"It was his Special theory that began the tale about looking back in time, the one the Professor repeats way above. "
So is it your position that light in fact does not travel? It is not a motion?
Out of curiosity, do you also hold one to be heretical if he denies that each of the creation days were distinct 24 hour periods of time?
No TKonkel, it is not my opinion that light does not travel, is not in motion, or to put it in another way has not a finite speed, is not instantanious but succesive. It was Domenico Cassini, God's astronomer who found no evidence for Newton's heliocentrism and stuck with Tycho de Brahe's geocentric model, who first discovered that light takes time to travel. He announced this in his
Ephemerides Bononienses Medicorem Siderum (1668), but wanted to be sure before he confirmed it in science. An astronomer named Ole Romer joined King Louis XIV's Academy run by Cassini in 1672. Four years later:
' Ole Romer employed them (Cassini's findings) in 1676 to demonstrate the finite nature of the speed of light.' (Biographical Encyclopaedia of astronomers), p. 206)
So it was the geocentrist Cassini who first confirmed the fact that light moves with a speed.
Indeed wasn't it Sir George Airy (1802-1892) who in 1871 used the FACT that light moves at different speeds to FALSIFY the theory that stellar aberration proves the earth is orbiting the sun.
No doubt TKonkel you want to see if I believe the light from an exploding nova takes time to reach us on earth. Of course I do. The only difference between our two different beliefs is that you believe it took billions of light-years for that explosion to be seen on Earth, whereas I believe it took no more than 6-7,000 years for the light to reach us. 'Proofs' are not in the hands of man to secuire, but I base my belief on the word of God as found in Genesis, the only one who KNOWS the truth, and not on the cosmology of Copernicus to Einstein.
No, I do not hold it heresy to deny the creation was not over six distinct days. The Church has never made this an act of faith like it did with the revelation of an orbiting sun around a stationary Earth. However, after churchmen lost faith in faith and placed their faith in the false Heliocentrism, when long ages evolved from their Nebular theory, like the geocentrism of Scripture when their interpretations of Scripture had to be changed or traditional understandings denied, it was inevitable that the six days of Genesis would have to evolve too less the Church became a laughing stock again as it was when it defined heliocentrism as formal heresy. And, like a heliocentric reading of Scripture, they had to find a way to allow 'science' its interpretation of Genesis's six days.
So on June 30, 1909, just after Einstein's Relativity, the Biblical commission ruled we could now 'discuss' if the six days of Genesis was literal, or metaphorical (like sunrise and sunset) meaning a 'certain space of time.' I am still waiting for the theistic-evolutionists and long agers to offer Catholicism that 'certain' space of time.' There is no such thing as an evolutionary 'certain space of time,' is there?
Topic: SSPX exhumes Fr. Jaki's rotting works, buried by Miss Paula Haigh (Part 3) (Read 13472 times)