Author Topic: Dr. John D destroys the Globe (Read 6375 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #30 on:** July 21, 2022, 06:19:28 PM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on July 21, 2022, 06:06:23 PM

Transparent, or, perhaps the stars are actually far smaller than the moon and are passing in front of it?

Right. I tend to lean toward it being some ball of plasma that can under some conditions become translucent. But who really knows?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #31 on:** July 21, 2022, 06:22:43 PM »

I also don't quite get how the moon as so darn bright, when it (allegedly) looked dark and dingy when the astronauts were (allegedly) on the moon. Something in their narrative has to give.

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #32 on:** July 21, 2022, 06:58:19 PM »

I don't know how to make the image smaller so you have to click on it to see the right side.

St Giles · « **Reply #33 on:** July 21, 2022, 10:52:39 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on July 20, 2022, 09:21:24 PM

No. That's debated even among mainstream scientists. Newton, who invented the theory, ended up rejecting it, saying that he was extremely dissatisfied with the theory.

Does the timing of the moon not actually line up with the tides? I don't live by the ocean, so I wouldn't know.

Quote from: DigitalLogos on July 20, 2022, 09:27:30 PM

Note how he doesn't say worlds, or planets, but lights for the purpose of time-keeping, the seasons, etc.

All good points made by you, but I have a few counter thoughts.

Here's some quotes from the MHFM article I posted a while ago.

Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (#18), Nov. 18, 1893: “… the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost ‘Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable to salvation’ [St. Augustine]. Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly comes from the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers – as the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas Aquinas] reminds us – ‘went by what sensibly appeared,’ [Summa Theologica, Pt. I, q. 70, a. 1, ad. 3] or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.”

Moreover, Pope Leo XIII emphasizes (while quoting St. Thomas) that the sacred writers accurately expressed “what sensibly appeared.”

Quote

Josue 10:12-13 – “Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon. And the sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the book of the just? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day.”

Everyone who was present at this miracle would have seen the same thing according to external appearances: the sun and the moon stood still and did not go down. But, as Pope Leo XIII emphasizes, in accurately reporting this miracle and what occurred according to external phenomena, they did not “seek to penetrate the secrets of nature”; that is to say, the sacred books didn’t seek or intend in this area to explain whether this external appearance was because the sun actually stood still or was created because the Earth actually did. Even today astronomers will speak of the sunrise at Philadelphia.
Thus, even if the geocentric view of the universe is not correct, these passages of the Bible do not in any way detract from the power, the historical truth, or the accuracy of Sacred Scripture in all aspects of its teaching; for what is recorded is exactly what was observed according to external phenomena (as a result of a miracle of God), without penetrating into the reasons for the creation of these external phenomena.

Quote from: DigitalLogos on July 20, 2022, 09:27:30 PM

In a FE we have a definitive direction for up, and down; rather than the illogical assertion that there is no true up or true down; or that water can curve around a spherical object; or that there's some mysterious "force" or "curving of space-time" that strongly affixes some objects to a surface, but fails to affix some weaker objects, etc.

I don’t see how water curving around a giant sphere can be so hard to understand. And I don't think gravity's affect on air or whatever weaker objects is clicking in your mind. It makes a lot of sense to me.

Quote from: Ladislaus on July 21, 2022, 05:35:08 PM

Interesting video, I’ll look for myself with my telescope. 2 possible explanations come to mind: 1)faulty pixels can show stars, though he said he was using film, and I’m not familiar with film defects, 2) remember that video I posted of a guy shining a laser through a solid ball? As strange as it seems, both the math and the actual experiment proved light can do such strange things. Maybe it does the same with stars behind the moon, which are too dim to see during a full moon. A very sensitive light sensor might be able to pick up the difference between what is moon and what is star. That is an experiment I’d like to see. Then the star pattern could be matched up with the real stars when the moon moves out of the way.

The brightness of the moon I would assume is due to our distance from it, making our angle to the reflected light such that it is dead on at us. I think it is just a common property of light that should be relatively easy to prove on a smaller scale. Remember, it looks bright at night, not when its relatively weak light is overpowered by a sunny sky and our adjusted day vision.

Quote from: Miser Peccator on July 21, 2022, 06:58:19 PM

I don't know how to make the image smaller so you have to click on it to see the right side.

The globe is glossy or polished smooth, the moon is far from smooth allowing it to scatter light much better. It's like how a light bulb filament or a candle flame is visible through clear glass or plastic, but the whole light fixture dome will light up if it is frosted glass or white plastic. Another example would be the silver reflective lines on road worker's safety vests vs how a mirror reflects light. I think it is just a common property of light that would allow a sphere moon to appear as it does.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #34 on:** July 22, 2022, 08:17:11 AM »

Quote from: St Giles on July 21, 2022, 10:52:39 PM

Does the timing of the moon not actually line up with the tides? I don't live by the ocean, so I wouldn't know.
All good points made by you, but I have a few counter thoughts.

No, the timing doesn't really work ... and that's one of the problems with it. I'll have to dig up the information I found.

I'll get back to Pope Leo XIII, but that quote has been used to justify falsely all of the Modernist interpretations of Sacred Scripture, who just generally apply this to spin Sacred Scripture as ONLY intending to teach matters profitable to salvation. Nevertheless, this does not mean that WHEN Sacred Scripture is discussing historical events or even natural or scientific ones that there's a possibility of error. So the Holy Office under St. Pius X declared, for instance, that Sacred Scripture was to be understood a literally and historically except when it's clearly understood to be employing metaphor, simile, or allegory. So, no, you can't interpret Genesis as an allegory that's historically and scientifically inaccurate (i.e. in error) because, well, it was, as the Modernists allege, merely a story trying to communicate some "spiritually profitable" matter. That's a distortion of what Leo XIII actually taught and intended. So the determination of whether any given part of Sacred Scripture is to be interpreted literally rests on how the Fathers unanimously interpreted those passages. So it is that the Holy Office determined that the Church Fathers clearly understood various passages in Sacred Scripture to be historicaly/scientific/literal vs. being similes, metaphors, or figures of speech, and that the fact of a stationary earth was one of these matters. So Leo XIII's teaching does not justify throwing out everything except the spiritual meaning of Sacred Scripture, and alleging as the Modernists do that everything other than the "spiritual message" of the Scriptures is fair game to be tossed out.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #35 on:** July 22, 2022, 08:18:37 AM »

With regard to stray pixels on the one man's pictures and photographs, yes, that is possible, but there have been reports of naked-eye observations of the same phenomenon by professional astronomers (as cited in the text overlaying parts of that video).

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #36 on:** July 22, 2022, 08:32:28 AM »

Quote from: St Giles on July 21, 2022, 10:52:39 PM

I don’t see how water curving around a giant sphere can be so hard to understand. And I don't think gravity's affect on air or whatever weaker objects is clicking in your mind. It makes a lot of sense to me.

It isn't "clicking" because the behavior of these things such as air or water is in accordance with the properties of density and buoyancy rather than some "force of gravity" (which, again, modern scientists no longer say is a force, but the "curving of space-time"). A balloon filled with air sinks to the floor, while one filled with helium rises to the ceiling. This is because helium is less dense than air, even if the mass is the same in both.

As for water curving around a sphere. Show me the practical experiment where this is replicated, and I'll accept it. No one has been able to replicate it outside of mathematical theory, because it isn't possible in reality due to the properties of water, which always finds its level.

On Sacred Scripture, it's as Lad states, and I take the literal meaning until it is obviously metaphor, simile, or allegory; as Leo XIII and Pius X teach. What FE has shown is that the literal reading of Scripture is not only logical, but is also the most practical as opposed to the fantasies of modern cosmology. MHFM does a good job in dogmatic arguments, but once they get outside of that they tend to falter. They believe the claims of modern cosmology and even think the moon landings were real.

Tradman · « **Reply #37 on:** July 22, 2022, 09:31:13 AM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on July 22, 2022, 08:32:28 AM

On Sacred Scripture, it's as Lad states, and I take the literal meaning until it is obviously metaphor, simile, or allegory; as Leo XIII and Pius X teach. What FE has shown is that the literal reading of Scripture is not only logical, but is also the most practical as opposed to the fantasies of modern cosmology. MHFM does a good job in dogmatic arguments, but once they get outside of that they tend to falter. They believe the claims of modern cosmology and even think the moon landings were real.

PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS

15. But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires;

Tradman · « **Reply #38 on:** July 22, 2022, 09:42:41 AM »

PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS

If dissension should arise between them, (flat earth vs globe, emphasis mine) here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: "Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so."

Tradman · « **Reply #39 on:** July 22, 2022, 10:13:09 AM »

PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS

9. We must now, Venerable Brethren, as our purpose demands, impart to you such counsels as seem best suited for carrying on successfully the study of Biblical science.

10. But first it must be clearly understood whom we have to oppose and contend against, and what are their tactics and their arms. In earlier times the contest was chiefly with those who, relying on private judgment and repudiating the divine traditions and teaching office of the Church, held the Scriptures to be the one source of revelation and the final appeal in matters of Faith. Now, we have to meet the Rationalists, true children and inheritors of the older heretics, who, trusting in their turn to their own way of thinking, have rejected even the scraps and remnants of Christian belief which had been handed down to them. They deny that there is any such thing as revelation or inspiration, or Holy Scripture at all; they see, instead, only the forgeries and the falsehoods of men; they set down the Scripture narratives as stupid fables and lying stories: the prophecies and the oracles of God are to them either predictions made up after the event or forecasts formed by the light of nature; the miracles and the wonders of God's power are not what they are said to be, but the startling effects of natural law, or else mere tricks and myths; and the Apostolic Gospels and writings are not the work of the Apostles at all. These detestable errors, whereby they think they destroy the truth of the divine Books, are obtruded on the world as the peremptory pronouncements of a certain newly-invented "free science;" a science, however, which is so far from final that they are perpetually modifying and supplementing it. And there are some of them who, notwithstanding their impious opinions and utterances about God, and Christ, the Gospels and the rest of Holy Scripture, would faro be considered both theologians and Christians and men of the Gospel, and who attempt to disguise by such honourable names their rashness and their pride. To them we must add not a few professors of other sciences who approve their views and give them assistance, and are urged to attack the Bible by a similar intolerance of revelation. And it is deplorable to see these attacks growing every day more numerous and more severe. It is sometimes men of learning and judgment who are assailed; but these have little difficulty in defending themselves from evil consequences. The efforts and the arts of the enemy are chiefly directed against the more ignorant masses of the people. They diffuse their deadly poison by means of books, pamphlets, and newspapers; they spread it by addresses and by conversation; they are found everywhere; and they are in possession of numerous schools, taken by violence from the Church, in which, by ridicule and scurrilous jesting, they pervert the credulous and unformed minds of the young to the contempt of Holy Scripture. Should not these things, Venerable Brethren, stir up and set on fire the heart of every Pastor, so that to this "knowledge, falsely so called,"(28) may be opposed the ancient and true science which the Church, through the Apostles, has received from Christ, and that Holy Scripture may find the champions that are needed in so momentous a battle?

Donachie · « **Reply #40 on:** July 23, 2022, 10:54:59 AM »

ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic controlled NASA can't get to the Moon with a rocket and neither can anybody else. Not communist Jew-pinched China either. Rockets don't have the velocity, the power, or the fuel capacity or design features to make it there. And there are no so-called "gravity-kicks". Newton's theory of "gravity" is garbage and so is Einstein's theory of relativity.

Averroes in Tahafut al-Tahafut, The Incoherence of the Incoherence, is at least based in Hellenistic geocentrism, and writes in passing, "Therefore the body with straight surfaces must end in the circuмscribing circular body, since this is the perfect body which is liable neither to increase nor to decrease. Therefore when the mind seeks to imagine that the circular body must end in another body (like some sort of flat Earth), it imagines the impossible. These are all matters of which the mutakallemim of the camel jockeys and those who do not start their inquiry in the proper scientific order are unaware."

Which means that in view of the infinity of God and the 3-D quality of space, a flat Earth does not make good sense for the sake of the relation which it evidently has to everything else.

Tradman · « **Reply #41 on:** July 25, 2022, 10:44:06 AM »

Quote from: Donachie on July 23, 2022, 10:54:59 AM

ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic controlled NASA can't get to the Moon with a rocket and neither can anybody else. Not communist Jєω-pinched China either. Rockets don't have the velocity, the power, or the fuel capacity or design features to make it there. And there are no so-called "gravity-kicks". Newton's theory of "gravity" is garbage and so is Einstein's theory of relativity.

Averroes in Tahafut al-Tahafut, The Incoherence of the Incoherence, is at least based in Hellenistic geocentrism, and writes in passing, "Therefore the body with straight surfaces must end in the circuмscribing circular body, since this is the perfect body which is liable neither to increase nor to decrease. Therefore when the mind seeks to imagine that the circular body must end in another body (like some sort of flat Earth), it imagines the impossible. These are all matters of which the mutakallemim of the camel jockeys and those who do not start their inquiry in the proper scientific order are unaware."

Which means that in view of the infinity of God and the 3-D quality of space, a flat Earth does not make good sense for the sake of the relation which it evidently has to everything else.

One of the most ridiculous notions out there is people who think earth is a geocentric ball hanging stationary in space. All because some pagan says the perfect body must be a sphere? Out of what hole do people climb who adhere to drawing such a conclusion? Where are the pillars that infallible scripture describes support the earth if earth is a ball? Picture that anomaly. How is a dome able to cover a ball shaped earth as scripture describes? How can the earth have cardinal directions if it's a ball? Where does east or west or north or south even begin on a ball? Where do they end? Who says? Why does scripture describe the ends of the earth when in fact earth has no ends if earth is a ball? How does a hanging ball in space believer explain gravity without earth spin? Where does scripture ever describe a ball earth? How can the sun travel ridiculous numbers of miles in a mere 24 hour period while going around earth? The stars, even further out, travel faster and farther in the same amount of time? How does a ball have a face, as scripture describes? The incoherence of incoherence attempting to use the word "circuмscribing" to represent the shape of a ball is worst of all. Circuмscribing has nothing to do with outlining a ball, but rather, a circle, so even the statement itself is untenable.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #42 on:** July 25, 2022, 10:57:32 AM »

Quote from: Donachie on July 23, 2022, 10:54:59 AM

Newton's theory of "gravity" is garbage and so is Einstein's theory of relativity.

Most of modern "science" is total garbage, made up in the service of the Judaeo-Masonic agenda. They come up with these theories, and then present them as established fact to the younger generations in grade school to program their minds.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #43 on:** July 25, 2022, 03:55:05 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on July 25, 2022, 10:57:32 AM

Most of modern "science" is total garbage, made up in the service of the Judaeo-Masonic agenda. They come up with these theories, and then present them as established fact to the younger generations in grade school to program their minds.

It's philosophy, honestly. Once Einstein came along and kick-started "theoretical physics", we've been seeing philosophy through the language of mathematics being dressed up as cosmological "truth". Very little, if any of it, it proven through the scientific method.

In another way, it almost serves as a sort of naturalistic "theology" for the grand cult of Scientism

Ladislaus · « **Reply #44 on:** July 25, 2022, 04:56:30 PM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on July 25, 2022, 03:55:05 PM

It's philosophy, honestly. Once Einstein came along and kick-started "theoretical physics", we've been seeing philosophy through the language of mathematics being dressed up as cosmological "truth". Very little, if any of it, it proven through the scientific method.

In another way, it almost serves as a sort of naturalistic "theology" for the grand cult of Scientism

There's some correspondence between Darwin and Lowell about evolution, and they both openly state that there are huge holes in their respective theories (Lowell was more focused on geology and proving old earth millions of years old), but they basically admitted that they didn't care, and that their intent was to gut Christianity.

In the higher-level academic circles (universities, etc.), MANY even-mainstream scholars are questioning evolution. But it's still presented as proven fact to school children, and other theories are largely forbidden to be taught. I even saw where one top scholars who is an atheist stated that he had no other options but to conclude Intelligent Design, but, when asked about whether he believed in God and stopped being an atheist, he said that he wouldn't go quite that far.

Author Topic: Dr. John D destroys the Globe (Read 6375 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe

Ladislaus

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe

Miser Peccator

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe

St Giles

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe

Ladislaus

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe

Ladislaus

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe

DigitalLogos

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe

Tradman

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe

Tradman

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe

Tradman

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe

Donachie

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe

Tradman

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe

Ladislaus

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe

DigitalLogos

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe

Ladislaus

Re: Dr. John D destroys the Globe