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

Author Topic: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists  (Read 29179 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cassini

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3922
  • Reputation: +3102/-275
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
« Reply #150 on: August 20, 2021, 12:20:03 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • In these quotes, they are restating the relativity principle, that the laws of physics are the same to any inertial frame observer. They're saying there is no preferred inherent frame of reference in relativity. That is quite the opposite from support for the geocentrist claim that there is a preferred inherent frame of reference.

    Not so Stanley, for Walter van der Kamp has shown that the Relativity invented by Einstein can be falsified, leaving the result of the M&M test of 1887 a real problem for heliocentrists.

    ‘There had to be an explanation [for the Airy and M&M test result]. Either the Earth was motionless with respect to the ether, or the Earth dragged the ether with it, or something. All possible explanations seemed highly unlikely, and for nearly a quarter of a century, the world of science was completely puzzled. It took a scientific revolution to explain the matter, so that the Michelson-Morley experiment is perhaps the most important “failure” in the history of science.---Isaac Asimov: Chronology of Science & Discovery, p.388.

    Isn't this your position below as stated above?

    ‘We know that the difference between a heliocentric and a geocentric theory is one of motions only, and that such difference has no physical significance…’
    --- Sir Fred Hoyle: Astronomy and Cosmology, 1975, p.416.

    ‘Any object or system of objects (any frame of reference) can be taken with equal validity as being at rest. There is no object, in other words, that is more really ‘at rest’ than any other.’—Isaac Asimov, Understanding Physics, p.249.

    Well Walter put this to the test in his RELATIVITY A BROKEN REED and his booklet The Bradley-Airy-Einstein Syndrome in Astronomy.

    ‘In keeping with this way of thinking Isaac Asimov [and Sir Fred Hoyle above] assure us that in cosmology “any object or system of objects (any frame of reference) can be taken with equal validity as being at rest. There is no object, in other words, that is more really ‘at rest’ than any other. And as far as our Solar System is concerned at first sight there appear to be no problems with this assumption. But what about the stars? It stands to reason that any theory of the cosmos also has to render an account of its predictions with respect to the stars wheeling from East to West around us…. Unbelievable thought it may sound, however, the profession has never paid much attention to the roll of the stars in the economy of the Solar System.’

    Yes, both systems must be able to produce stellar aberration and stellar parallax in a relative way. In other words, when we do the REVERSAL test, both have to comply with stellar aberration and parallax. Now go and try this test of relativity. Yes, parallax is interchangable with both, but try as you can, stellar aberration is not interchangable as cosmologists have claimed for over as century.

    ‘Meditate for a few moments and the truth will dawn on you. Such a single observation, one of momentous importance we have here. According to the ruling relativity it makes with regard to the cosmos that the astronomers observe no physical difference, pontificates Sir Fred Hoyle, whether we declare the universe centered on the sun or the Earth. This profession, you will already have realized, is false. The two universes that this contention envisages could not physically be more different than they are. The Earth-centered one basically requires a Stellatum like that of Antiquity and the Middle-Ages to account for what we “here below” diurnally and annually observe. The never proven, nor provable, gospel of Galileo has in the long run reduced us to little blobs of thinking jelly on a pellet of stardust corkscrewing from somewhere into the nowhere of nothingless. The Sun-centered hypothesis truly “saves the appearance,” but the Earth-centered view only will do this if we re-introduce the Stellatum of yore and arrange the stars in that celestial sphere. A simple observation, but the Einsteinian theories are thereby condemned irrefutably. This, in a manner of speaking, puts us back to square one. That is in the cul-de-sac into which after 1887 classical science [M&M] found itself….
        And I have to stress the irrefutability of my conclusion. For here we have much more than a-by means of experimentation acquired “disproof” that can be overcome by suitable ad hocs. We have a logical and ontological impossibility. The structure of the universe that first-hand observations prompt us to extrapolate from an Earth at rest is totally different from that of a Sun at rest. Relativity maintains that there will be no physical differences between the two. Relativity is therefore wrong and Einstein thereby dethroned.’ --- Walter van der Kamp: The Cosmos… p.34-35.  






    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6791
    • Reputation: +3468/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
    « Reply #151 on: August 20, 2021, 05:05:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 'Of the first day Moses says that “In the beginning God created heaven and Earth.” And before creating intellectual and rational creatures, desiring also the order of executing these works to be most perfect, He created heaven for angels and men, and the Earth as a place of pilgrimage for mortals. These places are so adapted to their end and so perfect that as David says of them, the heavens publish the glory of the Lord, the firmament and the Earth announce the glory of the work of his hands (Ps.18:2)…. Of the Earth Moses says that it was void, which he does not say of the heavens, for God had created the angels at the instant indicated by the word of Moses: “God said: Let there be light, and light was made.” He speaks here not only of material light, but also of the intellectual or angelic lights….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.'  ---  Mary of Agreda: The Mystical City of God.

    Mary of Agreda had a lot of good things to say, but do her visions replace and override Scripture?
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29


    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1208
    • Reputation: +530/-484
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
    « Reply #152 on: August 20, 2021, 05:06:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Not so Stanley, for Walter van der Kamp has shown that the Relativity invented by Einstein can be falsified, leaving the result of the M&M test of 1887 a real problem for heliocentrists.
    You were misrepresenting quotes. Now you introduce yet another new topic.

    Of course relativity can be falsified, it makes predictions. So what?

    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4125
    • Reputation: +2431/-528
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
    « Reply #153 on: August 20, 2021, 05:33:37 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    The shape of the Earth as seen on the moon during an eclipse is always a full sphere.
    The Earth is a sphere, which includes all things above and below the LAND.  Why cannot the LAND itself, be flat?
    .
    I don't think I understand your point. The planet we live in, i.e. the hard mass that we call the earth, is a certain shape. I (and many others) believe the shape to be basically a sphere. There are people here saying it is more like a disc. It can't be both, right?
    .

    Quote
    If it's possible to view the earth from afar, it has to have some shape, doesn't it?  A sphere, a block, a rectangle?

    .
    Yes. It is spherical. It casts shadows on the moon during a lunar eclipse, from numerous different angles, and the shadow it casts is always round. A sphere is the only shape capable of doing that.
    .

    Quote
    We know that hell is UNDER the earth and heaven is above it.  Don't these things add to the shape of the "flat land" to create a sphere?  I don't see why not.

    .
    Hell is traditionally believed to be in the center of the earth. In Scripture, in the book of Numbers, I believe, some evil people were destroyed by the earth opening up beneath them and them falling into it. I don't think the Church has an official teaching on this, but it's a pretty common belief.
    .

    Quote
    Ultimately, "flat earth" is an incorrect term.  We should call it "flat land" theory.

    .
    I don't understand the difference between those two terms?

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12529
    • Reputation: +7965/-2458
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
    « Reply #154 on: August 20, 2021, 06:00:38 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • "Flat land" means that the "terra firma" part that we walk on, i.e. land, is flat.  The oceans' surfaces, which conform to "sea level" according to our "flat land" would also be flat.  
    .
    But below us, is the rest of the earth/hell (which also includes the caverns of the oceans, in some parts of the world), which is very deep and not flat.  Above the "flat land" is also the firmament, clouds, earthly heavens, i.e. atmosphere, which is also not flat.
    .
    So, the earth's land is flat.  But the earth itself (including the center/hell and atmosphere/heaven), is a sphere.


    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8304
    • Reputation: +4718/-754
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
      • Twitter
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
    « Reply #155 on: August 20, 2021, 06:01:29 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • I don't understand the difference between those two terms?
    It tries to maintain the consistencies apparent with evidence for a spherical earth with those finding of adherents to the flat earth. So, the land itself (including the oceans, ice shelf, etc.) make up one concentric disk enclosed within a sort of "glass globe" which is the firmament. The heavens being in the "upper hemisphere" of the firmament, and hell (the underworld) being beneath the land-disk in the "lower hemisphere". Not unlike ancient depictions of the earth:

    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." [Ecclus. 7:40]

    "A holy man continueth in wisdom as the sun: but a fool is changed as the moon." [Ecclus. 27:12]

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12529
    • Reputation: +7965/-2458
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
    « Reply #156 on: August 20, 2021, 06:06:03 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • DigitalLogos, thank you for the pictures.  I'm not a scientist by nature, nor am I very gifted in such studies, by logically, I don't see why a "flat land" and "sphere earth" cannot co-exist.  To me, it seems that the term "flat earth" lacks proper distinctions, which is a curse of modern society.  
    .
    Most *apparent* contradictions can be cured using proper distinctions.

    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8304
    • Reputation: +4718/-754
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
      • Twitter
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
    « Reply #157 on: August 20, 2021, 06:30:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • DigitalLogos, thank you for the pictures.  I'm not a scientist by nature, nor am I very gifted in such studies, by logically, I don't see why a "flat land" and "sphere earth" cannot co-exist.  To me, it seems that the term "flat earth" lacks proper distinctions, which is a curse of modern society.  
    .
    Most *apparent* contradictions can be cured using proper distinctions.
    Oh yes, I agree. That's why I'm enjoying this discussion. To me, if we are at all to entertain the idea of a flat earth, we still must take into account those things which are contrary to such a thesis (such as shadows on the moon, et al). 
    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." [Ecclus. 7:40]

    "A holy man continueth in wisdom as the sun: but a fool is changed as the moon." [Ecclus. 27:12]


    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4125
    • Reputation: +2431/-528
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
    « Reply #158 on: August 20, 2021, 06:34:44 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Oh yes, I agree. That's why I'm enjoying this discussion. To me, if we are at all to entertain the idea of a flat earth, we still must take into account those things which are contrary to such a thesis (such as shadows on the moon, et al).
    .
    I've mentioned Aristotle's proof that the earth is round based on the fact that it always casts a round shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse about six times so far in this thread and not one person has responded to it yet.
    .
    Any of you flatties want to take this and run with it? :popcorn:

    Offline Hermes

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 971
    • Reputation: +401/-63
    • Gender: Male
    • Ollo vae
      • Patristics
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
    « Reply #159 on: August 20, 2021, 06:43:35 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • O Fortuna
    Velut luna

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12529
    • Reputation: +7965/-2458
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
    « Reply #160 on: August 20, 2021, 06:44:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    I've mentioned Aristotle's proof that the earth is round based on the fact that it always casts a round shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse about six times so far in this thread and not one person has responded to it yet.

    Can the spherical firmament not cast a shadow?  That is, the mass of clouds, moisture, etc.  It could be denser than we think.
    .
    I can barely spell Pythagoras, so plenty of 3rd graders are more scientific minded than I.  But...there are plenty of proofs that the earth 1) does not spin and 2) has a flat land mass...so...I wonder if there is a 3rd conclusion between the stupid-either-or possibilities of flat earth vs round earth.


    Offline Miser Peccator

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4351
    • Reputation: +2041/-458
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
    « Reply #161 on: August 20, 2021, 07:45:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I start to get lost when trying to talk about eclipses and such.

    Here are some videos which explain the FE point of view on that:

    https://www.youtube.com/c/DITRH/search?query=eclipse
    I exposed AB Vigano's public meetings with Crowleyan Satanist Dugin so I ask protection on myself family friends priest, under the Blood of Jesus Christ and mantle of the Blessed Virgin Mary! If harm comes to any of us may that embolden the faithful to speak out all the more so Catholics are not deceived.



    [fon

    Offline Marion

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1866
    • Reputation: +759/-1166
    • Gender: Male
    • sedem ablata
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
    « Reply #162 on: August 21, 2021, 10:59:45 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • That meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church. (Dei Filius)

    Offline Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6882
    • Reputation: +3852/-406
    • Gender: Male
    • Love God and Play, Do Good Work and Pray
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
    « Reply #163 on: August 21, 2021, 11:10:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The firmament makes it confusing. And the waters above the firmament. This makes it seem like the sun and moon cannot be millions of miles away but must be closer to the earth inside the firmament. Then above the sun and moon is the firmament, and above the firmament is vast amounts of water and above the water heaven. The stars and planets are inside the firmament and it is an optical illusion that when we look at them with telescopes they seem like they are far away. Otherwise, where and what is the firmament? The Bible speaks of it. Was that a falsehood? I always pictured the firmament as being a sphere around the round earth above the atmosphere. I have heard prots say that the firmament was destroyed during the great flood, and the water that came down as rain was the waters above the firmament falling down, so now there is no longer a firmament. They also say the sun was above the firmament and the firmament used to protect us from the sun's radiation, which is why people used to live to be nine hundred years old and now they usually die before one hundred.
    R.I.P.
    Please pray for the repose of my soul.

    Offline Romulus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 515
    • Reputation: +311/-61
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists
    « Reply #164 on: August 21, 2021, 11:19:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The firmament makes it confusing. And the waters above the firmament. This makes it seem like the sun and moon cannot be millions of miles away but must be closer to the earth inside the firmament. Then above the sun and moon is the firmament, and above the firmament is vast amounts of water and above the water heaven. The stars and planets are inside the firmament and it is an optical illusion that when we look at them with telescopes they seem like they are far away. Otherwise, where and what is the firmament? The Bible speaks of it. Was that a falsehood? I always pictured the firmament as being a sphere around the round earth above the atmosphere. I have heard prots say that the firmament was destroyed during the great flood, and the water that came down as rain was the waters above the firmament falling down, so now there is no longer a firmament. They also say the sun was above the firmament and the firmament used to protect us from the sun's radiation, which is why people used to live to be nine hundred years old and now they usually die before one hundred.
    It might refer to the layers of clouds, clouds being evaporated water