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 Archbishop Lefebvre (SSPX)  (Read 2955 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline apollo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 689
  • Reputation: +353/-246
  • Gender: Male
Re: Fr Paul Robinson (SSPX) V Archbishop Lefebvre (SSPX)
« Reply #15 on: December 18, 2018, 02:02:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • I would strongly recommend you take ether/aether 101.


    And I strongly suggest you take Air 101.  Air is not ether.  And that Air is going only 500 MPH, unless the wind is blowing.
    Do you realize what it means: "A million times the speed of light" ?
    You think air is ether ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

    Can you even calculate how fast the moon is traveling in orbit around the Earth?
    Assume its average distance from the Earth is 250,000 miles, and do the computation.  
    What is the answer?




    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2307
    • Reputation: +1344/-235
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson (SSPX) V Archbishop Lefebvre (SSPX)
    « Reply #16 on: December 18, 2018, 02:50:04 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • And I strongly suggest you take Air 101.  Air is not ether.  And that Air is going only 500 MPH, unless the wind is blowing.
    Do you realize what it means: "A million times the speed of light" ?
    You think air is ether ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

    Can you even calculate how fast the moon is traveling in orbit around the Earth?
    Assume its average distance from the Earth is 250,000 miles, and do the computation.  
    What is the answer?
    OK.  Calm down -- no need to overwhelm me with smiley faces.  Yes, I do know a thing or two about air.  As a matter of fact, I know that the air is permeated by the ether/aether at presumably planck dimensions.  So...now I am assigning you to take a course in planck size and to see it in the context of the ether/aether which paradoxically is incredibly dense while being incredibly fluid at the same time.


    Offline apollo

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +353/-246
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson (SSPX) V Archbishop Lefebvre (SSPX)
    « Reply #17 on: December 18, 2018, 03:02:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • OK.  Calm down -- no need to overwhelm me with smiley faces.  Yes, I do know a thing or two about air.  As a matter of fact, I know that the air is permeated by the ether/aether at presumably planck dimensions.  So...now I am assigning you to take a course in planck size and to see it in the context of the ether/aether which paradoxically is incredibly dense while being incredibly fluid at the same time.
    I'm calm now, sorry.  I'm not interested in fictional substances, such as "ether".
    Solid and fluid and invisible.  This is off topic anyway. 

    The topic is how fast is the Moon traveling ?  And then how fast is the farthest star moving? 
    Then show how anything can travel faster than the speed of light. 

    Ether is a Disneyland substance, which belongs in the Wizard of Oz.  
    Either is a substance outside of the realm of science, so your proof fails.
    Magic substances prove nothing. 

    See ... Geocentrism is sooooooo complicated that you have to invent magical
    things to make it work.
     
    Heliocentrism is so simple, no magic required.  


    Offline apollo

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +353/-246
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson (SSPX) V Archbishop Lefebvre (SSPX)
    « Reply #18 on: December 18, 2018, 04:51:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • I looked at Geocentrism.com.  I found some lies there, mostly over simplifications of the
    Sun's and Earth's motion relative to each other, saying that either could orbit the other.
    This ignore the gravitational force of each or considers them equal.  They are not equal.

    More later, if people show more interest in this topic.  Actually, it seems to have been
    beat to death and people have lost interest. 

    I found GeocentrismDebunked.org (http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/).
    to much more realistic and informative without magic substances.

    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2307
    • Reputation: +1344/-235
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson (SSPX) V Archbishop Lefebvre (SSPX)
    « Reply #19 on: December 18, 2018, 07:31:33 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'm calm now, sorry.  I'm not interested in fictional substances, such as "ether".
    Solid and fluid and invisible.  This is off topic anyway.  

    The topic is how fast is the Moon traveling ?  And then how fast is the farthest star moving?  
    Then show how anything can travel faster than the speed of light.  

    Ether is a Disneyland substance, which belongs in the Wizard of Oz.  
    Either is a substance outside of the realm of science, so your proof fails.
    Magic substances prove nothing.  

    See ... Geocentrism is sooooooo complicated that you have to invent magical
    things to make it work.
     
    Heliocentrism is so simple, no magic required.  

    Do you believe outer space is empty (i.e., a true vacuum) except for planets, stars, asteroids, etc.?  Ether a fictional/magical substance you say?  So what  exactly is dark matter and dark energy, those two items which the scientists tell us constitute most of the universe, but have not actually been observed.  They have simply been theorized about!  In effect they are major hyped up fudge factors to keep their Big Bang model in place.  You don't believe me -- well read the lines or between the lines in this article from that "all knowing/all truthful" U.S. Government entity known as NASA.  As you can see our scientific elite are still scratching their heads big time. https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

    Dark Energy, Dark Matter
    In the early 1990s, one thing was fairly certain about the expansion of the universe. It might have enough energy density to stop its expansion and recollapse, it might have so little energy density that it would never stop expanding, but gravity was certain to slow the expansion as time went on. Granted, the slowing had not been observed, but, theoretically, the universe had to slow. The universe is full of matter and the attractive force of gravity pulls all matter together. Then came 1998 and the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations of very distant supernovae that showed that, a long time ago, the universe was actually expanding more slowly than it is today. So the expansion of the universe has not been slowing due to gravity, as everyone thought, it has been accelerating. No one expected this, no one knew how to explain it. But something was causing it.

    Eventually theorists came up with three sorts of explanations. Maybe it was a result of a long-discarded version of Einstein's theory of gravity, one that contained what was called a "cosmological constant." Maybe there was some strange kind of energy-fluid that filled space. Maybe there is something wrong with Einstein's theory of gravity and a new theory could include some kind of field that creates this cosmic acceleration. Theorists still don't know what the correct explanation is, but they have given the solution a name. It is called dark energy.
    What Is Dark Energy?

    More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the universe.

    Universe Dark Energy-1 Expanding Universe
    This diagram reveals changes in the rate of expansion since the universe's birth 15 billion years ago. The more shallow the curve, the faster the rate of expansion. The curve changes noticeably about 7.5 billion years ago, when objects in the universe began flying apart as a faster rate. Astronomers theorize that the faster expansion rate is due to a mysterious, dark force that is pulling galaxies apart.
    Credit: NASA/STSci/Ann Feild

    One explanation for dark energy is that it is a property of space. Albert Einstein was the first person to realize that empty space is not nothing. Space has amazing properties, many of which are just beginning to be understood. The first property that Einstein discovered is that it is possible for more space to come into existence. Then one version of Einstein's gravity theory, the version that contains a cosmological constant, makes a second prediction: "empty space" can possess its own energy. Because this energy is a property of space itself, it would not be diluted as space expands. As more space comes into existence, more of this energy-of-space would appear. As a result, this form of energy would cause the universe to expand faster and faster. Unfortunately, no one understands why the cosmological constant should even be there, much less why it would have exactly the right value to cause the observed acceleration of the universe.

    Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation
    This image shows the distribution of dark matter, galaxies, and hot gas in the core of the merging galaxy cluster Abell 520. The result could present a challenge to basic theories of dark matter.

    Another explanation for how space acquires energy comes from the quantum theory of matter. In this theory, "empty space" is actually full of temporary ("virtual") particles that continually form and then disappear. But when physicists tried to calculate how much energy this would give empty space, the answer came out wrong - wrong by a lot. The number came out 10120 times too big. That's a 1 with 120 zeros after it. It's hard to get an answer that bad. So the mystery continues.

    Another explanation for dark energy is that it is a new kind of dynamical energy fluid or field, something that fills all of space but something whose effect on the expansion of the universe is the opposite of that of matter and normal energy. Some theorists have named this "quintessence," after the fifth element of the Greek philosophers. But, if quintessence is the answer, we still don't know what it is like, what it interacts with, or why it exists. So the mystery continues.

    A last possibility is that Einstein's theory of gravity is not correct. That would not only affect the expansion of the universe, but it would also affect the way that normal matter in galaxies and clusters of galaxies behaved. This fact would provide a way to decide if the solution to the dark energy problem is a new gravity theory or not: we could observe how galaxies come together in clusters. But if it does turn out that a new theory of gravity is needed, what kind of theory would it be? How could it correctly describe the motion of the bodies in the Solar System, as Einstein's theory is known to do, and still give us the different prediction for the universe that we need? There are candidate theories, but none are compelling. So the mystery continues.
    The thing that is needed to decide between dark energy possibilities - a property of space, a new dynamic fluid, or a new theory of gravity - is more data, better data.

    What Is Dark Matter?
    By fitting a theoretical model of the composition of the universe to the combined set of cosmological observations, scientists have come up with the composition that we described above, ~68% dark energy, ~27% dark matter, ~5% normal matter. What is dark matter?
    We are much more certain what dark matter is not than we are what it is. First, it is dark, meaning that it is not in the form of stars and planets that we see. Observations show that there is far too little visible matter in the universe to make up the 27% required by the observations. Second, it is not in the form of dark clouds of normal matter, matter made up of particles called baryons. We know this because we would be able to detect baryonic clouds by their absorption of radiation passing through them. Third, dark matter is not antimatter, because we do not see the unique gamma rays that are produced when antimatter annihilates with matter. Finally, we can rule out large galaxy-sized black holes on the basis of how many gravitational lenses we see. High concentrations of matter bend light passing near them from objects further away, but we do not see enough lensing events to suggest that such objects to make up the required 25% dark matter contribution.

    Abell 2744: Pandora's Cluster Revealed
    One of the most complicated and dramatic collisions between galaxy clusters ever seen is captured in this new composite image of Abell 2744. The blue shows a map of the total mass concentration (mostly dark matter).

    However, at this point, there are still a few dark matter possibilities that are viable. Baryonic matter could still make up the dark matter if it were all tied up in brown dwarfs or in small, dense chunks of heavy elements. These possibilities are known as massive compact halo objects, or "MACHOs". But the most common view is that dark matter is not baryonic at all, but that it is made up of other, more exotic particles like axions or WIMPS (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles).

    Dark Matter Goes Missing in Oddball Galaxy
    Researchers were surprised when they uncovered galaxy NGC 1052-DF2 which is missing most, if not all, of its dark matter.

    ********************************************************************************************************

    You seem to have a penchant for some rather arbitrary assertions concerning ether.  Do you have any quotes from eminent scientists who say more or less in your own words that, "Ether is a Disneyland substance, which belongs in the Wizard of Oz?"

    That you claim that, "Geocentrism is sooooooo complicated that you have to invent magical things to make it work" would certainly appear to reflect on the state of your knowledge regarding geocentrism.


    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2307
    • Reputation: +1344/-235
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson (SSPX) V Archbishop Lefebvre (SSPX)
    « Reply #20 on: December 18, 2018, 07:48:08 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I found GeocentrismDebunked.org (http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/).
    to much more realistic and informative without magic substances.

    Since you like geocentrismdebunked.org, I suggest (if you are open minded) you read the July 2018 debate held between David Palm whose website that is and Robert Sungenis, a biblical based and scientific based geocentrist found here: https://gwwdvd.com/2018/08/02/debate-on-geocentrism-david-palm-dp-versus-robert-sungenis-rs-july-2018/

    Before you give up on geocentrism, I would hope that you could review some of the material here as well: http://galileowaswrong.com/

    Offline apollo

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +353/-246
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson (SSPX) V Archbishop Lefebvre (SSPX)
    « Reply #21 on: December 19, 2018, 01:37:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • I must say that you have good responses to my arguments and seem to be knowledgeable of what's on the internet.

    After reading 4 pages of the debate between RS and DP, I think that DP is winning the debate.
    I'm not so knowledgeable of the physics side of this debate.  I'm familiar with the math side of it, though.

    Sungenis claims that, in the Heliocentric system, the planets would slow down because of the friction they
    encounter in space.  What friction?  Space as we know it is a vacuum.  He obviously does not accept vacuum,
    be he imagines "ether", which we cannot see or measure or explain logically (liquid, gassious, vaccuum and solid,
    invisible, etc).  Right.

    I did not find any explanation for how the distant stars can travel at one million times the speed of light. That is
    the mathematical question he does not answer.  And that is the mathematical PROBLEM with Geocentrism. 

    I don't think it's worth the time to continue this debate, since the number of view is less than 600.  It would
    mostly be:  "Sungenis says versus mathematics says" and nobody will give in to the other side. 

    I for myself will stick with the mathematics and the view of the universe that we see by observation:

    1. All planets orbit larger bodies (stars).
    2. All planets rotate.
    3. No planets slow down and crash into stars.

    There might be a few exceptions, very few.
    But the Earth?  Why should the Earth not conform to the
    mathematics of the universe (the order in the universe) like
    all the other planets do (millions of them)?

    I don't care what Sungenis says, unless he gets out of his
    science fiction mindset.

    Think what you like ... I do.


    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3291
    • Reputation: +2076/-236
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson (SSPX) V Archbishop Lefebvre (SSPX)
    « Reply #22 on: December 19, 2018, 02:59:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This debate about Fr Robinson vs Ab Lefebvre is like comparing apples to oranges (IMHO). I don't think you can find anything that Ab Lefebvre wrote about Geocentrism or the Big Bangtheory.  Ab Lefebvre was mostly concerned about the modernism in the Catholic Faith as Pope Pius X dealt with in Pascendi. You might make a stretch and say that Geocentrism pertains to the Faith, but that's a long stretch.  That being said, I think Geocentrism vs Heliocentrism is especially important when trying to convert modern man to Catholicism.  If you tell modern man that the Bible teaches Geocentrism, you have lost a convert.  If you push too hard on that you may even lose some modern Catholics.

    Oh Apollo, you really are a lost cause with your disproof for geocentrism, your total lack of Church history, and in particular where geocentrism fits into the Catholic Church. You are a victim of ‘mind-tricks’ by the Devil and as you are experiencing he is almost impossible to get away from. As a result you have to deny all the Fathers interpretation of Scripture; you have to deny the 1616 decree was papal, binding and irreformable. You have to try to use Augustine and Bellarmine to do this. Then you have to try to ‘prove’ heliocentrism with your scholarship learned in your astronomy and maths class.

       Archbishop Lefebvre once said we must understand Genesis in its simplicity. Geocentrism has been defended by the Fathers since the beginning of the Church, expecially in fighting the Pythagorean heresies for the first 1000 years of the Church. It has been part of the Church in scholastic theology, philosophy, metaphysics, in its society, and in its Catholic prayers. That is called Catholic faith and Tradition and that is what Archbishop Lefebvre had to include in his defence of Tradition.
       As for ‘telling modern man that the Bible teaches Geocentrism, you have lost a convert,’ well you are in good company. From 1741, popes started to believe geocentrism was ‘disproven’ and they too were afraid to insist on the geocentrism of Scripture and Tradition would cause the Church to be the laughing stock of the world and that all those intelligent learned Catholics would fall away from the Church if the dogma was defended.

    Astronomers are certainly not as evil as Freemasons (who want to destroy the Church). Both St Augustine and St Robert Bellarmine, said that if someone proves Heliocentrism, then we will have to say that we misunderstood what the Bible says.  They would never say that kind of thing about the divinity of Christ.  Hence, they did not consider Geocentrism an infallible dogma of the Faith, maybe a teaching of the Church, but not an infallible one.

    Yes, both Augustine and Bellarmine said if there was proof for heliocentrism then theologians would have to rethink what the Bible really says. But you, like the rest, do not go on to say Bellarmine said there IS NO PROOF, nor did he think there would EVER be proof because Solomon said the world is geocentric and he was given this knowledge by God. Bellarmine had faith in every way. As for their not saying the same thing about the divinity of God, well they would have if someone had said they had proof there is no God just as Galileo was saying he had proof for heliocentrism. And as for their not considering ‘Geocentrism an infallible dogma of the Faith.’ Well why would they as that did not happen until 1616, a year after Bellarmine wrote the letter you quote from. Who held the Assumption as a dogma before 1950, Aquinas and Bellarmine didn’t? Finally, I say if there was proof that God did not exist, I would have to believe no God exists. If there is proof of something that is of faith, it was never of faith because one can prove it or not. Geocentrism is of faith for that very reason, it cannot be proven.

    I realize that I hit a nerve with this, so please don't reply with 1,000 lines of text proving it was an infallible decree.  A link or two would suffice.


    The scientific argument interests me, because I studied astronomy and math.  In fact, I wrote a computer program which computes the positions of the planets in our solar system, based on Kepler's third law.  I had a friend who worked for NASA and his job was to write the programs that NASA uses to compute the positions of the planets.  AFAIK, his program is still in use today
     for NASA's space explorations.

    Kepler’s third Law: ‘The squares of the periods of revolution of any two planets are as the cubes of their mean distance from the sun.’ Are you saying that this law proves geocentrism wrong? If you are think again, for this law is as geocentric as it is heliocentric.

    Based on what I know, I can disprove Geocentrism.  The problem is, when I do it, people just laugh at me.  They don't show me where my calculations are in error.  OK, then I would like to see someone else do the calculations and see what results he gets. The problem is, I never see on CathInfo any mention of these calculations by Newton, Gauss, Kepler, by anybody else on CathInfo.  It's always some vague statement by Einstein, such as, there is no proof of Heliocentrism by planetary observation.  Well, there is, but everyone is ignoring it.

    Again Apollo, do not base your faith on Kepler’s false ellipse, Newton’s theory using Kepler’s false ellipse, or Gauss’sd ‘theoretical physics’ proving anything.  If you want to challenge geocentrism on any of the above do so in another thread, like the flat-earth thread, and I will answer you.. This thread is about traditional faith and the SSPX.
     
     So when Casinni mentions scientific proof, I get interested only to find out he is talking about some vague statement, devoid of mathematics and devoid of science. Even Dr Robert Sungenis says that, if we confine our view to only our solar system, Newton and Kepler are correct ... the Heliocentric concept is correct. Then Sungenis moves farther from our solar system and says that "ether" is able to make theGeocentric system correct.  "Ether" is just as vague as Einstein's statement.

    Again Apollo, when I use the word ‘proof’ I deny there is any scientific proof for H or G. There is none so I do not claim it for H or G, so why do I need to give a mathematical statement. There are no maths that prove anything. All there is is evidence, the more for something means that something is more like the truth. “Ether” is part of human reason and science, and was used to try to prove heliocentrism. If it did, then you would be quoting ether as proof that the Earth orbits the sun. But because it showed the Earth does not move, then you and Einstein mneed to get rid of it. I tell you Apollo, as the Bible says, ‘there is nothing new under the sun.’
     
     So, modern science is evil you say.  Well, it's so vague that I can't tell whether it proves anything or not. "Einstein says so" is just not good enough for me.  
     
    Einstein proved nothing, he just told the truth, that science cannot prove how God made the universe. Modern cosmology, uniformitarianism and evolution arte evil because they are fake science and are used to eliminate God from His creation.

    You have got to explain to me how the farthest star from the Earth is going a million times the speed of light to go around the Earth in 24 hours.  Relativity is not a good enough answer.

    That is like saying: ‘Are you telling me God is capable of moving the universe around the Earth every 24 hours?’ Again Apollo you are putting your faith in human reasoning rather that Catholic fasith. Next you will be telling us nobody can feed thousands with a few loaves and fish. Go read St Thomas on the movements of the stars, and tell him he was off his head as science has no time for God or angels.
     
     Then tell my why the North Star never goes around the Earth.  It stays in the same place andall the other stars go around it.  Look up astrophotography of the stars, 10 hour exposure.

    Because the universe is rotating around the earth at its center with the North Pole as top star in its axis. If I could attach a picture I would show you how it is.

     That's all for now.



    Offline apollo

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +353/-246
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson (SSPX) V Archbishop Lefebvre (SSPX)
    « Reply #23 on: December 19, 2018, 04:47:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • To Casinni, KlasG4e and all other Geocentrists.  

    Geocentrism is NOT an article of Faith, NOT an infallible dogma of the Catholic Church.
    But you Geocentrists think it IS.  And you think it's a Traditional teaching.  And that is
    why this topic resides in the Resistance area of CathInfo.

    I'm here to tell the traditionalists, the Resistance and the world that it is NOT an article of Faith,
    backed up by an infallible decree of a pope.  And Paula Haigh claims, that Geocentrism is
    "infallible tradition".  Well "infallible tradition" is a nice thought, but only a thought, not a reality.

    The definition of an Infallible Dogma requires three things:

    1) the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra,
    2) defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals,
    3) to be held by the whole Church.

    Geocentrism does not concern "faith or morals".  End of debate on this.  
    What Pope Paul V did was express his OPINION.  This is debatable.

    What's really funny is that the Geocentrists hold on to their theory with a white-knuckle
    grip, because they want to think the Earth is special (because they are living on it).  
    So to make it look as if it is proved by science, they invent "ether", discover "dark matter",
    and God only know what else.  

    Well, what prevents all this special magical "science" from applying to Mars, Jupiter, or
    Saturn.  NOTHING.  So now, horror of horrors, the Earth is NOT special.  


    If you are standing on Mars, you will see the Sun "come up" in the morning and "go down"
    in the evening.  Same for Jupiter.  Same for Saturn.  Then how does "ether" and "dark matter"
    differentiate from Earth, Mars and Jupiter ?

    The Martians can claim Mars is the center of the universe, by using your "ether" science !!!

    Come on guys ... come up with something new on this subject, and stop repeating the same
    Faith-based arguments.


    Think the Church doctors were so smart?  St. Thomas Aquinas was opposed to the Dogma of
    the Immaculate Conception.  


    I'm still waiting for someone to show me how "ether" or any other force can make a distant
    star travel over one million times the speed of light.  You won't touch this with a ten-foot pole.



    Offline apollo

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +353/-246
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson (SSPX) V Archbishop Lefebvre (SSPX)
    « Reply #24 on: December 19, 2018, 05:07:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Casinni said
    "Kepler’s third Law: ‘The squares of the periods of revolution of any two planets are as the cubes of their mean distance from the sun.’ Are you saying that this law proves geocentrism wrong? If you are think again, for this law is as geocentric as it is heliocentric."

    Nope, not when you include the Gravitational Constant, which is used to compute the gravitational pull of the Sun.  The Sun's mass
    makes the gravitational pull of the Sun far more powerful than the gravitational pull of the Earth.  And besides, that's why we observe
    that NO small object in the universe has a large object orbiting around it.  It is always the small object that orbits around the large object.   Therefore, the Sun cannot orbit around the Earth.  It is scientifically impossible, what you claim.  


    In fact the Sun's gravitational pull is so strong that all the planets are orbiting the Sun.


    Offline apollo

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +353/-246
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson (SSPX) V Archbishop Lefebvre (SSPX)
    « Reply #25 on: December 19, 2018, 05:40:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Casinni said:
    Archbishop Lefebvre once said we must understand Genesis in its simplicity.

    Wow, that really defines Geocentrism.  I'm just blown away. 

    Geocentrism has been defended by the Fathers since the beginning of the Church, expecially in fighting the Pythagorean heresies for the first 1000 years of the Church. It has been part of the Church in scholastic theology, philosophy, metaphysics, in its society, and in its Catholic prayers. That is called Catholic faith and Tradition and that is what Archbishop Lefebvre had to include in his defence of Tradition.

    I missed the word "infallible" somewhere in your text. 
    It's called teaching the current physical properties of the world as the Bible seems to teach it.

    But you forgot the disclaimer given by St Augustine and St Bellarmine.  You always like to
    avoid that one. 


    If you think your condescending attitude toward me is going to scare me, then think again.



    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41857
    • Reputation: +23917/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson (SSPX) V Archbishop Lefebvre (SSPX)
    « Reply #26 on: December 19, 2018, 05:46:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    Now that is a very convincing argument. I cannot argue with that.

    It's about as much rebuttal as your gratuitous assertion that you can prove it false requires ... a gratuitous denial of the same.  Somehow, no one else in the history of science has been able to disprove geocentrism, but you come along and do it.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41857
    • Reputation: +23917/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson (SSPX) V Archbishop Lefebvre (SSPX)
    « Reply #27 on: December 19, 2018, 05:52:22 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I already did.  Forget about the North Star.  It is above the plain of the equator.  That explains it.
    But nobody can explain how the furthest star from the Earth can have a velocity of a million times
    the speed of light.  
    Geocentrism fails because no star can travel a million times the speed of light.

    bzzzzt.  You would do well to take a little course in logic.  This argument has no bearing on geocentrism, but on the notion of an immobile earth.  Earth could rotate on its axis and still be at the center of the universe.  Nice try though.

    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3291
    • Reputation: +2076/-236
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson (SSPX) V Archbishop Lefebvre (SSPX)
    « Reply #28 on: December 20, 2018, 04:23:55 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • To Cassini, KlasG4e and all other Geocentrists.  

    Geocentrism is NOT an article of Faith, NOT an infallible dogma of the Catholic Church.
    But you Geocentrists think it IS.  And you think it's a Traditional teaching.  And that is why this topic resides in the Resistance area of CathInfo.
    I'm here to tell the traditionalists, the Resistance and the world that it is NOT an article of Faith, backed up by an infallible decree of a pope.  And Paula Haigh claims, that Geocentrism is
    "infallible tradition".  Well "infallible tradition" is a nice thought, but only a thought, not a reality.
    The definition of an Infallible Dogma requires three things:
    1) the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra,
    2) defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals,
    3) to be held by the whole Church.
    Geocentrism does not concern "faith or morals".  End of debate on this.  
    What Pope Paul V did was express his OPINION.  This is debatable.
    What's really funny is that the Geocentrists hold on to their theory with a white-knuckle grip, because they want to think the Earth is special (because they are living on it).  So to make it look as if it is proved by science, they invent "ether", discover "dark matter", and God only know what else.  

    Well, what prevents all this special magical "science" from applying to Mars, Jupiter, or Saturn.  NOTHING.  So now, horror of horrors, the Earth is NOT special.  
    If you are standing on Mars, you will see the Sun "come up" in the morning and "go down"in the evening.  Same for Jupiter.  Same for Saturn.  Then how does "ether" and "dark matter"differentiate from Earth, Mars and Jupiter ?
    The Martians can claim Mars is the center of the universe, by using your "ether" science !!!Come on guys ... come up with something new on this subject, and stop repeating the same Faith-based arguments.
    Think the Church doctors were so smart?  St. Thomas Aquinas was opposed to the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.  
    I'm still waiting for someone to show me how "ether" or any other force can make a distant star travel over one million times the speed of light.  You won't touch this with a ten-foot pole.

    Wow Apollo, now its coming out like vomit from a man posessed. You are the one who is telling traditionalists, Catholic info and the world that the opinion of all the Fathers, of the Council of Trent, of St Robert Bellarmine, popes Paul V and Urban VIII, and the thousands of theologians since the foundation of the Church by Christ, that you are the chosen one to lay down canon law. Not once have you got anything right. Why you even accuse St Thomas of heresy, of opposing the Dogma of The Imaculate Conception. This dogma was not defined until 1854.

    I think it better not to get into canonical matters with you Apollo as you just do not have the grace to know your place. I will take your equally indoctrinated 'scientific' opinions on however, just for the sake of others who might be reading your stuffing. 

    Offline apollo

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +353/-246
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Fr Paul Robinson (SSPX) V Archbishop Lefebvre (SSPX)
    « Reply #29 on: December 20, 2018, 11:39:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It's about as much rebuttal as your gratuitous assertion that you can prove it false requires ... a gratuitous denial of the same.  Somehow, no one else in the history of science has been able to disprove geocentrism, but you come along and do it.
    It was disproven by Kepler, but very few people can understand his proof.