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

Poll

What model do you believe most accurately describes the cosmos?

Modern Science:  earth revolves around barycenter of solar system as solar system moves through space, etc.
25 (25.3%)
Geocentrism:  earth is stationary, shaped like a globe, and the vast universe revolves around it
34 (34.3%)
Flat Earth:  earth is stationary, the surface we live on is flat, covered by a physical firmament, and the universe is closer than we're told
31 (31.3%)
Other
9 (9.1%)

Total Members Voted: 91

Author Topic: Cosmology Poll  (Read 63917 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DigitalLogos

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8304
  • Reputation: +4718/-754
  • Gender: Male
  • Slave to the Sacred Heart
    • Twitter
Re: Cosmology Poll
« Reply #105 on: August 25, 2022, 09:11:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I just voted geocentrism but I'm close to leaning towards flat earth, too.
    Can't there be flat earth and geocentrism, too?
    Flat earth is inherently geocentric. No distinction really need be made
    "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 sram

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 120
    • Reputation: +60/-101
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cosmology Poll
    « Reply #106 on: August 25, 2022, 09:13:45 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • Flat earth is inherently geocentric. No distinction really need be made




    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46914
    • Reputation: +27782/-5164
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cosmology Poll
    « Reply #107 on: August 25, 2022, 12:25:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Flat earth is inherently geocentric. No distinction really need be made

    I agree, but for the purposes of the poll, I was interested in knowing who were globe geocentrists and who were FE geocentrists ... meaning just a breakdown of the numbers / percentages.

    It wasn't too long ago that FEs were a ridiculed minority banished to a ghetto subforum.  We now have a nearly 50-50 split.  I am curious about how there could be 8 people though who buy the "modern science" explanation when it's being discredited as we speak even among "mainstream" scientists ... with Kaku talking about the crisis in cosmology with an orders-of-magnitude mismatch between theory and observation.

    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8304
    • Reputation: +4718/-754
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
      • Twitter
    Re: Cosmology Poll
    « Reply #108 on: August 25, 2022, 12:30:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I agree, but for the purposes of the poll, I was interested in knowing who were globe geocentrists and who were FE geocentrists ... meaning just a breakdown of the numbers / percentages.

    It wasn't too long ago that FEs were a ridiculed minority banished to a ghetto subforum.  We now have a nearly 50-50 split.  I am curious about how there could be 8 people though who buy the "modern science" explanation when it's being discredited as we speak even among "mainstream" scientists ... with Kaku talking about the crisis in cosmology with an orders-of-magnitude mismatch between theory and observation.
    I don’t understand how one can consider themselves a traditional Catholic and hold to atheistic, evolutionary modern cosmology. 
    "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 Charity

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 885
    • Reputation: +444/-105
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cosmology Poll
    « Reply #109 on: August 25, 2022, 01:10:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • May we not think of motion in inanimate creation as being caused both by determinate forces of matter, and by Angels?

    I don't see why not.  I don't know of anything in our Catholic doctrine that would indicate this to be erroneous.


    Offline Charity

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 885
    • Reputation: +444/-105
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cosmology Poll
    « Reply #110 on: August 25, 2022, 02:28:29 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • And do you really believe that the universe is 92 billion light years in diameter.  I don't, not for one second.  Scientists can barely get anything right, much less something that difficult.  They've just been exposed apparently by Webb in terms of their contention that the universe is expanding.  Red Shift has been exposed as a fraud (though this has been suppressed), and their gravitational theories about the universe have been completely debunked ... to the point that they had to invent dark matter.  Another debunking has been their notion that the sun is some fusion furnace.  There's convincing evidence that is is NOT.  So even the basic things things about our closest star they get wrong, and they then use these assumption about "our star" to pretend they can then draw inferences about other stars.  But all these other things were wrong.

    I don't believe anything these people tell me.
    In answer to your question, I neither believe nor disbelieve the universe is some 92 billion light years in diameter.  I was merely referring to what I perceived to be a "consensus among most mainstream astrophysicists."  My full statement was,  "I could be a slightly off on my measurements, but from what I can see there appears to be somewhat of a consensus among most mainstream astrophysicists that the diameter of the known/observable universe is some 92 billion light years, i.e., 10 raised to the positive 26 meter."  What I do believe, however, is something Sungenis & Bennett have explained very well in their masterpiece work Galileo was Wrong: The Church was Right -- that the laws of science would not be in opposition to the entire universe spinning around the Earth not simply once in a 24 hour period, but a million, billion or trillion times in a 24 hour period! 

     (As a sort of aside -- the seemingly most incredible paradox of the ether is how it is seemingly incalculably super dense while all the while being seemingly incalculably super fluid.  The density allows it to easilyl carry the heavenly material bodies of the universe while the fluidity allows them to move about ever so freely.   And here's an interesting "tid-bit": if Planck size is the smallest material size possible it would easily answer that old riddle of why no one can win a race in so much as no one could cross the finish line because in order to cross the remaining length to the finish line they would always have to finish the first half and once they did that there would always be another divisible distance to cross ad infinitum.  The science behind Planck length simply holds that once the runner got to within the Planck length of the finish line he would no longer have to worry about traveling the first half of that Planck length because there would be no first half and second half to it, just the one length itself.)

    Now as for NASA, I'd be the first to admit that it is a extremely corrupt/evil entity, primarily due to its immense never ending vomit of lies upon lies, not to mention it being a financial black hole for nefarious undisclosed "projects."  That said, we all know that even a broken clock is correct twice a day.  Likewise, even a liar is capable of telling the truth from time to time, sometimes intentionally -- for example, if he thinks it will actually bring about a desired evil of one sort or another.  He might also speak the truth inadvertently and in extreme cases such as a being subject to a successful exorcism the demon may even be forced, God willing, to tell a truth.

    There is apparently a lot of scrambling going on at NASA in trying to debunk and of obfuscate an absolutely gigantic "truth cat" that their James Webb Space Telescope has let out of the bag.  Perhaps, there was no practical way that they could cover up the evidence now coming out from the JWST photography or perhaps the powers that be in their presumed arrogance simply believed they could control the narrative regardless of whether the photography would of itself provide a very strong case for blowing the infamous Big Bang nonsense right back to the bowels of hell where it emanated from.  Needless to say, it will be interesting to see how all this sorts out.  Ha, it almost seems as though God were trying to give so many of these atheistic scientists one last chance to come clean by abandoning their evolutionary Big Bang pretensions.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46914
    • Reputation: +27782/-5164
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cosmology Poll
    « Reply #111 on: August 25, 2022, 07:10:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What I do believe, however, is something Sungenis & Bennett have explained very well in their masterpiece work Galileo was Wrong: The Church was Right -- that the laws of science would not be in opposition to the entire universe spinning around the Earth not simply once in a 24 hour period, but a million, billion or trillion times in a 24 hour period!

    Maybe, but I'm not seeing it ... yet.  Of course Sungenis refuses to consider that NASA is totally full of it and that the World is much smaller and that the lights that science claim are balls of fire (fusion engines) billions of light years away are actually much closer and much smaller and of a different nature than the sun , in or on a solid firmament that keeps the waters out.  Sungenis' notion of an infinitely-dense and yet fluid substance just sounds to me like a huge stretch, an ad hoc theory, to explain how this notion of our atmosphere abutting upon space is consistent with the Patristic consensus that we are surrounded by a solid firmament that keeps the water away from the earth.

    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8304
    • Reputation: +4718/-754
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
      • Twitter
    Re: Cosmology Poll
    « Reply #112 on: August 25, 2022, 07:22:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Maybe, but I'm not seeing it ... yet.  Of course Sungenis refuses to consider that NASA is totally full of it and that the World is much smaller and that the lights that science claim are balls of fire (fusion engines) billions of light years away are actually much closer and much smaller and of a different nature than the sun
    To be fair to Dr. Sugenis here, he does actually consider the possibility, although he doesn't seem to accept it based on his other writings.

    Quote
    Lastly, modern science itself admits that we cannot be certain about the distance to the stars. The only empirical method (that is, one that is not based on a theory that lacks scientific proof) of determining the distance to the stars is stellar parallax, but it can estimate distances only to about 300 light years. Even then, stellar parallax is based on the assumption that vast distances separate the two stars being viewed in the telescope. Although we presently work from the assumption given to us by modern astronomy that the stars are very large and very far away, there is no proof for that conclusion. The stars could be very close and smaller than presently believed. Even with the finest optical instruments, the stars and galaxies remain as mere points of light through our telescope lenses. No one has ever obtained a finer focal point, which means either that they are very small or very far away.
    -The Geocentric Universe according to St. Hildegard, p. 42

    Providentially, I suspect, provided that it isn't altogether a hoax, the James Webb telescope is not only disproving the Big Bang, but is showing astronomers that stars may not be what they think they are. The clarity of the images seems to suggest that they aren't as far away as claimed, which is just speculation on my part.
    "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 Charity

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 885
    • Reputation: +444/-105
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cosmology Poll
    « Reply #113 on: August 25, 2022, 08:50:36 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sungenis' notion of an infinitely-dense and yet fluid substance just sounds to me like a huge stretch, an ad hoc theory,
    Wrong!  The idea of a super dense and yet super fluid or flexible substance is not some sort of notion, much less some sort of ad hoc theory that Sungenis came up with.  It is and has been for many centuries referred to as ether or aether.  It is at the very heart or core of a good understanding of geocentrism.

    Lad, you seem (at least to me, anyway) to still be at least somewhat open minded on these things.  I really wish you would spend a few bucks to get the paperback version of Sungenis' small book, A Googolplex of Tiny Blackholes.  In that regard I'm giving you the table of contents in the hopes of motivating you enough to get it.  In my opinion it is about the best theory I've ever seen put forward on -- as the subtitle states: A Theory of the Cause of Gravity, Inertia, and the Speed of Light.

    CONTENTS


    Introduction

    1.1  Isaac Newton
    1.2  George Berkeley
    1.3 Nicholas Fatio de Duillier & George LeSage
    1.4  Ernst Mach
    1.5  Hendrik Lorentz
    1.6  Albert Einstein
    1.7  Quantum Mechanics
    2)  What Each Theory of Gravity Offers
    3)  The Return of Ether to Modern Physics
    4)  Ether, Gravity , Inertia, Action-at-a-Distance, Entanglement
    5) A Googoplex of Tiny Blackholes
    6)  The Plank-Particle Structure of the Universe
    7)  The Physical Cause of Gravity
    8) Explanatory Power of the Planck-Particle Model
    8.1)  Applied to the Weak Nuclear Force
    8.2)  Applied to the Strong Nuclear Force
    8.3)  Applied to Spiral Galaxies
    8.4)  Applied to the Speed of Gravity and Inertia to Solve the "Action-at-a-Distance" Problem
    9)  Calculating the Speed of Light in a Planck-Particle Medium
    9.1)  Light as a Particle Wave
    10)  Calculating the Speed of Gravity in a Planck-Particle Medium
    11)  Conclusion
    Endnotes

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46914
    • Reputation: +27782/-5164
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cosmology Poll
    « Reply #114 on: August 25, 2022, 10:53:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Wrong!  The idea of a super dense and yet super fluid or flexible substance is not some sort of notion, much less some sort of ad hoc theory that Sungenis came up with.  It is and has been for many centuries referred to as ether or aether. 

    Yes, I'm fully aware of ether, but the notion that it's infinitely dense is a novel attribute ascribed to it by Sungenis to explain how there could be a "firmament" that the Church Fathers considered to be a solid substance and that is yet compatible with the notion of the vacuum of space.  It's not.  There is no vacuum of space.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46914
    • Reputation: +27782/-5164
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cosmology Poll
    « Reply #115 on: August 25, 2022, 10:58:41 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • To be fair to Dr. Sugenis here, he does actually consider the possibility, although he doesn't seem to accept it based on his other writings.

    He throws that in there as a mere afterthought.  All his books, including his denunciation of Flat Earth theory are predicated on the notion that modern science is correct in that regard.  He wouldn't have spent 1000s of pages establishing his cosmology based on the large distant stars if he gave the notion that they're very small any serious consideration.  He's trying to squeeze geocentrism into the strait jacket of these "assumptions from modern science".  So he spends a lot of time trying to explain how things on the outer edge of the universe could move at a million light years per hour instead of giving serious consideration to the fact that they are close and small and in the firmament, exactly as the Church Fathers believed.  In other words, throwing in a single sentence out of his voluminous writings indicates that he gave the notion any serious consideration whatsoever.  "Lastly" pretty much says it all, that it's an afterthought.  But, at the same time, he argues from some of the very criteria used by modern science to "prove" that they are far away, against FE.


    Offline Charity

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 885
    • Reputation: +444/-105
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cosmology Poll
    « Reply #116 on: August 26, 2022, 12:20:48 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Yes, I'm fully aware of ether, but the notion that it's infinitely dense is a novel attribute ascribed to it by Sungenis to explain how there could be a "firmament" that the Church Fathers considered to be a solid substance and that is yet compatible with the notion of the vacuum of space.  It's not.  There is no vacuum of space.
    Lad, with all due respect, I assert that you are in error, quite serious error at that, in claiming that the ultra dense (or "infinitely dense" as you call it) attribute ascribed to ether by Dr. Sungenis is a novel one from him.  That characteristic or attribute assigned to ether has been around for ages.  (In a word, the "Planck loop" is the super tiny entity of indivisibility the Greeks had first called the "atom.") 

     Based on your assertion are we to infer that you believe there is some sort of empty space (i.e., nothing) between the tiny particles making up the ether?  But space cannot be nothing.  It must be something.  Sungenis proposes as others have before him that the something is a Planck-particle plenum.  Kapish?

    Also, just because the good doctor is not a Flat Earther does not mean that he buys into everything NASA disseminates.  Regardless of what you may think, he actually separates a lot of the NASA wheat from their chaff.  (If NASA says 2 plus 2 equals 4 or shows us a photo of the moon, he doesn't automatically call the photograph an inaccurate depiction of the moon or the math a lie that even a 5 year old could spot.)  By so often trying to give the impression that he accepts everything or near everything NASA says at face value you do nothing more than paint a grossly false caricature of the man.  As just one quick example, I would challenge you to cite a single instance where he states it to be a fact that the universe is some 90 plus billion light years in diameter as NASA claims it to be.  Rather he will qualify his language by saying something like, "If the universe is as bill as conventional cosmology purports it to be ...."

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46914
    • Reputation: +27782/-5164
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cosmology Poll
    « Reply #117 on: August 26, 2022, 01:06:33 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!3
  • Lad, with all due respect, I assert that you are in error, quite serious error at that, ...

    Oh, give it a rest.  You're acting like this is a matter of faith or something, not just error but "serious error".  With regard to scientific matters, error isn't even the right word.  You're wrong or mistaken would suffice.  Obviously I disagree.

    Sungenis confuses metaphysical nothing vs. material nothing.  Material nothing is merely the absence of matter.  No, it doesn't "exist", but that's a logical / semantic thing.  Nobody says it exists, just that there can be an absence of matter combined with matter.  All contingent beings are in fact a combination of being and non-being.  If they were all being, they would be God.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46914
    • Reputation: +27782/-5164
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cosmology Poll
    « Reply #118 on: August 26, 2022, 01:16:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Also, just because the good doctor is not a Flat Earther does not mean that he buys into everything NASA disseminates.

    No one said he buys EVERYTHING NASA disseminates, just that he buys way too much of it.  He acknowledges a single instance of NASA fraud (where in point of fact entire books can be written about it that would be larger than his anti-FE book), and then euphemizes the fraud as a "foible".

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46914
    • Reputation: +27782/-5164
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Cosmology Poll
    « Reply #119 on: August 26, 2022, 01:18:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This putative "firmament" made of Planck particles is not capable of keeping water outside the earth.