2,410,229 views with only 163 comments. Has any one ever seen a video on youtube with this many views and this few comments? I haven't seen the video yet, but I'm looking forward to it. This is just to point out how youtube can and does so often manipulate the # of views for whatever reason. Is it a lure here to bring people over to the Dimond Boys?Spanish version has 4,137,426 views with only 254 comments.
2,410,229 views with only 163 comments. Has any one ever seen a video on youtube with this many views and this few comments? I haven't seen the video yet, but I'm looking forward to it. This is just to point out how youtube can and does so often manipulate the # of views for whatever reason. Is it a lure here to bring people over to the Dimond Boys?Youtube has no motivation whatsoever in bringing people to an "anti-semitic", "hate-speech" channel. The views do seem very high but I think the comments were just heavily moderated.
2. Neptune would have to be traveling at a velocity faster than the speed of light to circle
the Earth in 24 hours. The Andromeda galaxy would have to be moving at 6 million times the
speed of light to circle the Earth in 24 house.
Only if no allowance is made for the earth to be rotating..
Also, nobody knows what gravity is or how it works.
Have the Dimond Boys ever issued a public declaration as to their own infallibility or lack thereof?.
.Thanks! It is good to remind people that they are NOT infallible, although it would be best if they would remind people directly of this fact and do it regularly in an emphatic way. Evidence, of course, may or may not be in accord with proof. That is to say, they are obviously not always one and the same.
.
They do give a huge amount of evidence in their article on Geocentrism, which is not their opinion.
So whether they are infallible is irrelevant on this subject.
None of the Geocentrists know what gravity is or how it works, even though they are
experiencing it 24 hours a day, 365 days a year for as long as they live.
We can simply measure a phenomenon that happens predictably given a specific context. Yet gravity doesn't seem to apply at the atomic level. Best guess is that it's related to electro-magnetism. Consequently, other measurable factors other than mass (which is all the gravity considers) could be responsible for anchoring bodies together, and so, depending on what that is, it could theoretically be possible for a smaller (aka less massive) body to anchor a larger one. So the argument from gravity is inconclusive..
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/en/ (https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/en/).
Interestingly, the animated diagram of the solar system's rotation taking into account the barycenter happens to look a LOT like the epicycles of the Ptolemaic system.
.
Then tell me which larger body in the universe orbits around a smaller body.
And also tell me which measurable force is causing that.
.
This is just a small detail about where the center is. In the case of our solar system, the center is close to the center of the Sun.
And this is proof for Heliocentrism.
Utter nonsense. Even the sun itself revolves around the CENTER OF MASS OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM. And that's merely in the context of the solar system. You're showing now the desperation of someone who has bad will and is not seeking the truth.(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Tychonian_system.svg/1024px-Tychonian_system.svg.png)
Even modern science is not heliocentric.
Our entire solar system also has a barycenter. The sun, Earth, and all of the planets in the solar system orbit around this barycenter. It is the center of mass of every object in the solar system combined.
Our solar system’s barycenter constantly changes position. Its position depends on where the planets are in their orbits. The solar system's barycenter can range from being near the center of the sun to being outside the surface of the sun. As the sun orbits this moving barycenter, it wobbles around.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Tychonian_system.svg/1024px-Tychonian_system.svg.png)
are you proposing this?
Utter nonsense. Even the sun itself revolves around the CENTER OF MASS OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM. And that's merely in the context of the solar system. You're showing now the desperation of someone who has bad will and is not seeking the truth..
Even modern science is not heliocentric.
There is an exhaustive THEOLOGICAL treatment of Geocentrism on the Dimond brothers website:
.
https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Geocentrism.pdf (https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Geocentrism.pdf)
,
Their conclusion is that Geocentrism is NOT an infallible teaching of the Church and
they give strong evidence and arguments for this.
.
From the SCIENTIFIC point of view, there are several strong arguments against Geocentrism:
.
1. The Earth does not have enough gravity to keep the Sun in orbit around the Earth and
there is NO other know measurable force which can keep the Sun in orbit.
.
2. Neptune would have to be traveling at a velocity faster than the speed of light to circle
the Earth in 24 hours. The Andromeda galaxy would have to be moving at 6 million times the
speed of light to circle the Earth in 24 hours.
.
3. Stellar Parallax has been measured by modern telescopes. The Geocentrism theory has
no explanation how this can happen. The Heliocentrism theory has no problem with Stellar
Parallax.
.
I've heard the Geocentrism arguments about Aether, Electromagnatism, and God-Can-Do-It,
but one must realize that Geocentrists cannot understand gravity, celestial mechanics or
Stellar Parallax. Here is an explanation of Stellar Parallax:
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax)
.
I did not plan to divert this thread into a Geocentric argument, but some people keep harping
on Geocentrism and telling lies about it. Lies should be exposed as such.
.
If you cannot understand Stellar Parallax and cannot understand that telescopes in 1633 were
not capable of measuring Stellar Parallax, then don't tell me I'm wrong, and don't expect me
to reply to your lies (er ... I mean opinions :-*)
.
Call it what you want, but it does NOT prove heliocentrism..
See above web pages to learn that the center of the solar system is close to the
center of the Sun.
.
Stellar Parallax certainly does prove Heliocentrism.
Geocentrism has no explanation for Stellar Parallax.
Do you know what it is ?
Changing the subject now that your argument from gravity has been thoroughly refuted.FU2, asshole.
When you shift from one argument to a different one after the first has been refuted, that's a slam-dunk case of bad will. You already have a pre-determined conclusion and are simply looking for reasons to back it up.
FU2, asshole.
You have proved nothing, reject the facts and resort to ad hominem attacks.
.
Find me a larger body that orbits a smaller body, asshole, or shut up.
Changing the subject now that your argument from gravity has been thoroughly refuted..
When you shift from one argument to a different one after the first has been refuted, that's a slam-dunk case of bad will. You already have a pre-determined conclusion and are simply looking for reasons to back it up.
.You're acting as if the Sun and the Earth are the only two masses in the Universe. Nonsense. The barycentre of the Universe as a whole does not have to be in its point of greatest mass, it could even be at a point with 0 mass. So arguing from the mass of an individual does not prove where the centre of masses OF THE UNIVERSE is.
https://socratic.org/questions/where-is-the-center-of-mass-of-the-solar-system (https://socratic.org/questions/where-is-the-center-of-mass-of-the-solar-system)
.
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/centermass.htm (http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/centermass.htm)
.
See above web pages to learn that the center of the solar system is close to the
center of the Sun.
.
And stop with the ad hominem attack. it proves nothing.
.
Are you still looking for a larger body that orbits a smaller body in the universe ?
You'll be looking for the rest of your life.
.
The barycenter is negligible when talking about the Earth-Sun relationship.
The Sun's mass is 333,000 times the mass of the Earth.
.
Maybe this is why Fr Hewko does not recommend CathInfo to people.
So the demonic sun god comes to the surface. Further proof of bad will..
We just explained to you several times, idiot, that it is not true that a smaller body orbits a larger body, nor does the larger body orbit the smaller one, but rather that BOTH bodies orbit the center of mass between the two bodies. What part of this doesn't sink into your skull? This is basic Newtonian physics that no one disputes.
Also we only know the Sun's mass from calculations in a Heliocentric model. Using a mass obtained from a model to try and prove that model is circular reasoning.
.Again, assuming there are only two bodies in the Universe. If you have two bodies of relatively similar mass, the barycentre would be outside of each mass. Therefore it would not be within a body with mass at all, and the two bodies would be orbiting a point of ZERO MASS. Proving that it is possible for larger masses to orbit smaller ones, and even non-existent masses, if the barycentre of multiple masses happens to lie there. Therefore, it is possible for the barycentre of the Universe to lie in the Earth, which would mean the Sun would orbit the Earth even if the Sun had a greater mass.
And then the larger body is 333,000 times the mass of the smaller body, the barycenter is inside the larger body.
.
What part of this do you not understand, you demon possessed evil man.
You're acting as if the Sun and the Earth are the only two masses in the Universe. Nonsense. The barycentre of the Universe as a whole does not have to be in its point of greatest mass, it could even be at a point with 0 mass. So arguing from the mass of an individual does not prove where the centre of masses OF THE UNIVERSE is..
Also we only know the Sun's mass from calculations in a Heliocentric model. Using a mass obtained from a model to try and prove that model is circular reasoning.
.Neo-Tychonic model explains stellar parallax, I already linked this and numerous famous scientists(even atheists like Hawkings) who agree that there is no contradiction between Stellar Parallax and the Tychonic model.
We already know from Seallar Parallax that the Earth is not the center of the universe.
.
I noticed that you guys are avoiding the concept of Stellar Parallax.
Your total argument is "nonsense".
.
And then the larger body is 333,000 times the mass of the smaller body, the barycenter is inside the larger body.
.
What part of this do you not understand, you demon possessed evil man.
The measurable force agreement does not hold up for those that believe in a Big Bang Universe, which requires Dark Matter and Dark Energy, because those dark forces are also an unmeasurable force, and not only that, they are also an unknown and unproven force.
And also tell me which measurable force is causing that.
Such a condition would imply, that we occupy a unique position[/b] in the universe and, analogous, in a sense to the ancient conception of a central earth, this hypothesis cannot be disproved..... but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomenon. Therefore we disregard this possibility......the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs.... such a favored position is intolerable..... therefore in order to restore homogeneity and to escape the horror of a unique position, it must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape. (1937)
You're really showcasing your ignorance. Size has absolutely nothing to do with this. It's possible for the 333,000 smaller body to have a LARGER MASS than the bigger one. It's about mass and density and not about size..
In this case, however, assuming that the assumption about the MASS of the two planets are indeed, correct, if the sun and earth existed alone ... as an isolated system, then the barycenter would certainly just so happen to reside somewhere within the physical boundaries of the sun. But the sun and earth are not alone in the solar system. So even NASA admits that the barycenter of the solar system (depending on the alignment of the planets) CAN exist outside the physical boundaries of the sun. And then if you expand the system to the entire galaxy and then to the entire universe, no one can prove where the barycenter of the universe is ... or isn't.
.zzzzzzz
OK, however, it the Earth is orbiting the Sun, it's a Heliocentric solar system,
BECAUSE the barycenter is close to the Sun and nowhere near the Earth.
.
We know from Stellar Parallax that the Earth is NOT the center of the universe,
because the stars are in different places relative to the Sun 6 months later.
.
.I have read the Dimond Brothers attempt to render the 1616 and 1633 decrees no worth the paper they were recorded on. 'Their conclusion is that Geocentrism is NOT an infallible teaching of the Church.' you say and obviously believe. So, here we have the Protestant version of theology, thinking they know more than the judgement of Rome.
Excellent point. For all we know, the sun could have a much smaller mass than science claims that it does..
.
OK, however, it the Earth is orbiting the Sun, it's a Heliocentric solar system ...
.Nice strawmen, still you fail to address any arguments. We've explained countless times before how with multiple bodies, the barycentre may not lie within the largest mass at all. If the barycentre of the Universe lay within the Earth, the Sun would indeed orbit it despite being of greater mass. It's really not that hard to grasp, it's just science.
Yeah right !!! Science is an evil conspiracy, created by Satan. Good argument.
And we don't understand gravity, but we understand barycenters (given to us
by science).
.
Yeah, we are smart. We figured out that science is evil when we want it to be,
and good when we want it to be.
.
And, all Heliocentrists are evil, including the popes that approved of it.
.
Excuse me for leaving this discussion. Go ahead and attack me some more,
it may prove you correct in your la-la-land.
.
So, are you an extreme sedevacantist ... all popes after 1820 are heretics or anti-popes ?
I thought this thread was about the Dimond brothers and theology. It is now one that will seen by placed with the flat-earth out of sight.Cassini, which model of geocentrism do you adhere to and how does it explain Stellar Parallax?
Yes, all popes who believe the Scriptures do not reveal geocentrism are heretics. But the circuмstances of their heresy is such that it amounts to MATERIAL heresy.
In Catholic theology, the term material heresy refers to an opinion objectively contradictory to the teachings of the Church, which as such is heretical, but which is uttered by a person without the subjective knowledge of its being so.
Beginning with Pope Pius VII, popes were told the heliocentrism of 1820 was not the heretical heliocentrism of 1616 and 1633, but a non heretical heliocentrism. Millions of other Catholics were also material heretics for the same reason. Material heresy is really NON-HERESY.
But you Apollo, have been told the truth, so your choice to accept heliocentrism can be classed as formal heresy because you have rejected the truth after being told it. The same reasoning goes for the Dimond brothers and God knows how many others who have rejected the truth after being told geocentrism was never proven wrong and that no pope every rejected the infallibility of the 1616 decree.
So, for some of the geocentrists on this thread, do you consider it essential to geocentrism that the earth not move at all, not even rotate around its own axis?
Excellent point. For all we know, the sun could have a much smaller mass than science claims that it does.Putting something in a solar orbit requires a relatively accurate value for the mass of the sun. And we have successfully put several probes in solar orbits since the 1960s. So yes, we are relatively sure of the mass of the sun.
Cassini, which model of geocentrism do you adhere to and how does it explain Stellar Parallax?
Once again, it's not true that the earth is orbiting the sun. Both are orbiting the solar system's barycenter. It's a "barycentric" solar system..
And then who says that the geocentric/heliocentric debate is limited the solar system? It's about the much broader issue of whether the earth is at the center and focal point of all God's creation (not just the solar system). Really, the only reason that the classical/historical heliocentrist vs. geocentrist debates focused on the solar system was due to limited knowledge of what might have been beyond that.
Really, one of the issues most people in the geocentric vs. heliocentric debate seem to gloss over is ...
WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF "CENTER"?
But you Apollo, have been told the truth, so your choice to accept heliocentrism can be classed as formal heresy because you have rejected the truth after being told it. The same reasoning goes for the Dimond brothers and God knows how many others who have rejected the truth after being told geocentrism was never proven wrong and that no pope ever rejected the infallibility of the 1616 decree..
.In 1838 then, taking 61 Cygni as a near star; Bessel found in a year it had shifted its position relative to other stars which he also assumed were more distant and farther stars. As a consequence, Bessel claimed to have discovered a parallax. Later, other stars showing movements relative to further stars were found throughout the heavens resulting in more claims of further discoveries of stellar parallax. And these observations, they say, were, after stellar aberration, the second confirmation that the Earth orbits the sun.
So, was/is stellar parallax proof that the earth orbits the sun? No it was/is not, for one will see the very same movements of a near star relative to more distant stars if the sun and stars together revolve around the earth in a geocentric year.
This reasoning was never challenged. It is no different to stellar aberration. Take your pick, heliocentrism or geocemntrism, both are relative, if the Earth orbits the sun, or if the sun and stars orbit the Earth.
What about the Axis of Evil? There is lots of evidence for Geocentrism. Even mainstream scientists admit there is no way to prove Geocentrism wrong. Also, they haven't been able to design a single experiment which shows that the Earth moves at all. Did you know that?.
How do the Heliocentrists defend that one?
I recommend two videos for everyone here:About The Principle. I watched the trailer. It claims that the Earth is a special place,
1. Galileo was Wrong
2. The Principle
What about the Axis of Evil? There is lots of evidence for Geocentrism. Even mainstream scientists admit there is no way to prove Geocentrism wrong. Also, they haven't been able to design a single experiment which shows that the Earth moves at all. Did you know that?About the only scientific thing going for geocentrism is that general relativity can use any frame of reference. But geocentrism appears to be a sterile model, with no ability of its own to explain or make new predictions.
How do the Heliocentrists defend that one?
Cassini, which model of geocentrism do you adhere to and how does it explain Stellar Parallax?
.
Except for the fact, IT WAS NOT AN INFALLIBLE DECREE, made by the Pope for the whole Church,
in the proper way required by the Church for an infallible teaching.
.
Quoting from the Dimond brothers article (and others agree with this statement):
.
"Before we proceed, we see that in 1616 eleven theologian-qualifiers of the Holy Office condemned
heliocentrism as heretical. This was not an ex cathedra pronouncement, for Pope Paul V did not
solemnly promulgate this decision on his own authority. He didn’t even sign it, but it was done
with his knowledge and approval."
The Earth does not move.
.” (2) The second proposition, “That the Earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered to be at least erroneous in faith.”
Diurnal movement is daily movement, which would be caused by spin. So no, the Earth does not rotate on its axis.
.
OK, the Earth is orbiting the barycenter, and the barycenter is within the diameter of the Sun,
so for simplicity we say that the Earth is orbiting the Sun. I repeat, the barycenter is within
the diameter of the Sun.
.
If you don't mind, please prove this video wrong.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3RXa0GLeHI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3RXa0GLeHI)
In that event, then, how would one explain the speed of, say, Neptune's revolution? Only other explanation is that they are not actually millions of miles away ... as we have been led to believe. Unless you have something else?
1) The point that is equally distant from every point on the circuмference of a circle or sphere.
2) the point from which an activity or process is directed, or on which it is focused.
There is a mathematical centre (1) and (2) the centre occupied by the Earth in the universe.
How dare you post this video with the cover picture being a blasphemous mockery of Sacred Scripture?
Right, there are different definitions of center. Someone who rejects #1 could still say they are geocentrist because they uphold #2.
But I think that motion has to factor in as well, and perhaps that would fall into definition #2. I don't think that being at the mathematical center is an absolute necessity.
There you go again, after the Church twice confirmed the 1616 decree as irreversible in 1633 and 1820, you still tell us like a good Protestant they all got it wrong because the pope did not say it was infallible from the roof of St Peters. 'He didn't even sign it,' you and others say, ignorant of the fact that no pope of the time signed decrees of the Holy Office. As Prefect of the Holy Office it was taken for granted any such decree had to have the pope's approval.The question is, however, whether either of them condemned the doctrine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) ex cathedra (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm). This, it is clear, they never did. As to the decree (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm) of 1616, we have seen that it was issued by the Congregation of the Index, which can raise no difficulty in regard of infallibility (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm), this tribunal being absolutely incompetent to make a dogmatic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm) decree (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm). Nor is the case altered by the fact that the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11581b.htm) approved the Congregation's decision in forma communi, that is to say, to the extent needful for the purpose intended, namely to prohibit the circulation of writings which were judged harmful. The pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11581b.htm) and his assessors (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01799b.htm) may have been wrong in such a judgment, but this does not alter the character of the pronouncement, or convert it into a decree (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm) ex cathedra (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm).
Neither geocentrism nor heliocentrism can be proven, that is the current position of MODERN PHYSICS. If the video's bull claimed 'proof' for heliocentrism, or if it scientifically falsified geocentrism, then every physicist of the 20thn century has got it wrong too.Particular models can and have been disproven by observation or experiment. Perhaps your model has not, but you haven't presented it.
How dare you post this video with the cover picture being a blasphemous mockery of Sacred Scripture?.
Geocentrists, according to this person making this video, and indeed by anyone like Apollo who puts it up, are 'retards,' people who have not the ability to follow progress or simply those who indulge in 'horse shit.' Sine 1741, these same insults have been aimed at Catholics who put their faith in the Scriptures and the Church's teaching that tells us God's revelations cannot be in error..
So, that is why I stopped looking at this video. I presumed it went on to use Newton's theory as its gospel and I don't have the time to waste. Neither geocentrism nor heliocentrism can be proven, that is the current position of MODERN PHYSICS. If the video's bull claimed 'proof' for heliocentrism, or if it scientifically falsified geocentrism, then every physicist of the 20thn century has got it wrong too.
How dare you post this video with the cover picture being a blasphemous mockery of Sacred Scripture?.
The Earthmovers often use the speeds this or that would have to go at if geocentrism was true. They have no problem with the Earth spinning at 1,000 mph or flying through space at 72,000 mph, faster than the speed of a bullet..
What I am saying is that my geocentrism belongs to God, not the limits of science. Pope Urban VIII told Galileo not to limit God to mere human reasoning, that he could have designed the universe to work whatever way He willed it. In other words, the supposed speeds necessary for the universe to turn every day, is willed by God and He is omnipotent. When I hear the Earthmovers challenging God's ability to do this or that, I know where the truth lies..
What most of the world (Catholics included, even priests) are saying, is that Heliocentrism belongs to God,
and he could have designed the universe to be Heliocentric if He wanted to.
I do not think many would bother trying to come to terms with the problem of Geo/Helio if the subject was not connected with the credibility of divine guidance in the Catholic Church. I know my interest in the subject goes back to when I was a kid and I could never come to terms with my divinely guided Church getting it wrong in 1616 and 1633. Once is enough to show no such divine guidance is there.Not sure where you're going with "divine guidance". The standard response is that the Galileo statements did not engage the divine protection against error. Statements of roman congregations are not papal acts unless specifically made so, and the Galileo article from the Catholic Encyclopedia says it wasn't. And the assessor's statement that you often refer to is not even an act of a roman congregation.
That's idiotic. NO ONE believes that the sun is the center of the "universe"..
That's idiotic. NO ONE believes that the sun is the center of the "universe".That's not entirely true. I once came across a "geocentrist" model in which the neither the earth nor sun move, the earth rotates, and the sun is at the center with the universe rotating around it. How a geocentrist calls that geocentric remains a bit of a mystery to me, but this model does a better job with some (not all) observational data than the usual geocentric models I've seen.
That's not entirely true. I once came across a "geocentrist" model in which the neither the earth nor sun move, the earth rotates, and the sun is at the center with the universe rotating around it. How a geocentrist calls that geocentric remains a bit of a mystery to me, but this model does a better job with some (not all) observational data than the usual geocentric models I've seen.
And that would be wrong. No, the barycenter is not always within the diameter of the sun. Within the closed context of the solar system, and assuming Newtonian physics, both the sun and the earth orbit the barycenter.Barycenters in our solar system
4. Can anyone name just 1 error that the Dimonds have on faith and morals and back it up with proof? I have been searching for an error for a year now and I can't find anything. I have learned a ton and found that i had erroneous beliefs. They back up everything with proof. Their detractors are numskulls that i have found so far.They assume that anyone who disagrees with their interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus must be of bad will, must reject the doctrine. They cite at one point a Sedevacantist priest denying that the Church teaches that all who are not "formal and visible" members of the Church are damned, and immediately assume that the priest denied Florence (It is at least *possible* that someone *could* be *inside* the Church despite not being a "formal and visible member.") There are all sorts of things like that. All in all, they consider themselves the final arbiters on who is and who is not Catholic. Whereas really that's the Pope, and, if the Sedevacantists are right and we don't have one, nobody has that authority.
The question is, however, whether either of them condemned the doctrine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) ex cathedra (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm). This, it is clear, they never did. As to the decree (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm) of 1616, we have seen that it was issued by the Congregation of the Index, which can raise no difficulty in regard of infallibility (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm), this tribunal being absolutely incompetent to make a dogmatic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm) decree (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm). Nor is the case altered by the fact that the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11581b.htm) approved the Congregation's decision in forma communi, that is to say, to the extent needful for the purpose intended, namely to prohibit the circulation of writings which were judged harmful. The pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11581b.htm) and his assessors (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01799b.htm) may have been wrong in such a judgment, but this does not alter the character of the pronouncement, or convert it into a decree (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm) ex cathedra (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm).
Catholic Encyclopedia: Galileo (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm)
Statements approved in forma communi are statements of the Roman Congregation, not papal acts. To make it a properly papal act, it would need to be approved in forma specifica. It would additionally need to meet the requirements of Vatican I to be ex cathedra.
Particular models can and have been disproven by observation or experiment. Perhaps your model has not, but you haven't presented it.
Now, with regard to the Neptune issue, I have to agree with apollo that this must be addressed. While I acknowledge that God can do whatever He wants it's unlikely that God would regularly violate the laws of physics that He established.
If the earth is completely stationary, and Neptune is as far away from the earth as they scientists say, it would in fact have to be moving faster than the speed of light. I did the math. Speed of light is roughly 670 million MPH. In order for Neptune to make a revolution around the sun in 24 hours, it would have to be moving at 730 million MPH. That's somewhat oversimplified, since using geocentric coordinates, Neptune would be moving around the earth and around the sun ... but the math would still be very close to that. I believe that this demands an answer and cannot just be dismissed as "God's will".
One solution would be that the earth is in fact rotating on its axis.
Another would be that Neptune is not nearly as far away as scientists claim.
Are there any other explanations? I know that speed is relative to distance, and I see some discussion about frame dragging and relativity. Indeed, if I were the size of a speck of dust inside a basketball, if the basketball rotated once per second, that would be a relatively slow speed from the perspective of a man holding the ball, say on the tip of his finger. But based on the unit of measure of that spec-of-dust-sized entity in the middle, the speed that a similar spec of dust on the basketball's surface would in fact be extraordinary ... based on the unit of measure employed by the tiny entity. So I think that there's something to be said for that ... along the lines of what Cassini mentioned about the door hing. When something rotates around an axis, the speed of things at the outer edge is orders of magnitude faster than the speed of things closer to the center. But that speed really is relative to the unit of measure based on size.
I'll keep digging into this.
1. If you have a problem with Neptune, what about the stars? For God to turn the whole universe around in 24 hours is no harder than creating them out of nothing..
2. What are the laws of physics that God must violate?
3. If you start using mere human reasoning to judge the ability of God's creating and Creation (Naturalism) then you have entered dangerous grounds.
4, If God's creation could be proven by science then it would not be an act of faith. We Catholics believe in His Creation on faith alone.
I have shown all on this thread that Vatican I's conditions for an infallible decree of the ordinary magisterium can be applied to the 1616 decree.You may believe that, but you have shown no such thing. However, I'm glad you're identifying it as coming from the ordinary magisterium. As the Church has clearly not taught geocentrism for 200+ years, it is prima facie not a teaching of the ordinary magisterium.
Now, with regard to the Neptune issue, I have to agree with apollo that this must be addressed.Things can go faster than light if space itself is bent. The majority cosmology has the universe expanding, carrying galaxies with it, so at some distance (the Hubble radius, about 14 billion light years) galaxies are moving away at faster than the speed of light. There are cosmologies without space expanding, but they're generally splitting space-time a different way and have odd consequences, like going forward in time moves you in space.
I think this gets close to the core of the problem - Cassini appears to think the universe is not rational (not understandable by reason), and subscribes to some form of Fideism. That's a Protestant concept.If you start using mere human reasoning to judge the ability of God's creating and Creation (Naturalism) then you have entered dangerous grounds.
If God's creation could be proven by science then it would not be an act of faith. We Catholics believe in His Creation on faith alone.
3. We using human reasoning to understand the order in the universe and the laws
which govern the movement of the planets, which leads to the conclusion that it must
be a creation of an intelligent being (proof of God). Does God hate for man to use
telescopes ?
Let's say you had a solar system with a couple dozen extremely massive planets. In such a scenario, it's possible that the barycenter of such a solar system would actually be closer to one of these planets than to the sun ... or even within one of the planets ... despite the fact that no individual planet has more mass than the sun itself. So it's not about the most massive body is stationary while everything else moves.You're thinking the earth is at the barycenter of the universe? A barycenter is a center of mass.
What about the Axis of Evil? There is lots of evidence for Geocentrism. Even mainstream scientists admit there is no way to prove Geocentrism wrong. Also, they haven't been able to design a single experiment which shows that the Earth moves at all. Did you know that?Prolife
How do the Heliocentrists defend that one?
Prolife.
Have you ever seen or heard about Foucault pendulum? It 's a very simple experiment for evidence of earth's rotation.
There are many problems with Geocentrism, however, the most basic problem
does not require any mathematics or telescopes. That is the problem of the
four seasons.
Things can go faster than light if space itself is bent. The majority cosmology has the universe expanding, carrying galaxies with it, so at some distance (the Hubble radius, about 14 billion light years) galaxies are moving away at faster than the speed of light.
Prolife
Have you ever seen or heard about Foucault pendulum? It 's a very simple experiment for evidence of earth's rotation.
I don't see this as an issue at all. Motion is relative. If the earth can move in relation to the universe, then the universe can move in relation to the earth. As even modern non-geocentrist physicists admit, neither of these can be considered more or less right than the other..
And physicists STILL HAVE NO CLUE about how gravity can "act at a distance". It's an unsolved mystery of science. How can the mass of one body tug on the mass of another body without some medium of connectivity?.
You can actually build a smaller version of the pendulum yourself with minor twicks and see the results by yourself. You will find them in science project webpages.
Yes, actually many on CathInfo, and perhaps everyone following this thread, have head about the infamous Foucault Pendulum. Here is a good article for your viewing edification: https://savageplane.wordpress.com/2016/11/27/is-foucaults-fraudulent-pendulum-a-religious-tool/ (https://savageplane.wordpress.com/2016/11/27/is-foucaults-fraudulent-pendulum-a-religious-tool/)
Yes, actually many on CathInfo, and perhaps everyone following this thread, have head about the infamous Foucault Pendulum. Here is a good article for your viewing edification: https://savageplane.wordpress.com/2016/11/27/is-foucaults-fraudulent-pendulum-a-religious-tool/ (https://savageplane.wordpress.com/2016/11/27/is-foucaults-fraudulent-pendulum-a-religious-tool/).
.
It's called gravitational force. We can measure it with scales. We can observe it with telescopes.
Watch the Moon go around the Earth. If we can observe it, then it's happening. We can even
calculate the universal gravitational constant that applies to all bodies in the universe.
.
We also don't understand how God created the universe from nothing, but we can see it.
.
Do Geocentrists say that the universe does not exist because we don't understand how it
could be created from nothing ? No, but they do that with gravity.
Sorry, but if you can't explain how or why something works, then you cannot predict how it will work in all situations and in different circuмstances. SOMETHING seems to be happening, and this something can be measured. But we don't know WHAT is happening and whether it would measure the same in every context. Scientists themselves admit that they cannot explain how gravity can act at a distance. If that's the case, then we don't even know if it's gravity, per se, that's keeping the planets in their orbits or some other force. Science is nothing but a circular set of assumptions and unproven premises..
Sorry, but if you can't explain how or why something works, then you cannot predict how it will work in all situations and in different circuмstances. SOMETHING seems to be happening, and this something can be measured. But we don't know WHAT is happening and whether it would measure the same in every context. Scientists themselves admit that they cannot explain how gravity can act at a distance. If that's the case, then we don't even know if it's gravity, per se, that's keeping the planets in their orbits or some other force. Science is nothing but a circular set of assumptions and unproven premises..
How do Geocentrists explain why the Sun is orbiting the Earth and NOT
orbiting Jupiter.
.
And here is the sum total of the scientific evidence given on that web page:
.
"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."
Because earth is at the barycenter of the universe and the only object that can be said to be still and not in motion. Consequently, everything else is in motion relative to the earth's position. God designed it that way..
Mama mia! Tell me it ain't so. Apollo, do you actually believe, like so many grade schoolers and others do, that the Foucault Pendulum PROVES the Earth is spinning around on its axis?.
Because earth is at the barycenter of the universe and the only object that can be said to be still and not in motion. Consequently, everything else is in motion relative to the earth's position. God designed it that way..
Because earth is ... the only object that can be said to be still and not in motion..
Because earth is at the barycenter of the universe and the only object that can be said to be still and not in motion. Consequently, everything else is in motion relative to the earth's position. God designed it that way.The barycenter is a center of mass that objects orbit. It is not a point of force equilibrium.
And there is no observational support for the earth being at the barycenter of the universe either.
And there's no observational evidence against it either. There's nothing to preclude the earth being the barycenter of the universe. So it reduces to a question of faith.A question of faith with no support from the Deposit of Faith either. As far as I know, Scripture and Tradition say nothing about barycenters.
And there's no observational evidence against it either. There's nothing to preclude the earth being the barycenter of the universe. So it reduces to a question of faith..
A question of faith with no support from the Deposit of Faith either. As far as I know, Scripture and Tradition say nothing about barycenters.
.
That's your basic most often used argument. Nobody can prove anything, so it's a matter of Faith.
You try to destroy all science and all mathematics and make up magic forces and a magic barycenter.
That's because you cannot understand the science and math. So, God did it the way you want it
to be.
.
The barycenter argument is garbage. I explained why. You don't respond to my argument because
you don't have a good answer. More magic and invisible unmeasurable forces are all you have.
.
You refuse to watch the videos I mentioned, because you can't understand them.
If you ever come up with an answer to my challenges, I will respond. Until then, I'm not wasting any
more time on this.
.
.
1. Did you use human reasoning to figure this out ? If so, you violated #3. There are
some things that God cannot do. He cannot make a square circle. He cannot make dry
water. And scientists think He cannot make something go faster than the speed of light,
and especially not 6,000,000 times the speed of light (the Andromeda galaxy). If He does,
then say good bye to the concept of laws governing the universe.
.
You refuse to watch the videos I mentioned, because you can't understand them.
'Scientists think God cannot make things go faster than the speed of light?' I would say that is heresy, wouldn't you?
.
Where did you get this ? Because you cannot sit on Mars and watch the Earth move ?
.
No, I believe that the Andromeda galaxy is going 6,000,000 times the speed of light, circling the Earth once
every 24 hours.
.
Sheeh, did you think I was still in grade school ?
3. We using human reasoning to understand the order in the universe and the laws
which govern the movement of the planets, which leads to the conclusion that it must
be a creation of an intelligent being (proof of God). Does God hate for man to use
telescopes ?
.
4. Heliocentrists do not judge the act of creation. They discover the laws of the
universe and apply them to figure out what is orbiting what.
.
Geocentrists do not understand the laws of the universe and are forced to say "God
can do it", or it's "An act of Faith". Geocentrists cannot even explain why we have
seasons. "God does it somehow" is just not good enough for scientists and
astronomers.
.
If you need to put a satellite in orbit, that remains stationary over Dallas, TX, then
you must understand a few of the laws of the universe to accomplish it. You can't
expect God to do it for you.
.
Geocentrism is NOT a dogma of the Catholic Faith. See the decree of 1822, which
forbids the condemnation of Heliocentrism. Sorry, but the decree of 1633 was not
an infallible decree and the church fathers were not astronomers.
.
The original problem with Galileo was not Heliocentrism, it was his idea that Scripture
could be in error on scientific things. However, Scripture says nothing about the
Earth being in the center of the universe or solar system. The word "center" is NOT
in the Bible. The word "universe" is not in the Bible. Sorry.
:o
1. There are some things that God cannot do. ... And scientists think He cannot make something go faster than the speed of light, and especially not 6,000,000 times the speed of light (the Andromeda galaxy).
.The Bible says, in several passages, the earth does NOT MOVE.
OK, throw out argument #2 and let the Earth rotate.
FU2, asshole.Is this kind of thing okay with our mods here now?
You have proved nothing,
Find me a larger body that orbits a smaller body, asshole, or shut up.
So, for some of the geocentrists on this thread, do you consider it essential to geocentrism that the earth not move at all, not even rotate around its own axis?Yes, essential because the Bible clearly states the earth does NOT MOVE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiMqzN_YSXU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiMqzN_YSXU)I'm struggling to get thru the video...it's pretty bad.
A video full of great bits of scientific facts that prove intelligent design and God's incredible intelligence and glory.
.The Bible.
Where did you get this ?
Yes, essential because the Bible clearly states the earth does NOT MOVE.
Day and night are not caused by rotation of earth because earth does NOT MOVE.
Day and night are caused by the sun traversing across the sky from east to west in a 24 hour cycle each day.
If the earth moves, it will be as punishment.Indeed, and this is promised in the Book of Apocalypse: an earthquake as never has been and never shall be again.
ISAIAH 24:
I'm still very much open to the flat earth position but am not yet 100% convinced.Alright, alright, alright... :cheers: