St thomas Aquinas said;
‘The knowledge proper to this science of theology comes through divine revelation and not through natural reason. Therefore, it has no concern to prove principles of other sciences, but only to judge them. Whatever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this science of theology must be condemned as false.’ --- (ST, I, Q 1, a 6, ad 2).
We 'geocentrists' are in fact biblical geocentrists, confirmed in our faith by the Sacred Scriptures, the 1616 decree of Pope Paul V who dogmatised this biblical revelation because it was confirmed as such by all the Fathers of the Church, and after this because of the confirmation of this irreformable decree by Pope Urban VIII in 1633 .
The doctrines of the Catholic Church are all of faith and cannot be proven false by human science.
As Cardinal Bellarmine said, if this is not true as regards a geocentric universe, then it is not true that the feast we are now celebrating is true, that is the Virgin birth of Christ.
As it turned out, by careful investigating, we know a geocentric universe has never been proven wrong. Unlike the Freemasons who invented causes for their solar system, Catholics do not need to invent physical causes to 'prove' God's work. All we need to be sure of is that there is nothing that can scientifically falsify geocentrism.
For centuries they tried, letting Newton's theory fool everyone into believing he had proof that little bodies had to do what the sun caused it to do. Putting their faith into Newton's theory worked for them for centuries until 1871 and 1885 tests showed it was not proven. Along came Albert Einstein who had to admit science cannot prove or falsify the order by way of his special theory of relativity. To do so he had to show Newton's theory was lacking in credibility so he had to invent his own theory of gravity to save a heliocentric solar-system. Since then every physicist of note had to go along with the special theory, making adjustments like inventing dark matter to keep their theory alive.
Now I have only viewed part 1 of the above and wondered if it was that easy to prove geocentrism false, how come physicists and astronomers for 200 years never figured it out? but as with all these helioers they take theories as facts and if anything does not fit into their theories they think and claim geocentrism is B....x, a word used to try to portray geocentrists as retards, the latter word the Catholic priest Fr Hull used for any who actually believed the Scriptures reveal a true geocentric universe.
I note in this video, he expects biblical and physical geocentrists to be able to explain the forces of nature. If as physicists for a hundred years have been admitting we cannot tell which order the universe works by, this means we do not know the laws of the universe, does't it? But this guy thinks he knows. He tries to falsify the sun cannot do what we see it do by way of geocentrism. It is OK for him to offer a tilted Earth but he cannot envision a God tilted universe that will result in exactly the same observations as the heliocentric version. For him of course a tilted rotating universe to bring days and years and precession is impossible in his scientific trained mind. But for us Catholic geocentrists our God is just as capable of creating physical or divine forces to operate His universe. I also caught the sound of Newton's 'perturbations' to explain his scientific solar system when it goes a little astray. I bet he never even heard of Domenico Cassini who falsified Kepler's and Newton's astronomy with his astronomical findings that relate to orbits following electromagnetic forces, curves found in leaves, snails and blood cells.
So, geocentrists, do not fear that these videos 'prove' geocentrism false. They do using their invented causes, but do not falsify the ability of God to have a moving solar system within a spinning universe, both doing what God makes them do. Nor should we worry that we cannot find out how God does these things, how he could be born of a virgin birth, and physically feed thousands with a few loaves and fish. According to science of today, these things are impossible also so we shouldn't believe they could be true even if the Bible tells us the happened. Well most of us here believe they are true.
For over 100 years the observable physical universe has two ways of explanation, a Copernica heliocentric way, or an adjusted Tycho de Brahe geocentric way. The Special theory of Einstein's has been falsified many times. The one I love is Walter van der Kamp's falsification based on stellar aberration. This SA is a fact of observation and can only be explained in a geocentric universe.
If the goal is a "model" that only fits observation to some degree of accuracy, infinite possible models could do that, not just two. That's kinematics. On the other hand, kinetics, or explaining the forces or causes involved - and making predictions - is something else.
It is perfectly obvious to see how desperate you helioers are to try to falsify certain statements of biblical geocentrists who have done their homework. I mention Walter van der Kamps falsification of Einstein 's Special theory of relativity that states
‘We know that the difference between a heliocentric and a geocentric theory is one of motions only, and that such difference has no physical significance…’ --- Sir Fred Hoyle: Astronomy and Cosmology, 1975, p.416.
Or as you put it above:
‘Since the issue is one of relative motion only, there are infinitely many exact equivalent descriptions referred to different centers – in principle, any point will do, the Moon, Jupiter…’--- Sir Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus, 1973, p.1.
Now Stanley, you haven't a clue how van der Kamp proved the above and your rhetoric about kinematics as pie in the sky. But here is his summation:
‘Mediate for a few moments and the truth will dawn on you. Such a single observation, one of momentous importance we have here. According to the ruling relativity it makes with regard to the cosmos that the astronomers observe no physical difference, pontificates Sir Fred Hoyle, whether we declare the universe centered on the sun or the Earth. This profession, you will already have realized, is false. The two universes that this contention envisages could not physically be more different than they are. The Earth-centered one basically requires a Stellatum like that of Antiquity and the Middle-Ages to account for what we “here below” diurnally and annually observe [STELLAR ABERRATION]. The never proven, nor provable, gospel of Galileo has in the long run reduced us to little blobs of thinking jelly on a pellet of stardust corkscrewing from somewhere into the nowhere of nothingless. The Sun-centered hypothesis truly “saves the appearance,” but the Earth-centered view only will do this if we re-introduce the Stellatum of yore and arrange the stars in that celestial sphere. A simple observation, but the Einsteinian theories are thereby condemned irrefutably. This, in a manner of speaking, puts us back to square one. That is in the cul-de-sac into which after 1887 classical science [M&M] found itself….
And I have to stress the irrefutability of my conclusion. For here we have much more than a-by means of experimentation acquired “disproof” that can be overcome by suitable ad hocs. We have a logical and ontological impossibility. The structure of the universe that first-hand observations prompt us to extrapolate from an Earth at rest is totally different from that of a Sun at rest. Relativity maintains that there will be no physical differences between the two. Relativity is therefore wrong and Einstein thereby dethroned.’ --- Walter van der Kamp: The Cosmos… p.34-35.
Does your "geocentric universe" predict anything? Take something simple: could you predict from within your geocentric model where a satellite should be, in order to be geosynchronous?
What a silly question. Determining where a satellite is orbiting the earth has nothing to do with a particular universal model. But while I am on it I will show you who uses the Geocentric model to determine other cosmic bodies.
When it comes to working out eclipses etc., according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, it is the geocentric reality mathematics that is used. But watch how the Encyclopaedia Britannica (Eclipse, p.869) plays mind-games when admitting this:
‘For this purpose [making calculations] it is convenient first to consider the Earth as fixed and to suppose the observer looking out from its centre…’
Then there is space-flight Stanley, all heliocentric, yes? Well think again.
let us now read what a letter to the New Scientist magazine of Aug. 16, 1979 had to say about which system is simpler:
Royal Air Force College
Cranwell, Lincolnshire, England.
‘Sir, ... One can of course believe anything one likes as long as the consequences of the belief are trivial. But when survival [and success] depends on that belief, then it matters that belief corresponds to manifest reality. We therefore teach navigators that the stars are fixed to the Celestial sphere, which is centred on a fixed Earth, and around which it rotates in accordance with laws clearly deducible from common-sense observation. The sun and moon move across the inner surface of this sphere, and hence perforce go around the Earth. This means that students of navigation must unlearn a lot of confused dogma they learned in school. Most of them find this remarkably easy, because dogma is as may be, but the real world is as we perceive it to be. If Andrew Hill will look in the Journal of Navigation he will find that the Earth-centred Universe is alive and well, whatever his readings of the Spectator may suggest. Yours, Darcy Reddyhoff.’
Now you are claiming that special relativity has been falsified "many times". No reference given, not even for the seemingly specific falsification you name. Can you provide peer reviewed verification that special relativity is "falsified". (I'm putting "falsified" in quotes because obviously SR is a special case of general relativity, so it wouldn't be expected to "work" where GR is needed - much like Newtonian physics is good except where SR or GR is needed.)
It is curious that people who have no apparent background in astronomy, science OR theology wish to pass judgment on several hundred years of thought and observation and attempt to redefine an entire field. What hubris.
Here then is the usual way the Earthmovers dismiss any objection to their mind-science, they make no allowances that anyone who is not being paid to kerep therir ideological cosmology alive can study the subject and make their own mind up about them.
Yes, Einstein had a mixture of Relativity that depended on so much theory and proofs that it would take an hour typing to go through all of it. Perhaps the best account I ever read was Gwynnes advice that Einstein's (Stanley's) physics was not only nonsense but simple nonsense.
Dr Arthur Lynch, another distinguished mathematician, in his book named The Case Against Einstein (1932), quotes M. Bouasse, Professor of Physics at the University of Toulouse, as speaking of the ‘insanities of the Relativists.’
In 1971, yet another mathematician, Dr Louis Essen, wrote a devastating analysis that included the statement that Einstein’s relativity theories were not physical theories, but a number of sometimes contradicting assumptions. Be suspicious then, as to how Einstein’s absurdities became the ruling paradigm in a discipline that considers itself in the category of ‘rocket-science.’
Sir Arthur Eddington, who played an important part in promoting Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, once wrote:
‘Beyond even the imagination of Dean Swift; Gulliver regarded the Lilliputians as a race of dwarfs; and the Lilliputians regarded Gulliver as a giant. That is natural. If the Lilliputians had appeared dwarfs to Gulliver, and Gulliver had appeared a dwarf to the Lilliputians – but no; that is too absurd even for fiction, and is an idea only to be found in the sober pages of science.
At that lecture at Trinity College in Dublin in 1996, and we were there, engineer Al. Kelly read a paper that, while speculative itself, did show the STR had been empirically falsified many times. Nevertheless, within the audience there were professors who were employed by that same university to teach this nonsense to paying students. Within minutes of Kelly’s unassailable thesis, these same relativists were up on their feet telling all and sundry that Kelly ‘really didn’t fully comprehend’ the theory he had just falsified. We have no doubt the next day Kelly’s debunking synthesis was history and the STR was being taught to a new batch of physics students in that same world-renowned university in whose lecture hall the Special Theory was seen for what it really is, patent intellectual nonsense, mathematical magic.
Let me give all an example of Einstein's 'science.' In a book called Special Relativity, University Mathematical Texts by Wolfgang Rindler. The contents of such books as these are not common knowledge so remain within the confines of various physics departments in educational institutions for future physicists, well clear of the psychiatric department for obvious reasons, as anyone could see if they read it carefully. First the introduction in it:
‘The first edition of Professor Rindler’s book [1939] was welcomed as a clear and concise introduction to the ideas of special relativity… An important feature is the provision of many original exercises, with hints and answers.
the question poses that a man carrying a 20 ft. long pole runs into a room 10 ft. long and closes the door behind him. It then asks how it could be done in a room only 5 ft. long. The answer of course is if he enters the room at the speed of light. No, he and his pole are not splattered against the wall to allow the door to close; he and his pole simply shrink. Here you can now see Einstein’s STR for what it really is, an illusion, a mathematical absurdity, and wonder at the power that these Earthmovers have wielded for so long, a power that can get university professors not only believing such nonsense but getting students year after year to believe in it. But more than that, how can such nonsense be accepted as the premise for thousands of cosmologists and physicists to build up their belief system as to how the universe began and now operates. Answer this question, they tell their students, get a well-paid job and even find the mind of God.
St thomas Aquinas said;
‘The knowledge proper to this science of theology comes through divine revelation and not through natural reason. Therefore, it has no concern to prove principles of other sciences, but only to judge them. Whatever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this science of theology must be condemned as false.’ --- (ST, I, Q 1, a 6, ad 2).
Geocentrism vs Heliocentrism is NOT about Theology, sorry.
It's about the science of ....................... Astronomy.