What am I looking for ?



I notice at the top of the page it bills itself as

"One of the most heated debates of the century!"

Come now?  Really.  There are not at least 1000 things debated with more passion by humans than geocentrism?  Seriously?

Talk about dishonesty.

I saw that and it had the number 8 next to it.  Does that mean it has only been clicked 8 times?

Quote from: Paul9

Quote from: roscoe

E still rev around S.  :detective:

You can't scientifically prove that, can you?

The 2 scientific proofs that E rev around S are Newton& Bradley. This info can be found in von Pastor-- History of Popes v25 pg289

This can be accessed by going to wikipedia & searching von Pastor. Approx 30 of his vols are avail for free.  :detective:

I have seen you post this rubbish before roscoe and thought it must be a joke or that you posted these 'proofs' just to have a little fun. Please, please, let us be friends and try to resolve this honestly.

You use the word 'proof' that the earth moves around the sun. Now even Copernicus knew that 'proof' for any motion between the earth, sun and stars in space is impossible. Newton offered a theory of gravity that suited the heliocentric solar system. That is proof for nothing. Bradley found stellar aberration that the Airy test of 1871 showed WAS PROBABLY CAUSED BY MOVING STARS, not the earth. Einstein found a huge fault in Newton's theory and proposed a theory of his own. Theories do not constitute proofs.

Stephen Hawking wrote: "Any physical theory is always provisional in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it."

So Please roscoe, at least stop this 'proof' business for a start. Geocentrism or heliocentrism is a choice, a preference, one that should take in every consideration.

As a convert to geocentrism, for we were all indoctrinated to be thinking-heliocentrists, I know one has to consider the fact that the Church has a doctrine of geocentrism, and once defined belief in heliocentrism as formal heresy. On this basis alone I chose geocentrism. If my faith in the Catholic Church is true, then it will never be 'proven' wrong.

A careful study of the so-called proofs for H and the subsequent evidence for G showed me that G cannot be falsified no matter what they conjure up. All the evidence now shows G is better supported by science that H. The Cosmic Microwave Radiation as shown in THE PRINCIPLE further supports the Church's doctrine on geocentrism.

Then there is the history of the appearance and rise of the heliocentric model. It is vast with its scientific assertions and its religious opposition. By 1905 science was admitting no proofs for either exist and more theories were promoted to try to undermine the real scientific evidence that the earth is motionless.

Geocentrism points to a created universe, heliocentrism lends itself to a no-God scenario. That is the difference.

By all means roscoe close you mind to the scientific history of heliocentrism that has been evidenced out of sight, but think again when offering proofs for it under your name.

In today's edition (378) of Eleison Comments, Bishop Williamson wrote, "Traditional Catholics are liable to scorn both today’s world as irredeemably lost, and world literature as irredeemably 'unspiritual,' and the Faith of many of them has become quite detached from reality in the process."

His Excellency may have been writing about literature, but his last clause, "the Faith of many [Traditional Catholics] has become quite detached from reality in the process," ought to be placed as an epigraph at the head of this thread.

Incidentally, it's become easy to spot the few sensible comments—the ones where utter ignorance is not proudly worn as a badge of honor—in this and all the other Geocentrism Is an Article of Faith threads: they are greeted with a hailstorm of down thumbs.

Sorry Claudel, I have not a clue what exactly you are trying to say.

Incidentally, it's become easy to spot the few sensible comments—the ones where utter ignorance is not proudly worn as a badge of honor—in this and all the other Geocentrism Is an Article of Faith threads: they are greeted with a hailstorm of down thumbs.

Ay, we're just living up to the example of Socrates, that hero of world literature who never allowed his mind to become detached from reality through the insinuations of the sophist intelligentsia, the kind that would claim that they know the system of the heavenly bodies for certain because they've done some calculations and measurements.

You should read this book by Charles Fort, an American eccentric who was something like an American Socrates. He called himself a "negative genius", which is what Socrates was. In this book he recounts a lot of astronomical data and lampoons the modern astronomers for their wild assumptions and assertions.

http://sacred-texts.com/fort/land/index.htm

He offers an alternative cosmology: the sky is a solid, revolving dome and the stars are holes in this dome through which light from a "higher existence" flows through. He wasn't a religious man at all, I believe, which is funny because this model of his (which I think he meant partly as a jest, being an avid "skeptic" and "negative genius") is close to the ancient Hebrew cosmology.

.....and E continues to rev around S....