CathInfo.com

Renzo wrote:

Quote

In that sense, your view of things seems to be an expression of the phrase, "everything is relative."  After all, you can't be certain that our "science" today is accurate either.  All you can be certain of is that today we think it is, just like the men of centuries/millenia ago thought theirs was.  

No.  Sigh.  I've posted enough about it.  The encycicals of 1893, 1943, and 1950 spell it all out.  Go read them and teach yourself some actual Catholic theology.  I'm tired of spoon feeding it to babies who keep spitting it out.  Read the Popes.  Listen to the Popes.  Quit trying to make me out to be some arch-modernist simply because I read scripture exactly as instructed by Pope Leo XIII and Pius XII.  

 

Quote from: icterus

If you are equating the Copernican principle with the mediocrity principle, then you are simply assisting militant atheists and unbelievers in their quest, just like Bob Sungenis has done for decades.

Come out of this folly, Neil.  Don't participate in this unholy blending of astronomy and religion.  There are definitely ways to misunderstand and misapply the Copernican Principle, and one of those ways is the way of Bob Sungenis.

From the Princeton.edu website



Copernican principle
related topics
{math, energy, light}
{theory, work, human}
   

In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle, named after Nicolaus Copernicus, states that the Earth is not in a central, specially favored position.[1] More recently, the principle has been generalized to the relativistic concept that humans are not privileged observers of the universe.[2] In this sense, it is equivalent to the mediocrity principle, with important implications for the philosophy of science.

Since the 1990s the term has been used (interchangeably with "the Copernicus method") for J. Richard Gott's Bayesian-inference-based prediction of duration of ongoing events, a generalized version of the Doomsday argument.


Contents

    1 Origin and implications
    2 Confirmation
    3 Ecliptic alignment of cosmic microwave background anisotropy
    4 Modern tests
    5 See also
    6 References
    7 External links


Origin and implications

Michael Rowan-Robinson emphasizes the importance of the Copernican principle: "It is evident that in the post-Copernican era of human history, no well-informed and rational person can imagine that the Earth occupies a unique position in the universe."[3]

Hermann Bondi named the principle after Copernicus in the mid-20th century, although the principle itself dates back to the 16th-17th century paradigm shift away from the Ptolemaic system, which placed Earth at the center of the Universe. Copernicus demonstrated the motion of the planets can be explained without the assumption that Earth is centrally located and stationary. He argued that the apparent retrograde motion of the planets is an illusion caused by Earth's movement around the Sun, which the Copernican model placed at the centre of the Universe. Copernicus himself was mainly motivated by technical dissatisfaction with the earlier system and not by support for any mediocrity principle.[4]

In cosmology, if one assumes the Copernican principle and observes that the universe appears isotropic from our vantage-point on Earth, then one can prove that the Universe is generally homogeneous (at any given time) and is also isotropic about any given point. These two conditions comprise the cosmological principle.

In practice, astronomers observe that the Universe has heterogeneous structures up to the scale of galactic superclusters, filaments and great voids, but becomes more and more homogeneous and isotropic when observed on larger and larger scales, with little detectable structure on scales of more than about 200 million parsecs. However, on scales comparable to the radius of the observable universe, we see systematic changes with distance from the Earth. For instance, galaxies contain more young stars and are less clustered, and quasars appear more numerous. While this might suggest that the Earth is at the center of the Universe, the Copernican principle requires us to interpret it as evidence for the evolution of the Universe with time:  this distant light has taken most of the age of the Universe to reach and shows us the Universe when it was young. The most distant light of all, cosmic microwave background radiation, is isotropic to at least one part in a thousand...




......[With these words:  "Copernicus ... argued that the apparent retrograde motion of the planets is an illusion caused by Earth's movement around the Sun," Michael Rowan-Robinson attests to how Copernicus in his time proclaimed something that was CONTRADICTORY to what Albert Einstein would later claim.  For IF the apparent retrograde motion of the planets is an illusion, THEN Einstein would have been WRONG in his General Theory of Relativity, in which he proclaims the opposite of that Copernican would-be doctrine, and in fact, Einstein does precisely this very thing, in his Relativity.  

"The Principle" does a very good job in explaining this dichotomy and ideological dilemma.

Notice too, how exactly what is written here on the Princeton website identifies the very way Robert Sungenis describes in "The Principle" as the way such 'experts' write and proclaim with their presumed authority, which is objectively outside the realm of true science.  They sound just as though they have been somehow consecrated High Priest of the Church of Science.

It is not just me thinking this.  My thoughts do not cause this appearance to take form.  I am merely observing the reality of what these 'experts' are doing, how they are speaking, the quality and content of their message.  They are using language and saying things that have NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE but instead have everything to do with how they would like you to accept their teachings with blind faith.  They presume to have an authority far removed from what science could ever confer upon them.

They go on to explain here the status quo in modern cosmology, precisely the way the movie "The Principle" describes modern cosmology to explains the status quo, which is nothing but the consensus reality derived from the most prominent and mutually esteemed "experts" in the world today.  

Robert Sungenis is not making it up.

Neither does the movie make it up.  In the movie, there are appearances of prominent astronomical scientists who sit before the camera and tell the world what they think and how they understand the current state of affairs in cosmology, with specific regard to the CMB research and data collection that has taken place in the most recent 15 years.  

This is not fantasy.  This is the truth of what is happening today as we speak.  It is real.  And in order for us to recognize it as true, we must conform our minds to the reality that this is in fact taking place.  

Anyone who persists in not conforming his mind to this factual reality does not have the truth.  They instead have itching ears, and heap unto themselves lying teachers such that they might believe their lies, such that the truth would not be in them.

These people recorded in "The Principle" are not lying.  They really believe what they say.  They answer questions honestly.  There are no actors acting in "The Principle," but there are doubters doubting in "The Principle."  

And there are doubters doubting elsewhere too, who did not manage to get any face time on Rick De Lano's cameras.  Perhaps the doubters are jealous of those who did.]


.