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

Author Topic: Is the Ptolemaic System Correct?  (Read 609 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline StLouisIX

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 986
  • Reputation: +646/-52
  • Gender: Male
Is the Ptolemaic System Correct?
« on: March 12, 2022, 09:42:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • It's a geocentrist model of the universe, and to me it seems certainly more reasonable than the claims of modern "science". I question the existence of other galaxies, as NASA has a proven track record of lying and hoaxes (ex. Moon Landing), and they offer no convincing evidence (CGI renders don't count). 

    Notably, it features prominently in the Dante's Paradiso, and as an aside, it was through reading that book that I first learned about this system. 

    I'm interested to hear the opinions of others here on the forum on this subject, since I am interested in the subject but (to my knowledge) didn't see it come up during the recent Flat Earth debates. 

    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5920
    • Reputation: +3301/-510
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
    Re: Is the Ptolemaic System Correct?
    « Reply #1 on: March 14, 2022, 05:27:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • FE/GE debate aside, it's the most consistent system for a geocentric model, at least as far as I've seen. It has been accurate for centuries when it comes to lunar phases, eclipses, etc. I certainly no longer believe that "space" is even a thing, at least not so far as it expands for billions upon billions of "light years", as God revealed that there were "waters above" not a void with massive stars and planets expanding forever.

    Even Bl. Hildegard von Bingen's visions support this system (whether or not you believe them): https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/sugenis-hildegard-and-the-cause-of-gravity/msg798720/#msg798720

    "The declared enemies of God and His Church, heretics and schismatics, must be criticized as much as possible, as long as truth is not denied. It is a work of charity to shout: ‘Here is the wolf!’ when it enters the flock or anywhere else." -- Saint Francis de Sales

    "For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:" [2 Timothy 4:3]


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 30670
    • Reputation: +18066/-4536
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is the Ptolemaic System Correct?
    « Reply #2 on: March 14, 2022, 06:18:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Many ancients held a theory regarding the "spheres", since the notion of a "force acting at a distance" was rejected as philosophically absurd (and it is).

    Offline Dankward

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 434
    • Reputation: +229/-239
    • Gender: Male
    • Deo confidimus!
    Re: Is the Ptolemaic System Correct?
    « Reply #3 on: March 18, 2022, 02:58:45 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • The only geocentric system that's still congruent with our observations is based on the tychonic system (from Tycho Brahe, 16th century).

    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2484
    • Reputation: +1416/-190
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is the Ptolemaic System Correct?
    « Reply #4 on: March 23, 2022, 08:16:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The only geocentric system that's still congruent with our observations is based on the tychonic system (from Tycho Brahe, 16th century).


    Correct. Two things about this illustration that must be known. The orbits are not circles as Tycho thought, but Cassinian ovals. Moreover, the earth, sun, planets system illustrated above should be confined to the light blue circle in the middle.


    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2484
    • Reputation: +1416/-190
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is the Ptolemaic System Correct?
    « Reply #5 on: March 23, 2022, 08:36:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  I certainly no longer believe that "space" is even a thing, at least not so far as it expands for billions upon billions of "light years", as God revealed that there were "waters above" not a void with massive stars and planets expanding forever.

    ‘For which cause there sprung even from one (and him as good as dead) as the stars of heaven in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.’--- Douay Rheims, Epistle of St Paul to the Hebrews, 11:12.

    Now who would like to venture a guess at the number of grains of sand in a teacup let alone by the sea shore? Such a contrast teaches us the omnipotence of God by star numbers and indeed by the space needed to accommodate these created bodies; as such numbers would need a universe of immeasurable distances for so many. In his book City of God (Vol. 1, Ch.23), St Augustine, 1200 years before Galileo’s sightings, addressed this very question:

    ‘But as for their numbers, who sees not that the sands do far exceed the stars? Herein you may say they are not comparable in that they are both innumerable. For we cannot think that one can see all the stars, but the more earnestly he beholds them the more he sees: so that we may well suppose that there are some that deceive the sharpest eyes, besides those that arise in other horizons out of sight.’

    Starlight and Time

    Beginning with Einstein’s whacky Special Theory of Relativity, Genesis time entered the mad house of modern cosmological theoretical space-time. Once the speed of light was found to be finite, not infinite, this fact was then used to date the universe as billions of years old. Using the assumption that there was a Big Bang, then if stars are measured at millions to 13.5 billion light years away from the Earth, then, they claim, the universe has to be 13.5 billion years old. Einstein and others took the theory further. In his relativist universe, space and time are interchangeable. The further we look out at stars in space, the further back we are looking back in time. Einstein was a Wellsian time-traveller, or, as it was said, “All time is eternally present.” But as T.S. Eliot put it, ‘If all time is eternally present - all time is unredeemable.’         
       If, however, the light from the sun, moon and stars, no matter their distances from Earth, those that we can see every day with the naked eye and through telescopes, were made visible on Earth to Adam on the sixth day of Creation as revealed in Genesis, then no such delayed billions of years of star-time exists or ever existed for mankind. In other words, God created the universe with one time-zone overall, a 24-hour Earth-universe time zone.

    Finally Space exists, but it is finite. The only proof of this is the geocenteric order for only a FINITE universe can turn in 24 hours.


    Offline Dankward

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 434
    • Reputation: +229/-239
    • Gender: Male
    • Deo confidimus!
    Re: Is the Ptolemaic System Correct?
    « Reply #6 on: March 23, 2022, 03:52:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Correct. Two things about this illustration that must be known. The orbits are not circles as Tycho thought, but Cassinian ovals. Moreover, the earth, sun, planets system illustrated above should be confined to the light blue circle in the middle.
    I'm not sure why they would be... I think it just shows the sun's orbit around earth.

    Offline StLouisIX

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 986
    • Reputation: +646/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is the Ptolemaic System Correct?
    « Reply #7 on: March 23, 2022, 08:21:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The only geocentric system that's still congruent with our observations is based on the tychonic system (from Tycho Brahe, 16th century).

    ‘For which cause there sprung even from one (and him as good as dead) as the stars of heaven in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.’--- Douay Rheims, Epistle of St Paul to the Hebrews, 11:12.

    Now who would like to venture a guess at the number of grains of sand in a teacup let alone by the sea shore? Such a contrast teaches us the omnipotence of God by star numbers and indeed by the space needed to accommodate these created bodies; as such numbers would need a universe of immeasurable distances for so many. In his book City of God (Vol. 1, Ch.23), St Augustine, 1200 years before Galileo’s sightings, addressed this very question:

    ‘But as for their numbers, who sees not that the sands do far exceed the stars? Herein you may say they are not comparable in that they are both innumerable. For we cannot think that one can see all the stars, but the more earnestly he beholds them the more he sees: so that we may well suppose that there are some that deceive the sharpest eyes, besides those that arise in other horizons out of sight.’

    Starlight and Time

    Beginning with Einstein’s whacky Special Theory of Relativity, Genesis time entered the mad house of modern cosmological theoretical space-time. Once the speed of light was found to be finite, not infinite, this fact was then used to date the universe as billions of years old. Using the assumption that there was a Big Bang, then if stars are measured at millions to 13.5 billion light years away from the Earth, then, they claim, the universe has to be 13.5 billion years old. Einstein and others took the theory further. In his relativist universe, space and time are interchangeable. The further we look out at stars in space, the further back we are looking back in time. Einstein was a Wellsian time-traveller, or, as it was said, “All time is eternally present.” But as T.S. Eliot put it, ‘If all time is eternally present - all time is unredeemable.’         
      If, however, the light from the sun, moon and stars, no matter their distances from Earth, those that we can see every day with the naked eye and through telescopes, were made visible on Earth to Adam on the sixth day of Creation as revealed in Genesis, then no such delayed billions of years of star-time exists or ever existed for mankind. In other words, God created the universe with one time-zone overall, a 24-hour Earth-universe time zone.

    Finally Space exists, but it is finite. The only proof of this is the geocenteric order for only a FINITE universe can turn in 24 hours.



    Fascinating! Thanks for sharing! 

    Though I'm not as invested personally in the issues surrounding the earth and space as I am in the subjects of evolution and dinosaurs, they're ultimately important scientific issues one should look into to learn the truth about these things and not be fooled by establishment "science".


    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5920
    • Reputation: +3301/-510
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
    Re: Is the Ptolemaic System Correct?
    « Reply #8 on: March 23, 2022, 09:26:56 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I always forget about Brahe for some reason. :facepalm:
    "The declared enemies of God and His Church, heretics and schismatics, must be criticized as much as possible, as long as truth is not denied. It is a work of charity to shout: ‘Here is the wolf!’ when it enters the flock or anywhere else." -- Saint Francis de Sales

    "For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:" [2 Timothy 4:3]

    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2484
    • Reputation: +1416/-190
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is the Ptolemaic System Correct?
    « Reply #9 on: March 24, 2022, 09:00:34 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Moreover, the earth, sun, planets system illustrated above should be confined to the light blue circle in the middle.


    I'm not sure why they would be... I think it just shows the sun's orbit around earth.

    The only reason Dankward I say the solar system orbiting around a fixed Earth should be illustrated as in the light blue bit of Tycho's illustration is to emphasise the size of the universe as compared to the Earth-solar system. It looks too big in Tycho universe..

    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2484
    • Reputation: +1416/-190
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is the Ptolemaic System Correct?
    « Reply #10 on: March 24, 2022, 12:53:27 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fascinating! Thanks for sharing!

    Though I'm not as invested personally in the issues surrounding the earth and space as I am in the subjects of evolution and dinosaurs, they're ultimately important scientific issues one should look into to learn the truth about these things and not be fooled by establishment "science".

    There was a time I was a heliocentrist and evolutionist. My wife was a geocentrist and creationist. I put that down to the fact I got a better education than she did. One day she brought me home a book on anti-evolution given to her by Tom McFaddon who had a little book stall in a church in Dublin. It took me ten minutes to see I was the idiot and my wife was the Catholic. I began to study the subject and got to correspond with many creationists including a man called Paul Ellwanger (RIP) who at his own expense sent me years of information. I began to write essays and a book for Catholics like myself who were 'educated' as evolutionists so that they would know the truth. Then Pope John Paul II came out with his 'evolution is more than a hypothesis.' I gave up writing my book saying who are Catholics going to believe, me or their Pope.
    It was only then Paul Ellwanger told me evolution was the child of heliocentrism. After more study I learned that the first modern (evolution goes back to Pythagoras (570-496BC) theory on evolution was based on Isaac Newton's solar system. That was the nebular theory (1755-1796). Once the evolution of the heliocentric solar-system was established all other evolution theories were put forward as facts of science.
    So, when Catholic churchmen fully accepted heliocentrism in 1820, it was an evolved heliocentrism. Having committed themselves to an evolved solar-system they could no longer condemn natural evolution as a heresy that contradicts the ex nihilo immediate or 6-day creation of tradition. Not even St Pius X's Pascendi condemned the scientific evolution that had grown out of heliocentrism. He condemned the intrinsic evolution of dogma but never referred to the false theories of natural evolution that had crept into the womb of the Church as the cause of Scriptural evolution by way of Genesis first and then into doctrines and dogmas resulting from Genesis.


    Offline Dankward

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 434
    • Reputation: +229/-239
    • Gender: Male
    • Deo confidimus!
    Re: Is the Ptolemaic System Correct?
    « Reply #11 on: March 24, 2022, 12:56:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There was a time I was a heliocentrist and evolutionist. My wife was a geocentrist and creationist. I put that down to the fact I got a better education than she did. One day she brought me home a book on anti-evolution given to her by Tom McFaddon who had a little book stall in a church in Dublin. It took me ten minutes to see I was the idiot and my wife was the Catholic.
    What was the key argument that convinced you evolution was false?

    Is it the same argument still? What would you bring forth to falsify evolution nowadays?

    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2484
    • Reputation: +1416/-190
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is the Ptolemaic System Correct?
    « Reply #12 on: March 24, 2022, 02:11:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What was the key argument that convinced you evolution was false?

    Is it the same argument still? What would you bring forth to falsify evolution nowadays?

    The first aspect of evolution Dankward is the time, billions of years, necessary for it to occur. It is the first thing that needs to be falsified:

    It was Charles Lyell (1797-1875), Adam Sedgwick, Sir Roderick Murchison and many other like-minded men of the Geological Society of London, founded in 1807, who first proposed the Earth itself was formed over long ages.

    ‘Sedimentary rocks form by an accuмulation of layers in a variety of environments such as the sea floor, lake or desert. The sediment will eventually consolidate to become rock strata (layers). Generally, the lowest layers are older than the upper layers and any plant or animal remains they contain will be older [and more evolved?], as will any minerals that formed during or soon after the deposition.’ (GNS science website)

    Well, experiments conducted at the University of Colorado by sedimentologist Guy Berthault between 1985 and 1990 have shattered all conceived assertions that sediments were laid down one layer on top of another throughout time. In fact, Berthault, testing sedimentation with sediments in moving waters, found sediments are laid down in a sideways motion, so that the bottom strata of deposits, always considered the oldest according to that ‘science,’ can well be younger than the top strata further back along the path of any deposit. Berthault’s tests offered scientific evidence that showed the long-age sedimentation geology of Lyell and others used by Darwin for his evolution is no longer feasible. The sedimentologist’s sideway findings were published in his book Principles of geologic dating in question  and then in the French scientific review Fusion. 
    The final rejection of Berthault’s evidence came from the Galilean Catholic hierarchy as might be expected. They placed a letter in the Geological Society’s half-yearly newsletter and, giving no heed at all to the empirical evidence supplied by Berthault, they accused the scientist of ‘pseudoscience and creationism.’ ‘By attacking his personal credibility, they knew that most geologists would not take his work seriously.’

    ‘Sedimentary rocks form by an accuмulation of layers in a variety of environments such as the sea floor, lake or desert. The sediment will eventually consolidate to become rock strata (layers). Generally, the lowest layers are older than the upper layers and any plant or animal remains they contain will be older [and more evolved?], as will any minerals that formed during or soon after the deposition.’ (GNS science website)

    Now consider examples of sedimentation found worldwide, some over and under the lie of the land, especially the mountains of deposits. How in the name of reason did such mountains of sediments form after ‘local’ floods? For this to occur, the waters had to be higher than these mountains worldwide. How could local-floods, river sediments, sea sediments etc., result in such fossil-containing layers at such heights in many countries of the Earth? ‘Local’ waters could not reach such heights as common sense will tell you. But God’s global flood as depicted in Genesis and Chinese history could have caused such mountains of sediments found worldwide. It tells of a deluge of rain covering mountains and waters bursting from under the Earth, separating lands and mountains to form world-wide, before receding and leaving the mountain-high sediments and deep valleys as we now find them.

    Then there is the Mount St Helens volcano eruption in Washington State in 1980. In a matter of days, layer after layer of lava lairs formed in front of the scientists studying the explosion, resulting in the depths of sediment left behind. This volcano showed that millions of years is not necessary to lay down such formations of sediments.

    Finally watch this:  www.halos.com

    Its about finding an instant halos that prove certain rocks were created instantly. 

    I will write up more tomorrow.