Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10

Author Topic: Amazing Scientific Evidence for God  (Read 32095 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline cassini

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4124
  • Reputation: +3411/-275
  • Gender: Male
Re: Amazing Scientific Evidence for God
« Reply #60 on: July 08, 2019, 02:46:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: forlorn on July 08, 2019, 02:35:08 PM
    Cassini, which model of geocentrism do you adhere to and how does it explain Stellar Parallax?

         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. 

    Logged

    Offline apollo

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +356/-248
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Amazing Scientific Evidence for God
    « Reply #61 on: July 08, 2019, 02:48:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on July 08, 2019, 12:56:42 PM
    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.
    .
    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.  See those two pages I provided a link to.  But you reject those two
    pages, because you don't like them.  Prove them wrong, instead.
    .
    If the Earth cannot claim to be the center of our solar system, then it's a Heliocentric solar
    system, and extremely unlikely that the Earth can claim to be the center of the universe, when
    all the planets in our solar system are orbiting the Sun and not the Earth.  
    .
    Logged

    Offline cassini

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4124
    • Reputation: +3411/-275
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Amazing Scientific Evidence for God
    « Reply #62 on: July 08, 2019, 02:52:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on July 08, 2019, 12:38:28 PM
    Really, one of the issues most people in the geocentric vs. heliocentric debate seem to gloss over is ...

    WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF "CENTER"?

    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. 
    Logged

    Offline apollo

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +356/-248
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Amazing Scientific Evidence for God
    « Reply #63 on: July 08, 2019, 02:59:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Stellar Parallax is an advanced topic, so why not use a simple method to disprove Geocentrism.
    THE SEASONS.  Geocentrism cannot explain the seasons, unless the whole universe is allowed to
    move up and down 74 million miles in an arc, every year. 
    .
    This video explains it much better that I can with words.  Caution there is one case of almost bad
    language and a few anti-Catholic comments, but the science is good.  If you can prove it wrong,
    please do so.  
    .

    .
    I said prove it wrong.  I did not say call it nonsense.  I'll be waiting for your proof.
    This is just the first video in a series of 10.  If you cannot prove this one wrong, it unlikely you'll
    be able to prove the more advanced ones wrong.

    Logged

    Offline apollo

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +356/-248
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Amazing Scientific Evidence for God
    « Reply #64 on: July 08, 2019, 03:11:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: cassini on July 08, 2019, 02:30:36 PM
    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.
    .
    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."
    Logged

    Offline ProLife

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 48
    • Reputation: +21/-11
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Amazing Scientific Evidence for God
    « Reply #65 on: July 08, 2019, 03:13:30 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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?
    Logged

    Offline apollo

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +356/-248
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Amazing Scientific Evidence for God
    « Reply #66 on: July 08, 2019, 03:14:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: cassini on July 08, 2019, 02:46:06 PM
        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.
    .
    If you don't mind, please prove this video wrong.
    .

    Logged

    Offline apollo

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +356/-248
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Amazing Scientific Evidence for God
    « Reply #67 on: July 08, 2019, 03:21:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: ProLife on July 08, 2019, 03:13:30 PM
    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?
    .
    Perhaps you should watch a video and see that you have been fed a ton of BS.
    Logged

    Offline ProLife

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 48
    • Reputation: +21/-11
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Amazing Scientific Evidence for God
    « Reply #68 on: July 08, 2019, 03:45:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • I recommend two videos for everyone here:
    1. Galileo was Wrong
    2. The Principle
    Logged

    Offline apollo

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +356/-248
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Amazing Scientific Evidence for God
    « Reply #69 on: July 08, 2019, 04:07:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ProLife on July 08, 2019, 03:45:47 PM
    I recommend two videos for everyone here:
    1. Galileo was Wrong
    2. The Principle
    About The Principle.  I watched the trailer.  It claims that the Earth is a special place,
    because it's not barren like the other planets.  This is true, but this does not mean
    that the Earth is the center of the universe, nor does it support Geocentrism.  The
    Earth can still be a special place in a Heliocentric solar system.
    .
    About Galileo Was Wrong.  Dr Sungenis is not a Dr of astronomy.  He even admits
    that our solar system follows the laws of Newtonian celestial mechanics. Then he
    goes off into la-la land and says there is Aether or Ether which is invisible and
    unmeasurable and has friction to hold onto the planets and stars but not to hold
    onto satellites. 
    .
    Logged

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1208
    • Reputation: +530/-486
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Amazing Scientific Evidence for God
    « Reply #70 on: July 08, 2019, 11:33:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ProLife on July 08, 2019, 03:13:30 PM
    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?
    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.

    Since you bring up the "axis of evil": the cosmic microwave background (CMB) has a dipole. Standard physics understands that as the motion of the solar system relative to the CMB. I think geocentrists would have to say the dipole occurs because light from one side of the universe was a little hotter, and the light from the opposite side a little cooler, with a smooth gradient between. (Saying the CMB moves relative to earth is not an option because that would make problems for aspects of light that we know from experiment.) But the CMB dipole also varies yearly. In the standard model this happens because the earth moves relative to the barycenter of the solar system. I really don't know how that would be explained in geocentrism.
    Logged

    Offline cassini

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4124
    • Reputation: +3411/-275
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Amazing Scientific Evidence for God
    « Reply #71 on: July 09, 2019, 05:37:44 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: forlorn on July 08, 2019, 02:35:08 PM
    Cassini, which model of geocentrism do you adhere to and how does it explain Stellar Parallax?

    Just a little catch up Forlorn. I note lots of posts debate Isaac Newton's theory of universal gravity as though it was a proven Law. I find it everywhere. Newton merely advanced a theory for their solar system proposed by the big three in the freemasonic Royal Society of London at the time, Edmond Halley (1656-1742), Robert Hooke, and Christopher Wren (1632-1723). These three had by then conjured up a way to overcome the universal sensory comprehension of geocentrism, by providing a cause for heliocentrism that would suffice; a theory of universal gravitation as a truth and were feeding it to Newton bit-by-bit because they knew that he - engrossed as he was in both the esoteric and exoteric - was the most suitable person around at the time capable of giving their system the scientific ‘credibility’ it needed. Alas in his 1687 book Principia, in proposition 42 he had to admit his theory could also be applied to a geocentric model. But with the freemasons in charge of 'science' since then, that bit of Newton's theory got lost in the post.
     
    My model of geocentrism is Domenico Cassini's, God's astronomer. It is an amended Tychonic model based on Cassinian ovals that are also found in positive electromagnetic effects. I believe that when God created light on Day 1, he filled the universe with elerctromagnetism, light without the sun being one of the effects of electromagnetism.

    Logged

    Offline cassini

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4124
    • Reputation: +3411/-275
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Amazing Scientific Evidence for God
    « Reply #72 on: July 09, 2019, 06:01:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: apollo on July 08, 2019, 03:11:19 PM
    .
    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."

    Apollo, I am not going to spend one minute dealing with stellar parallax as 'proof' for heliocentrism. There is no scientific proof for the order of the universe as any physicist since 1900 will tell you.

    ‘Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption that cannot be proved or disproved by observation.’--Bertrand Russell, quoted in D.D. Sciama's The Unity of the Universe, p.18.

    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.

    Ever hear of the ordinary magisterium? Well here is what Vatican I said in their dogma of infallibility. But first on 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 [the 1616 decree]. The 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.’ [the movement of the sun in Scripture]

    (2) The Promulgation of the Dogma by the teaching authority of the Church. [1616 and 1633] This implies not merely the promulgation of the truth, but also the obligation of the part of the faithful of believing the truth. This 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.’

    ‘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.)

    One of the most important of these ‘helps’ we can say was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office, set up by Pope Paul III in 1542 and later, in 1588, and given more explicit powers by Pope Sixtus V. The function of this body was specifically to maintain and defend the integrity of the faith, to examine and proscribe errors and false doctrines by way of the censorship of books etc., but most of all to combat heresy at the highest level.

    http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Roberts.pdf.

    Logged

    Offline cassini

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4124
    • Reputation: +3411/-275
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Amazing Scientific Evidence for God
    « Reply #73 on: July 09, 2019, 07:18:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Here is a debate between Robert Sungenis and David Palm on the subject under discussion. As we know this subject is mainly one of divine protection of the Catholic Church challenged by a physical denial of scriptural revelation of a geocentric world. The two cannot be separated.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfbFtG6DBtU&feature=youtu.be

    Fast forward to 40 minutes to avoid a lot of talk.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48337
    • Reputation: +28532/-5345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Amazing Scientific Evidence for God
    « Reply #74 on: July 09, 2019, 11:12:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: cassini on July 08, 2019, 02:37:05 PM
    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.

    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?
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10
    « previous next »