Author Topic: Cosmology Poll (Read 19767 times)

Charity · « **Reply #195 on:** September 28, 2022, 09:45:30 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on September 28, 2022, 06:22:32 AM

Even Sungenis sees this, coming up with a theory about infinitely-dense matter. While that’s a stretch,

Just to be clear -- Sungenis refers to this matter as the aether (or ether) and it is certainly not some theory that he came up with. The idea of aether has been around for many centuries. What authorities and or ideas are you relying on when you refer to the idea of the aether as "a stretch?"

cassini · « **Reply #196 on:** September 28, 2022, 01:03:43 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on September 28, 2022, 06:22:32 AM

This notion of firmament being “space” is both Modernistic and absurd. Clearly the Church Fathers unanimously believed that it was an actual substance, with some mentions of debates regarding what it was made of. So I am surprised to see cassini promoting the idea. He’s such a literalist about how the sun rising means that it moves and can’t be a matter of perspective and yet the firmament is space? Even Sungenis sees this, coming up with a theory about infinitely-dense matter. While that’s a stretch, he tacitly admits that the Fathers clearly did not believe that it was empty space. For them, it was something solid that keeps literal waters from inundating the earth. There’s absolutely no doubt about that.

‘Day 1: In the beginning God created Heaven, and Earth. And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said: Be light made. And light was made. And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. And he called the light Day and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.

Day 2; And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day. God also said: Let the waters that are under the heaven be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land appear. And it was so done. And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

My reasoning arose from considering the Big Bang theory that has replaced the supernatural creation of all by God as recorded in Genesis. This 'Bang' they say caused the evolution of atoms that went on to evolve into the Earth, sun, moon, planets and stars. Never once have I heard or read of the space into which their big Bang matter supposedly spread. In other words they assume the space of the universe was there already, something that just exists. I have never had the chance to challenge them on this point. As far as I am concerned what we call space has to be created as well as the Earth etc.

Genesis Creation account above shows that God first created Heaven and Earth. This Heaven must be the space into which the Earth was placed. Moses then tells us of the deep and the waters that could be the Earth was covered with water as it was after Noah's Flood.
Next, was there a Heaven in which God occupied in eternity or did He create that Heaven with the Earth to accommodate the souls and bodies that would gain Heaven. Our Lady went body and soul to this heaven. So the Heaven created with the Earth could be the 'space' heaven and the Heaven we all aspire to. These two meanings are not alone, as the creation of light also had two meanings, the angels and the physical light that arises from electromagnetism, the same light that allows us to see things.

Then we get to the firmament that Moses said was 'made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters.'
Moses then tells us God called the firmament Heaven, the same heaven, described in the first line of Genesis, the place where God now dwells and what we also refer to as the space of the universe heaven.
'God also said: Let the waters that are under the heaven (firmament) be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land appear. That sounds like what happened after the Flood of Noah. As we all know God often reveals something to happen in the future. The 3 days Christ the child went missing, the three day Jonah spent in the whale and the three days before the resurrection.
So, this 'firmament occupies space. It could be the separation of oxygen above the Earth that is separated from the space outside the Earth that has no oxygen.

Then there is the ether. The concept of aether, which incidentally is an anagram for Earth, has been accepted since the time of Aristotle and Plato at least; was once known as quintessence, meaning the fifth element; and was also acknowledged by the Fathers of the Church and indeed entered their discussions on the interpretation of the ‘firmament’ of the heavens as described in Genesis. Aether, better known now as ether, was considered omnipresent throughout all space, and even the Earth’s atmosphere. Ether was, and if the truth be known, still is, a medium through which all the properties of electromagnetic (the light created by God in the beginning) signals pass, maybe even faster than the speed of light. Ether was understood as the medium through which all the light-waves from the sun would propagate to nourish and illuminate the Earth. Exactly what ether is remained hidden to science throughout the ages, only that it must exist for certain things to happen.

The firmament then has to accommodate the separation above the Earth into the sky called heaven by Moses, no matter what may be in it, be it ether, vacuum, air or whatever. What it definitely it is not is something solid or birds could not fly through it..

MiracleOfTheSun · « **Reply #197 on:** September 28, 2022, 01:34:21 PM »

Quote from: cassini on September 28, 2022, 01:03:43 PM

Never once have I heard or read of the space into which their big Bang matter supposedly spread. In other words they assume the space of the universe was there already, something that just exists.

The standard Big Bang model would say things aren't expanding through space but rather space itself is stretching. So instead of a boat moving through water (galaxies moving through space) it might be more like a loaf of raisin bread that continues to rise (space itself, containing all matter, continues to expand).

Of course, the only thing with more holes than the Big Bang theory is a block of Swiss Cheese.

St Giles · « **Reply #198 on:** September 28, 2022, 02:06:15 PM »

Quote from: Tradman on September 27, 2022, 02:45:26 PM

I just want to know where east is located on a globe.
Must be random placement. Clearly Taylor Marshall is unaware of the real discussions on flat earth.

The globe casts doubt on this passage in scripture:
As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our iniquities from us. Psalm 103:12
On a globe, the two directions actually meet at some point or technically, everywhere.

It's no different on a flat circle earth because the sun still rises from the east, or the east and west would have an end at the edge where people could fall off. The north and south are fixed points even on a globe, but east and west are only directions, so their separation might be interpreted as unending or undefinable, which may indicate our iniquities are removed an infinite amount or no longer exist.

Yeti · « **Reply #199 on:** September 28, 2022, 02:13:18 PM »

Quote from: MiracleOfTheSun on September 28, 2022, 01:34:21 PM

The standard Big Bang model would say things aren't expanding through space but rather space itself is stretching. So instead of a boat moving through water (galaxies moving through space) it might be more like a loaf of raisin bread that continues to rise (space itself, containing all matter, continues to expand).

Of course, the only thing with more holes than the Big Bang theory is a block of Swiss Cheese.

Interesting. It sounds like they're just using the word "space" to mean the same thing as "aether", and that they really don't reject the concept itself. This would also seem to follow from their claims that space curves. Obviously, space in its true meaning is not a substance or a thing, but simply an abstract description, and therefore it can't curve. So if they talk about it curving and being the medium through which electromagnetic waves propagate, that would seem to make it the same thing as aether.

I never thought of it this way.

MiracleOfTheSun · « **Reply #200 on:** September 28, 2022, 02:31:15 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on September 28, 2022, 02:13:18 PM

Interesting. It sounds like they're just using the word "space" to mean the same thing as "aether", and that they really don't reject the concept itself.

It depends. After the Michelson-Morley interferometer tests of the 1880's, which showed the earth was not in motion, Einstein invented Relativity and dispensed with the ether (and ever since he's been a deity). However, Georges Sagnac, and others, performed a similar test to the MM test and showed, again, there is an ether (1913, I believe). The presence of an ether 'implies' a non-moving earth so it's a hushed topic as far as I can tell. Einstein, when he revised his theory, put the ether back in. Also, it seems our GPS systems use the 'Sagnac Effect' (stationary earth) in order to work.

If you haven't read it, the R. Sungenis book 'Geocentrism 101' compiles some pretty interesting testimony.

Tradman · « **Reply #201 on:** September 28, 2022, 03:30:04 PM »

Quote from: St Giles on September 28, 2022, 02:06:15 PM

It's no different on a flat circle earth because the sun still rises from the east, or the east and west would have an end at the edge where people could fall off. The north and south are fixed points even on a globe, but east and west are only directions, so their separation might be interpreted as unending or undefinable, which may indicate our iniquities are removed an infinite amount or no longer exist.

To suggest "As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our iniquities from us" can even work on a globe where the east and west can and do meet up is beyond iffy, Especially when it's perfectly obvious that it works far better on a flat earth, where east and west can never meet up. Not to mention we have no fathers or saints teaching earth is a globe, yet we have over a dozen of them who teach earth is not a globe, and further, that when these fathers fought the globe, they were fighting pagans over the issue making many other clarifications using types like the temple, the tabernacle and the ark to make sure it was clear to Catholics that the shape of the earth was intimately tied in with the faith and providence of God and never included a spherical earth.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #202 on:** September 28, 2022, 04:08:02 PM »

Quote from: St Giles on September 28, 2022, 02:06:15 PM

It's no different on a flat circle earth because the sun still rises from the east, or the east and west would have an end at the edge where people could fall off.

There is no "falling off". The edge is hypothesized to be where the Firmament meets the earth. Which is obscured by possibly hundreds or thousands of miles of Antarctic hellscape.

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #203 on:** September 28, 2022, 11:45:41 PM »

Quote from: Tradman on September 27, 2022, 01:16:41 PM

The following from Wiki gives a partial list of flat earth Fathers of the Church who taught that earth is shaped like the OT Tabernacle, the Ark, and the Temple:
*St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Ambrose, Origen, Methodius, Cosmas, Ephrem Syrus, St. Gregory of Nyssa, Theodore of Mopsuestia, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Procopius of Gaza all offered an intriguing exegesis of the Tabernacle.

Cosmas' exegesis on the flat earth and the tabernacle in his book Christian Topography is easily obtained to read for free online.

Wiki continues:
Examining the Apostolic Constitutions, Book VII, Chapters 33-37, and Book Viii, Chapter 12, we find its further influence on Constantine's (and Cosmas') method. The verses quoted in both the Apostolic Constitutions and Christian Topography to describe the structure of the universe are taken from the books of Psalms, Isaiah, and Job rather than from the account of Creation in Genesis giving them a homiletic application to articulate and illustrate a specific physical shape of the cosmos.

The created universe is portrayed in both words and pictures as a vaulted rectangle. The Tabernacle, the Temple and the Ark were all depicted in the same way, since they were made "according to the pattern shown to thee in the mount" EX 25:40

The sanctuary and its vessels are symbolic representations of the Creation.

The Ark represents the earth and the part of the "Holy" in the Tabernacle, while the upper, vaulted, section represents both heaven and the most sacred area, the "Holy of Holies". With the angels spreading their wings to cover the Ark.

The cosmos created in Genesis 1 bears a striking resemblance to the Tabernacle in Exodus 35–40, which was the prototype of the Temple in Jerusalem and the focus of priestly worship of Yahweh; for this reason, and because other Middle Eastern creation stories also climax with the construction of a temple/house for the creator-god, Genesis 1 can be interpreted as a description of the construction of the cosmos as God's house, for which the Temple in Jerusalem served as the earthly representative.^{[31] Wiki}

Origen called the firmament “without doubt firm and solid” (First Homily on Genesis, FC 71). Ambrose, commenting on Genesis 1:6, said, “the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant” (Hexameron, FC 42.60). And Saint Augustine said the word firmament was used “to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that it constitutes an impassible boundary between the waters above and the waters below” (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, ACW 41.1.61).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Fathers of the Church knew the value of scripture so they didn't ignore the firmament, or pretend it was another term for air, but saw how it fit within the spiritual and physical paradigm of creation. These fathers identified types like the ark, the temple and the tabernacle in relation to the earth, furthering understanding the relationship between creation and the liturgy, between the earth and the church. All of these great men (and others not mentioned here) believed the firmament is the divider between heaven and earth. Anyone who ignores a consensus of Father's teachings for the sake of their own personal opinion is a contrarian to true Catholic exegeses and teachings.

When the modern geocentrics provide historical Catholic teachings like the selection provided above, to prove their dangling in space ball theory, we'll be all ears. I've been hanging around for a couple of years now waiting and asking for their proof, but have yet to be provided even one historical Catholic saint or father, or scripture, that expounds on earth being a sphere. Here we have a dozen great Catholic historical saints and fathers, the Apostolic Constitutions and Scripture, to show that the firmament is not just hot air, but an impassable boundary between heaven and earth and they all agree that earth is not a globe.

I don't know for sure, so please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding for the ranking of revelation of truth on this topic would be:

1. Sacred Scripture
2. Early Church Fathers
3. Approved private revelation such as Our Lady of Fatima with thousands of witnesses
4. Approved revelation of V Mary of Agreda
5. Modern Scientific analysis
6. Taylor Marshall and other layman analysis

Our Lady of Fatima was witnessed by three persons who were willing to endure torture rather than refute their testimony. They testified that Our Lady rose into the air and (I can't remember the exact words and would love if somebody knows where to find them would share) exited through the gate of Heaven (or a window or something like that??). That would correspond to the Ancient Hebrew diagram I posted earlier:

70,000 witnessed the miracle of the sun which would only be possible with a sun that is smaller than the earth and local (closer to earth than 93mil miles away).

If the sun were as big as NASA says it simply wouldn't work to come down to the ground in a way that people testified they wanted to run away.

If it shrunk in size then populations around the world would have been affected but only those within miles of the apparition site witnessed any effect.

The wonderful book by V Mary Agreda has many positive aspects, but there are some issues:

In 1696 it was condemned my Rome.

"It had already been condemned in Rome, 4 August, 1681, by the Congregation of the Inquisition, and Innocent XI had forbidden the reading of it, but, at the instance of Charles II, suspended execution of the decree for Spain. But Croset's translation transgressed the order, and caused it to be referred to the Sorbonne, 2 May, 1696. According to Hergenröther, Kirchengeschichte (trad. franc., 1892, V, vi, p. 418), it was studied from the 2d to the 14th of July, and thirty-two sessions were held during which 132 doctors spoke. It was condemned 17 July, 102 out of 152 members of the commission voting against the book. It was found that

it gave more weight to the revelations alleged to have been received than to the mystery of the Incarnation; that it adduced new revelations which the Apostles themselves could not have supported; that it applied the term 'adoration' to Mary; that it referred all her graces to the Immaculate Conception; that it attributed to her the government of the Church; that it designated her in every respect the Mother of Mercy and the Mediatrix of Grace, and pretended that St. Ann had not contracted sin in her birth, besides a number of other imaginary and scandalous assertions.

...

Hergenröther, in his Kirchengeschichte (trad. franc., VI, p. 416 — V. Palmé, Paris, 1892), informs us that the condemnation of the book by the Roman Inquisition, in 1681, was thought to have come from the fact either that, in its publication, the Decree of Urban VIII, of 14 March, 1625, had been disregarded, or because it contained apocryphal stories, and maintained opinions of the Scotist school as Divine revelations. Some blamed the writer for having said that she saw the earth under the form of an egg, and that it was a globe slightly compressed at the two poles, all of which seemed worthy of censure. Others condemned her for exaggerating the devotion to the Blessed Virgin and for obscuring the mystery of the Incarnation."

I think a globe that is compressed at the poles is compatible with the Ancient Hebrew diagram.

I can't find it at the moment, but I believe Agreda also said something about four rivers. I have heard these may be at the North Pole but civilians aren't allowed to go there to view this area.

I can't find her words (not feeling well and can't read much at the moment :P) to see if they could be compatible with flat earth with dome over (inside the globe) or if they could only apply to being on top of a ball earth with upside down people down under.

Anyway, I'm trying to use the term "BALL EARTH" more often now because I do believe the flat earth model with a dome firmament is basically a snow globe so the term globe can be misunderstood as Ladislaus pointed out.

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #204 on:** September 28, 2022, 11:50:53 PM »

Quote from: cassini on September 27, 2022, 02:47:12 PM

I do not believe in an expanding universe for that would suggest it is infinite. A heliocentric universe could be said to be infinite. A geocentric universe proves it cannot be infinite.

I'm not understanding why a geocentric universe proves it cannot be infinite??

Is there a globe that surrounds the ball earth?

Is that where Heaven begins?

Is there "outer space"?

Are there other galaxies with their own suns?

Those things are not possible with a firmament.

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #205 on:** September 29, 2022, 12:39:47 AM »

Quote from: Miser Peccator on September 28, 2022, 11:45:41 PM

I don't know for sure, so please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding for the ranking of revelation of truth on this topic would be:

1. Sacred Scripture
2. Early Church Fathers
3. Approved private revelation such as Our Lady of Fatima with thousands of witnesses
4. Approved revelation of V Mary of Agreda
5. Modern Scientific analysis
6. Taylor Marshall and other layman analysis

Oh, one more very important thing to add to this list:

Personal experience with one's own senses! :)

Tradman · « **Reply #206 on:** September 29, 2022, 01:07:54 PM »

Quote from: Miser Peccator on September 29, 2022, 12:39:47 AM

1. Sacred Scripture
2. Early Church Fathers
3. Approved private revelation such as Our Lady of Fatima with thousands of witnesses
4. Approved revelation of V Mary of Agreda
5. Modern Scientific analysis
6. Taylor Marshall and other layman analysis

Oh, one more very important thing to add to this list:

Personal experience with one's own senses! :)

Great list MP. That last one deserves a better placement. Am I remembering wrong, or have I've heard Thomas Aquinas says the senses are infallible?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #207 on:** September 29, 2022, 06:01:36 PM »

Quote from: MiracleOfTheSun on September 28, 2022, 02:31:15 PM

It depends. After the Michelson-Morley interferometer tests of the 1880's, which showed the earth was not in motion, Einstein invented Relativity and dispensed with the ether (and ever since he's been a deity). However, Georges Sagnac, and others, performed a similar test to the MM test and showed, again, there is an ether (1913, I believe). The presence of an ether 'implies' a non-moving earth so it's a hushed topic as far as I can tell. Einstein, when he revised his theory, put the ether back in. Also, it seems our GPS systems use the 'Sagnac Effect' (stationary earth) in order to work.

Well put. In addition, Airy's experiment, dubbed "Failure" merely because it didn't produce the outcome they desired, also proved convincingly that the stars move in relation to the earth and not the other way around.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #208 on:** September 29, 2022, 06:06:14 PM »

Quote from: Charity on September 28, 2022, 09:45:30 AM

Just to be clear -- Sungenis refers to this matter as the aether (or ether) and it is certainly not some theory that he came up with. The idea of aether has been around for many centuries. What authorities and or ideas are you relying on when you refer to the idea of the aether as "a stretch?"

I'm referring to his characterization of aether as infinitely-dense matter. What I'm referring to a stretch is his trying to characterize this infinitely-dense matter as what's meant by the "firmament".

Charity · « **Reply #209 on:** September 29, 2022, 08:50:23 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on September 29, 2022, 06:06:14 PM

I'm referring to his characterization of aether as infinitely-dense matter. What I'm referring to a stretch is his trying to characterize this infinitely-dense matter as what's meant by the "firmament".

He characterizes the aether as being made up of Planck size (1.616 X 10 to the negative 35 meters) particles. This is the shortest length theorized in physics and thus the state in which matter becomes indivisible. Nevertheless, it is not and could not technically and or theologically be considered to be infinitely small since the aether is matter and hence by definition to be of a finite nature.

Poll

What model do you believe most accurately describes the cosmos?

Author Topic: Cosmology Poll (Read 19767 times)

Charity

Re: Cosmology Poll

cassini

Re: Cosmology Poll

MiracleOfTheSun

Re: Cosmology Poll

St Giles

Re: Cosmology Poll

Yeti

Re: Cosmology Poll

MiracleOfTheSun

Re: Cosmology Poll

Tradman

Re: Cosmology Poll

DigitalLogos

Re: Cosmology Poll

Miser Peccator

Re: Cosmology Poll

Miser Peccator

Re: Cosmology Poll

Miser Peccator

Re: Cosmology Poll

Tradman

Re: Cosmology Poll

Ladislaus

Re: Cosmology Poll

Ladislaus

Re: Cosmology Poll

Charity

Re: Cosmology Poll