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

Author Topic: Has anybody got a question about the Galileo case they would like to ask?  (Read 6152 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 13035
  • Reputation: +8249/-2561
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That's great, but you still didn't address the lack of a property such as gravity, or some other notion which keeps people tethered to a ball in space.  If you don't know, that's fine.  I don't. 

    Offline cassini

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4050
    • Reputation: +3335/-275
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • “That the Earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered to be at least erroneous in faith.”

    My understanding is that he Bible only states the Earth is fixed.

    “He hath fixed the Earth, which shall not be moved.”--- (Ps. 92:1)

    It does not state it is fixed at the centre of the universe, nor moving as a whole, nor with a diurnal movement. Because it does not state the above explicitly it cannot be considered heresy. But a moving sun is explicitly revealed in Scripture (On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: “Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.” So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar.)

    Based on its association with the fixed-sun universe heresy, it could only be considered to be at least erroneous in faith.” 


    Offline cassini

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4050
    • Reputation: +3335/-275
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That's great, but you still didn't address the lack of a property such as gravity, or some other notion which keeps people tethered to a ball in space.  If you don't know, that's fine.  I don't.

    Perhaps that question never occurred to them Pax. It was something they took for granted, just as most do.

    Offline roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7687
    • Reputation: +646/-420
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Why does Einstien refer to Galileo as the " father of modern PHYSICS"--- not astronomy?

    Hint--- my article on The Real Galileo can be read at firstjesuits.wordpress.com  :fryingpan:
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13035
    • Reputation: +8249/-2561
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    My understanding is that he Bible only states the Earth is fixed.

    “He hath fixed the Earth, which shall not be moved.”--- (Ps. 92:1)

    It does not state it is fixed at the centre of the universe, nor moving as a whole, nor with a diurnal movement. Because it does not state the above explicitly it cannot be considered heresy. But a moving sun is explicitly revealed in Scripture (On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: “Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.” So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar.)

    Based on its association with the fixed-sun universe heresy, it could only be considered to be at least erroneous in faith.” 
    Logically, if the earth is fixed, and if the sun/moon/stars move, then the earth is "in the center", because all movement is done around/over the earth.  So, yes, this means the earth is at the center.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47741
    • Reputation: +28241/-5288
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Logically, if the earth is fixed, and if the sun/moon/stars move, then the earth is "in the center", because all movement is done around/over the earth.  So, yes, this means the earth is at the center.

    Yes, the notion of "center" has always been interesting.  In the Newtonian gravity system, it's actually the barycenter of a system that constitutes the gravitational center (though, as you know, I consdier that BS).  Does "center" mean that every piece of matter on all sides is equidistant from the earth?  St. Augustine detailed a debate about whether the earth was suspended in the midst of the waters (the absolute center) or had sunk to the bottom (due to the higher density of earth vs. water), saying that it's OK to say it's at the bottom because bottom center is still center.  Of course, the Modernists (the less outrageously heretical of them anyway) will claim that "center" means simply that it was the central focus of God's creation.  Geocentrists who also believe in Genesis will hold earth was created first and everything else peripheral to it, so that would be a different kind of center, where it doesn't necessarily require equidistance to all sides of the system.

    I believe that center requires that it be fixed, unmoving and immovable, and anything else that moves in relation to it is in motion.

    Now, some argue that motion is relative, i.e. that we'd never be able to define motion unless one object moved IN RELATION to another.  St. Augustine actually held this view long before Einstein plagarized his work from many sources.  I disagree.  I believe that we can define motion in an absolute sense as the actualization of a potency, where something goes from a state of potency to a state of act.  I am sitting in a chair behind my desk, but I am in potency to be in the kitchen. Or I am in potency of moving even 5 inches from where I'm at.  That's how I define motion and it can be determined in an absolute sense even if it can't always be visibly measured.

    Lack of motion for the earth also is easy to define if you agree that there's an ether or some fabric of the universe that an object has to displace in order to go from one actual state of being to another, actualizing a state that it's in potency to.  So even if we can't see it or measure it, or even if the motion is not "physical", there can be motion.  It's also motion that permits passage through time.  This broader ontological concept of "motion" (change of state from potentcy to act) also encompasses physical movement, but other types of movement as well.  If my mind moves from one thought to another, that's considered a type of motion, ontologically speaking.

    Lots of interesting questions here, especially for one informed by faith and Sacred Scripture and not going donw the rabbit holes created by the errors of modern science that were driven by an anti-God and anti-Scripture agenda.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47741
    • Reputation: +28241/-5288
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That's great, but you still didn't address the lack of a property such as gravity, or some other notion which keeps people tethered to a ball in space.  If you don't know, that's fine.  I don't.

    Right, and it may be why some Fathers who did believe earth was round also rejected the notion of the Antipodal People, that people be upside-down on the "bottom".

    They most certainly had an absolute sense of up and down, thus the debate by some about how the earth can't be suspended in the midst of waters, since earth is heavier than water and would sink to the bottom.  Of course, if it were buoyant, ligher than the water, like a boat (due to being an enclose filled with air), then it would rise up to the top.  This was being debated and St. Ambrose refuse an unknown opponent on this matter by stating that the rotation of the waters suspended the earth in the middle of the waters of the universe ... or else it was some kind of miracle.

    But all the debates detailed by these Fathers had for their premise an absolute notion of up and down, a notion of buoyancy, where heavier things sank down and lighter things floated up, with absolute sense of up and down.

    They had no sense of either gravity or of some force akin to electromagnetism that would keep things stuck onto the bottom of a ball and would have considered the notion absurd.


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13035
    • Reputation: +8249/-2561
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    I believe that center requires that it be fixed, unmoving and immovable, and anything else that moves in relation to it is in motion.

    Now, some argue that motion is relative, i.e. that we'd never be able to define motion unless one object moved IN RELATION to another. 
    Yes, when we talk about the earth 'being the center' of the universe, it's not a geometric center.  Because some planets (if you believe the NASA fables) are waaaaay out there, and the 'center' of the universe wouldn't be earth, but somewhere in the middle of space.  But that's irrelevant.

    When we speak of the 'earth being the center' we are speaking philosophically and religiously, i.e.

    a.  earth is the CENTRAL FOCUS of creation (which it is, because it is the only planet with life)
    b.  earth is the CENTRAL FOCUS of the universe, with all other stars, planets, sun and moon created for the earth's (and mankind's) purpose and use,
    c.  earth is the CENTRAL FOCUS of God, related to mankind and his salvation (which it is, because all other 'heavenly beings' were created for man and his salvation).

    The sun, moon, and stars were not created for themselves, but for man.  Mars, pluto, neptune, etc were not created for themselves, but for man.  Everything in the created world was created for mankind, and their only goal is to help him save his soul.

    That's what is meant, when catholics say the earth is the 'center of the universe'; only on earth is salvation (and the accompanying battle) going on.  Only on earth did God visit and become Incarnate as the Word Made Flesh.  Only on earth did Our Lady and all the saints sacrifice, pray and glorify God.  

    Earth is all that matters.  And everything else revolves around it and it's purpose - the salvation of mankind (both philosophically, religiously and scientifically).


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13035
    • Reputation: +8249/-2561
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Perhaps that question never occurred to them Pax. It was something they took for granted, just as most do.
    :facepalm:  Everyone wonders about gravity; which is why it's taught in schools, starting in the 3rd grade (9-10 years old).

    Quote
    But all the debates detailed by these Fathers had for their premise an absolute notion of up and down, a notion of buoyancy, where heavier things sank down and lighter things floated up, with absolute sense of up and down.
    As has been said hundreds of times..."up vs down" makes no sense on a globe.  "Up vs down" is relative.  But since God isn't relative, and religion isn't relative and truth isn't relative....then how can a scientific principle as important as "up vs down" be relative?  Makes no sense.

    Offline cassini

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4050
    • Reputation: +3335/-275
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ‘Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east as [Galileo] taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west as [the Catholic Church prior to 1820] believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption that cannot be proved or disproved by observation.’--- Bertrand Russell: quoted in D. D. Sciama’s The Unity of the Universe, 1959, p.18.

    Note carefully what Russell (1872-1970) has to admit; that man’s empirical science cannot tell us the order of the world for certain, for universal relativity makes it a metaphysical question, not one Isaac Newton or science can prove. You see the problem with whether the sun and stars revolve around the Earth as we see them do, and as the Bible says they do, or whether the Earth orbits the sun while revolving in a fixed-star universe as we are told they do, is one of relative movement in space. Only if we could position ourselves outside the universe and look in at it, would it be possible to see what cosmic bodies are fixed or move, and only then could we humans confirm the true order of its many movements. But because we are confined within our place in space and cannot go outside the universe to view inside it, no human science can confirm the true order of the universe for certain. In other words, the Galileo case was never about ‘Faith and Science’ as modern churchmen assert, but one of ‘Faith and Metaphysics.’ You see, the Lord God does know the order of His universe, and He revealed in Scripture the universe was created geocentric, with the sun and stars orbiting around the fixed Earth, an order made visible to the senses by Him to show us humans how He created the universe ‘for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years’ on Earth.

    On the other hand, one can test if Einstein’s and Russell’s 50/50 relative ‘observable phenomena will be exactly the same’ as asserted above. This test can be done, and was shown how by Walter van der Kamp. If the test was confined to the Earth, sun and planets alone, then yes, double relativity can be shown to exist. But the universe includes the stars, and whereas Stellar Aberration is found in the geocentric aspect of the 50/50 exchange, it cannot be found in the 50/50 heliocentric exchange. So, as regards empirical science, Einstein and Russell’s 50/50 universe above is also falsified, so it is back to the Airy and M&M tests that show some scientific evidence for geocentrism.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47741
    • Reputation: +28241/-5288
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • :facepalm:  Everyone wonders about gravity; which is why it's taught in schools, starting in the 3rd grade (9-10 years old).
    As has been said hundreds of times..."up vs down" makes no sense on a globe.  "Up vs down" is relative.  But since God isn't relative, and religion isn't relative and truth isn't relative....then how can a scientific principle as important as "up vs down" be relative?  Makes no sense.

    There are other mysteries of faith, even, that don't make sense on globe, such as Our Lord's Ascension, or where the devil took Him upon on the high mountain to show Him all the kingdoms of the world.

    If we live on a globe, Our Lord's Ascension was really a Descension for people on the other side of the ball.  Then, if all that's above us is air and then empty space, where did He ascend to?  Did He just slip into an alternate dimension?  In that case, His rising up in the air was just some spectacle and side-show, and completely unnecessary.  Or did He go through billions of light years of space and then come out in Heaven past the edge of the Universe?  Did He have to pinpoint the exact right direction lest He could have travel billions of light years in the wrong direction?  Or is Heaven all around the boundaries of space?  But if Heaven isn't in a certain location, the Ascension of Our Lord does reduce to just some spectacle meant to teach something, but there was no need for Him really to rise up through the air and above the clouds to get there.


    Offline King Tailor

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 6
    • Reputation: +4/-3
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • It does not state it is fixed at the centre of the universe, nor moving as a whole, nor with a diurnal movement. Because it does not state the above explicitly it cannot be considered heresy. But a moving sun is explicitly revealed in Scripture (On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: “Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.” So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar.)


    Is the idea that the earth spins on an axis condemned, "nor with a diurnal movement"?

    My idea of how to explain non-heliocentrism would be:

    The all the planets spin around the earth in are solar system, the earth is tilted and spins on its axis to create gravity and the seasons (tilted earth + suns orbit which is slightly longer during the winter months). This would also explain lunar eclipses, and the moon looking different when you are in different parts of the world i.e. the big crater.

    Either I don't understand flat-earth or flat-earth hits walls that they can't really get around.


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13035
    • Reputation: +8249/-2561
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    the earth is tilted and spins on its axis to create gravity and the seasons
    Except there's no evidence that the earth spins, or is tilted.  And contrary to Scripture, a spinning earth would NOT be "fixed".

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13035
    • Reputation: +8249/-2561
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    So, as regards empirical science, Einstein and Russell’s 50/50 universe above is also falsified, so it is back to the Airy and M&M tests that show some scientific evidence for geocentrism.
    Doesn't the M&M experiment prove the earth doesn't spin?

    Secondly, why do you think that science on this matter stopped in the late 1880s? 

    Obviously, the 1900s on does not have a lot of geocentrist scientists (much less any FE ones), because Big-Science/Big-Govt weeded them out and didn't fund them.  But that doesn't mean science stops.

    Just like we Trads often have to go to pre-V2 theologians to find answers to things; but that doesn't mean catholic theology stops.  There's plenty of good, catholic theologians on CathInfo and we discuss the topics of the day, applying time-honored theologic principles to problems that didn't exist pre-V2.

    In the same way, whether you want to admit it or not, with advances in technology, there's plenty of science being practiced by "laypersons" out there, who are studying questions that Big-Science/Big-Govt don't want to touch.  Like the lack of curvature in the earth.

    Offline cassini

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4050
    • Reputation: +3335/-275
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Doesn't the M&M experiment prove the earth doesn't spin?

    Secondly, why do you think that science on this matter stopped in the late 1880s? 

    Obviously, the 1900s on does not have a lot of geocentrist scientists (much less any FE ones), because Big-Science/Big-Govt weeded them out and didn't fund them.  But that doesn't mean science stops.

    Just like we Trads often have to go to pre-V2 theologians to find answers to things; but that doesn't mean catholic theology stops.  There's plenty of good, catholic theologians on CathInfo and we discuss the topics of the day, applying time-honored theologic principles to problems that didn't exist pre-V2.

    In the same way, whether you want to admit it or not, with advances in technology, there's plenty of science being practiced by "laypersons" out there, who are studying questions that Big-Science/Big-Govt don't want to touch.  Like the lack of curvature in the earth.

    In 1871, the astronomer George Airy (1801-1892) conducted a very important and precise test to confirm that it is the Earth orbiting the sun that causes the stars to be seen rotating in small circles annually (Stellar Aberration), the so-called ‘proof’ that convinced Pope Pius VII to reject a geocentric meaning of Scripture in 1820. Using two similar telescopes, one filled with water, the other as normal, one representing a fixed-Earth, the other representing a moving-Earth, Airy found it has to be the fixed-Earth with the stars rotating around it that causes Stellar Aberration. Then, in the 1880s, Albert Michelson (1852-1931) began many tests using a light-beam interferometer in the direction the Earth is supposed to be orbiting around the sun at 67,000mph to determine the existence of universal ether. It too resulted in measurements, never proven wrong, showing the Earth is not orbiting the sun. In 1887, with the help of Edward Morley he repeated the test many times with the same result again confirming empirical evidence that favoured geocentrism, and with true science, the more non-falsified evidence for a theory, the more it is likely to be true. Nevertheless, both in Church and State carried on with their ‘proven’ heliocentrism.

    There were two reasons why both Church and science had to ignore the two tests that showed evidence for geocentrism.

    ‘All modern cosmology [and Modernist exegesis] stands or falls with this concept being correct, even though, to quote a text approved by Einstein: “We cannot feel our motion through space, nor has any experiment proved the Earth in motion.”’---Lincoln Barnett: The universe and Dr. Einstein, Dover, 1948, p.73

    When Einstein invented a 50/50 universe for science, they stuck with heliocentrism as the correct correct one. Churchmen, because popes from 1741 to 1835 , for the first time in the history of the Church, popes began to adopt and promote a secular story of Creation rather than abide by the supernatural one of traditional Catholicism. Having gone along with this change that asserted all the Fathers, popes, theologians,the Council of Trent, all got their meaning of revelation wrong, how could they admit the error was in 1820 and not 1616 and 1633. every pope since 12820 has to abide by what their predecessors ruled. These included Pope Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Benedict XV and Pius XI. through their reigns, not one other natural story of origins was officially condemned. \these included, the evolution of the universe, and everything else. Thus the supernatural act of Creation was replaced by a secular natural story of origins, one that didn't need a Creator for atheists and agnostics.

    Let us now demonstrate how bad the Galilean reformation went within the Catholic Church. The following comes from the Creation catechesis for adults given in four Lenten homilies in the cathedral of Munich in 1981 by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (1927-2022), later elected Pope Benedict XVI (2005-2013), one of the periti advisers at Vatican II. These homilies were later published in a 1995 book In the Beginning. The reason for the subject matter, Cardinal Ratzinger correctly stated, was because the Creation account in Genesis is noticeably and nearly completely absent from Catholic catechesis, preaching and theology today. He then tells us exactly why this is so:

    ‘Yet these words [of Moses’s Genesis Creation account] give rise to a certain conflict. They are beautiful and familiar, but are they true? Everything seems to speak against it, for science has long since disposed of the concepts that we have just now heard – the idea of a world that is completely comprehensible in terms of space and time, and the idea that the creation was built up piece by piece over the course of seven days. Instead of this we now face measurements that transcend all comprehension. Today we hear of the Big Bang, which happened billions of years ago and with which the universe began its expansion, an expansion that continues to occur without interruption. And it was not in neat succession that the stars were hung and the green fields created; it was rather in complex ways and over vast periods of time that the earth and the universe were constructed as we now know them. Do these words [of Genesis] then, count for anything? In fact, a theologian said not so long ago that creation has now become an unreal concept. If one is to be intellectually honest one ought to speak no longer of creation but rather of mutation and selection. Are these words true?... Is there an answer to this that we can claim for ourselves in this day and age?... Thus far it has become clear that the Biblical creation narratives represent another way of speaking about reality than that with which we are familiar from physics and biology.’--- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: In the Beginning.  p,3, 1995.