make math the arbiter of something that it cannot address.
If you want to know when, as a farmer, you should plant your corn, would
you seek the advice of a groundhog?
-
If God's Law is constant throughout U then E must necessarily be in motion.
If Pius XII consecrated the whole world to the Virgin, then Russia must necessarily be included.
:fryingpan:
I am not aware of any words of Jesus that say E is motionless.
-
As for Agobard, I think he is talking about astrology used correctly, not the false one. At first I thought as SSS did, but now I realize this.
Constantine banned astrology because the astrologers of the time were not Orthodox or even Arian. They were Magi converts to Christianity. I won't be getting into the religious or political decision in 321, very complex.
Someone who studies music will understand the validity to the study of the music of the heavens.
The early term for astrology is speculative( as opposed to scientific) astronomy. Paul III was familiar with the latter.
-
If God's Law is constant throughout U then E must necessarily be in motion.
If Pius XII consecrated the whole world to the Virgin, then Russia must necessarily be included.
:fryingpan:
I am not aware of any words of Jesus that say E is motionless.
All Church Fathers said the Earth is motionless based on Holy Scripture, not just the Gospels. And the Pope already condemned the earth's movement as contrary to Sacred Scripture!
-
Once again, you're speaking from ignorance.
This has been explained many times in this thread but you just don't want to read it and think about it, I guess. Do you have a better reason why you do not get it?
you are simply spouting words,
Right out of the gate, your conspicuous penchant toward ad hominem
mudslinging, typical of liberals, comes to the fore. I am speaking in terms
of LOGIC and COMMON SENSE, and maybe the problem is you don't know
how to deal with that.
Woops. More "just words" you won't understand, or, choose not to.
I already did, but you are not paying attention.
But you don't like talking about the rings of Saturn, I know.
It's all in the math -- woops. You don't like math. Sorry.
How specific do you want, all of a sudden? You didn't want to talk math
before and now you do. Is angular momentum specific enough? How about
moment of inertia? Shall we get into the integral aspects of mass, acceleration,
distance, consequent forces, and their relationship with planets?
You like to harp on gravity.
You seem bent on relying on physical science to answer questions that are
OUTSIDE its realm of expertise.
Neil Obstat, do you read your own replies? Are you aware of how disrespectful you are towards people with differing views here? You constantly use loaded language and words with negative connotations to disparage those who do not agree with you. You may think yourself wise but you come off as belittling and vindictive. This is supposed to be a discussion, not a fight.
-
Have you seen oldavid's posts here? He's so much more abusive than Neil ever was. I'm inclined to believe it was just oldavid who got Neil to react so strongly.
-
The Forum should be reminded that James, Bacon, De Vere, Luther & Calvin were all dogmatic in their belief that S rev around E.
-
So that makes the Popes wrong in their condemnation that the earth goes around sun?!! Such poor logic you employ! The Church Fathers, the medieval theologians, etc. all believed the sun went around the earth. That just makes the people you mention correct!
-
The Forum should be reminded that James, Bacon, De Vere, Luther & Calvin were all dogmatic in their belief that S rev around E.
My apologies as dogmatic may be inaccurate as i have never read any of their specific views. I have however read accounts or their beliefs by Catholic historians.
-
People of good will should be reminded, to counter roscoe, that the Church hasn't rescinded Her condemnation of Galileo's two opinions, especially the one that the earth is mobile.
-
.
I found an interesting book, which has been a very good seller all this time, and has been in print since its first edition over 100 years ago.
Nowhere in this book does it mention Galileo, heliocentrism, geocentrism, Newton, or the Foucault pendulum.
But it does have a LOT of very technical information about pendulums in general, and more specifically for clocks. It hails from the age that immediately preceded Einstein, and just after Darwin, the turn of the 20th century.
It has descriptions of astronomical clocks, which have been meticulously made for hundreds of years. In fact, they were made thousands of years ago, a fact we learn from an ancient one that was discovered in an old shipwreck in the Mediterranean, all encrusted with sea creatures and corrosion. Since it was made of precious and semi-precious metals, experts were able to gradually melt away the extraneous matter and find the working mechanism hidden inside. It is an extremely complex astronomical clock that shows phases of the moon and movement of several planets. And it shows the sun orbiting the earth, just as the 18th century design does, the one described in detail in the book, the one that has the earth stationary and prominently featured in the CENTER of the dial.
In all these cases of astronomical clocks, none of them described involve a moving earth. The earth is always presumed stationary.
This is most interesting to me.
Now, if it were "simpler" to show the earth moving and the sun standing still, why is it that nobody has bothered to build an astronomical clock that shows this? Or, have they? My book is quite comprehensive, and it doesn't show one. (It is a compendium of clock craftsmanship and technology.) Perhaps some have been made but nobody wanted to buy one? If so, it would have been a "market flop," then.. Is that the case?
I saw a display of a 'stationary sun' at an observatory, with a moving earth going around it, but the apparatus attempted to impart some idea of the scale involved, so the display was rather impractical. Hardly anyone was interested in it. It said things like, "If Jupiter were shown in this model it would be outside in the parking lot." Yawn!
In my book, the detailed diagrams showing how this astronomical clock is built and how the parts work, displays a "face" on the clock that is very intriguing. And I can easily imagine that a similar design but one showing the sun stationary instead, would be quite uninteresting. Maybe that's why no one has built one?
.
-
I doubt you'll understand the import of this, but clock internals don't operate via gravity. They operate via clockwork. This is the reason one can build a fanciful clock that operates, but not a fanciful universe. Good luck on reasoning in the future, I hope it goes better for you.
-
People of good will should be reminded, to counter roscoe, that the Church hasn't rescinded Her condemnation of Galileo's two opinions, especially the one that the earth is mobile.
Liar
-
Von Pastor v25 pg300
.... 'the FACT that only since 1835, when a new edition of the Index was published, the name of Copernicus no longer figures in that list........
Far more momentous than the measures taken against Galileo and the works of Copernicus was the general prohibition of all writings in support of the new system of the Universe. This prohibition remained in the volume of the Index UNTIL 1758'
:detective:
-
People of good will should be reminded, to counter roscoe, that the Church hasn't rescinded Her condemnation of Galileo's two opinions, especially the one that the earth is mobile.
Liar
The condemnation of Galileo that has not been lifted is his quantum, Pythagorean, atomic theories of matter. This is why the geo-centrix are so dangerous as they will not discuss Galileo as a physicist. Can someone show anywhere Sungenis tells of Galileo's atomism? Where does he talk of his theories of light? etc etc?
BTW--- i am not surprised that no one has noticed but Galileo was( w/o Any proof) Demanding Dogmatic acceptance of helio--centrism. His were not "opinions'.
It is Copernicus whose writings were hypothetical and could more properly be called opinions.
As stated prev, he submitted his work to the Pope for approval.
:fryingpan: