Author Topic: Sun and Earth (Read 7503 times)

forlorn · « **Reply #45 on:** July 16, 2022, 01:22:36 PM »

Quote from: cassini on July 15, 2022, 04:18:36 PM

No Roscoe, the Dimonds are on your side, they try to show that the 1616 decree and the confirmation of its authority by Pope Urban VIII in 1633 and by the Holy Office in 1820 meant nothing by way of Pope Benedict XV's 1921 encyclical on Dante In Praeclara Summorum.
First a quote from this encyclical:

'If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory shines in a part more or less elsewhere: and though this Earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ.'

The Dimonds say:
Here we see Pope Benedict XV, in a 1921 encyclical, declare that “this Earth on which we live may not be the center of the universe as at one time was thought.” In all the discussions of the issue with which I’m familiar, I’ve never seen the above quotation from Pope Benedict XV brought forward. People such as John Daly, Solange Hertz, Paula Haigh, etc., who have spent much time on this issue, were obviously unaware of this quotation.

There are only two possibilities: 1) St. Robert Bellarmine and the members of the Holy Office were correct that geocentrism is de fide; in that case, Pope Benedict XV was wrong (and was teaching heresy) when stating that the Earth may not be the center of the universe; or 2) Pope Benedict XV was correct that the issue has not yet been settled (and the Earth might not be the center) and St. Robert Bellarmine, many theologians of the Holy Office and the Holy Office’s 1633 sentence against Galileo, etc. were therefore wrong for declaring heliocentrism to be heretical and considering geocentrism to be de fide.

If #1 is true, that means that Pope Benedict XV was teaching heresy in his encyclical. It also means that he and other numerous other popes (as will be explained below) were ignorant of the true theological status of geocentrism.

My answer to this is:
It has been asserted by certain men, like the Dimond brothers, that the above encyclical shows the 1616 edict was not an irreversible (infallible) decree because Benedict XV did not confirm a geocentric universe. The Pope was of course referring to Einstein’s theory of relativity of his time as the progress of science that held ‘the world rested on no sure foundation.’ In other words, a geocentric universe was still as viable as a heliocentric one. Moreover, the Ptolemaic system of the universe was the universe of Dante, and yes, the Pope was right about it no longer being the true system. Given the fact that in his time geocentrism was still considered falsified by the Jesuits surrounding him, one surely would have expected the Pope to say the Earth ‘is not at the centre.’ But he did not, nor that the sun does not orbit the Earth, leaving the 1616 decree as defined and declared. One could equally say Pope Benedict XV with the words ‘may not be’ did not accept the physical non-violent heliocentrism ‘of modern astronomers’ insisted on by the Holy Office from 1820.

Pope Benedict XV may not have denied that the Earth is geocentric, but that doesn't mean the 1616 decree was infallible. If it were, His Holiness or any of the other popes between 1757 and today would have noted as much.

cassini · « **Reply #46 on:** July 16, 2022, 03:31:20 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on July 16, 2022, 01:22:36 PM

Pope Benedict XV may not have denied that the Earth is geocentric, but that doesn't mean the 1616 decree was infallible. If it were, His Holiness or any of the other popes between 1757 and today would have noted as much.

No pope ever denied the infallibility of the definition and declaration of the anti-Biblical heresy of a fixed sun in 1616 by Pope Paul V and confirmed in 1633 by a second pope. All any pope did was to take heliocentric books off the Index. Pope Paul VI took all books off the Index but all the heresies in them remained heresies.

Very few know the details of the U-turn of 1820. Fr Olivieri, head of the Holy Office in 1820 admitted the 1616 decree was infallible. He knew this. So how then did Catholic churchmen have their infallible cake and eat it? He actually told his pope that the infallible decree of 1616 was a condemnation of a violent heliocentrism but that modern astronomers had confirmed heliocentrism of 1820 was a non-violent one. Obviously Olivieri had not read Copernicus's or Galileo's book in which both dismiss the old idea that if the Earth orbited all would be disturbed on its surface. This proves that Olivieri made up the lie about the infallible 1616 decree to leave it untouched.

And that is why the 1820 decrees allowing books to be read always made this clear:
1820 Decree states: ‘The Assessor of the Holy Office has referred the request of Giuseppe Settele, Professor of Astronomy at La Sapienza University, regarding permission to publish his work Elements of Astronomy in which he espouses the common opinion of the astronomers of our time regarding the Earth’s daily and yearly motions, to His Holiness through Divine Providence, Pope Pius VII

But then in 1822 the Holy Office, issued another decree, actually applying penalties for not allowing the publication of books presenting the heliocentric solar system ‘according to the common opinion of modern astronomers.’

I will comment on tyhe Diamond Brothers denial of infallibility soon.
‘The most excellent [Holy Office] have decreed that there must be no denial, by the present or by future Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, of permission to print and to publish works which treat of the mobility of the Earth and of the immobility of the sun [the defined heresy in 1616], according to the common opinion of modern astronomers, as long as there are no other contrary indications, on the basis of the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index of 1757 and of this Supreme [Holy Office] of 1820; and that those who would show themselves to be reluctant or would disobey, should be forced under punishments at the choice of [this] Sacred Congregation, with derogation of [their] claimed privileges, where necessary.’

Now why do you think decrees of a pope would always put in the phrase according to the common opinion of modern astronomers? Because the decree of 1616, the infallible one, could not be touched as promised by Christ's Church. And the ploy worked. But as the Lord said;

For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest
nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad. (Luke: 8:17)

Yeti · « **Reply #47 on:** July 16, 2022, 04:14:08 PM »

From Sungenis's book:

Quote

Since the geocentric star field is offset from the Earth by 1 astronomical unit, then, as the star field rotates around the Earth on a 93 million mile radius, it will produce the same circular and elliptical formations of Gamma Draconis as that which is claimed for the heliocentric system.

This is a contradiction. The center of a ball is a point that is equidistant from every point on the surface. For the earth to be the center of the universe, that would mean that the stars remain always the same distance from the earth as they rotate around it. So when Sungenis is saying the stars are offset from the earth by one astronomical unit, he is saying the earth is actually not the center of the universe.

cassini · « **Reply #48 on:** July 17, 2022, 04:35:10 AM »

Quote from: Yeti on July 16, 2022, 04:14:08 PM

From Sungenis's book:

This is a contradiction. The center of a ball is a point that is equidistant from every point on the surface. For the earth to be the center of the universe, that would mean that the stars remain always the same distance from the earth as they rotate around it. So when Sungenis is saying the stars are offset from the earth by one astronomical unit, he is saying the earth is actually not the center of the universe.

First, why would anybody give your comment a thumbs down Yeti? You put your point across and asked a question.
My answer is that the centre of something does not mean the mathematical centre. From Earth we see the sun is one astronomical unit away from us. Now the stars must, in a geocentric universe created by God, be aligned to the stars, a ball of stars that circle the Earth every day and year. It is this sun-stars movement around the Earth that causes both stellar aberration and parallax to be seen from the Earth. All go around the Earth so the Earth is at the centre of this movement.

cassini · « **Reply #49 on:** July 17, 2022, 08:07:59 AM »

Quote from: cassini on July 17, 2022, 04:35:10 AM

First, why would anybody give your comment a thumbs down Yeti? You put your point across and asked a question.
My answer is that the centre of something does not mean the mathematical centre. From Earth we see the sun is one astronomical unit away from us. Now the stars must, in a geocentric universe created by God, be aligned to the sun, a ball of stars that circle the Earth every day and year. It is this sun-stars movement around the Earth that causes both stellar aberration and parallax to be seen from the Earth. All go around the Earth so the Earth is at the centre of this movement.

My typo error. 'Now the stars must, in a geocentric universe created by God, be aligned to the sun,

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #50 on:** July 17, 2022, 10:57:36 AM »

Yeti · « **Reply #51 on:** July 17, 2022, 05:46:07 PM »

Quote from: cassini on July 17, 2022, 04:35:10 AM

First, why would anybody give your comment a thumbs down Yeti? You put your point across and asked a question.
My answer is that the centre of something does not mean the mathematical centre. From Earth we see the sun is one astronomical unit away from us. Now the stars must, in a geocentric universe created by God, be aligned to the stars, a ball of stars that circle the Earth every day and year. It is this sun-stars movement around the Earth that causes both stellar aberration and parallax to be seen from the Earth. All go around the Earth so the Earth is at the centre of this movement.

Thank you cassini. If I remember Sungenis's video, I think he explained parallax by a computer animation in which the stars remain equidistant from the sun, not the earth, and the whole system moves in a sort of orbit around the earth in a space that seems to be outside the universe. But if the stars rotate around the earth and the sun, in such a way that they remain always the same distance from the sun, not the earth, and this is the cause of stellar parallax, then isn't the sun by definition the center of the universe?

... no?

Is there any other geocentric explanation for stellar parallax than the one Sungenis gave?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #52 on:** July 17, 2022, 07:58:59 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on July 17, 2022, 05:46:07 PM

Thank you cassini. If I remember Sungenis's video, I think he explained parallax by a computer animation in which the stars remain equidistant from the sun, not the earth, and the whole system moves in a sort of orbit around the earth in a space that seems to be outside the universe. But if the stars rotate around the earth and the sun, in such a way that they remain always the same distance from the sun, not the earth, and this is the cause of stellar parallax, then isn't the sun by definition the center of the universe?

... no?

I shouldn't think so. If the sun moves around the earth, then the earth would still be at the center even if the stars move around the sun. That's in line with the Tychonic concept. As you know, I'm not convinced of this model, but assuming this for the sake of argument:

Let's say that you have the sun at the center, but then just a single planet out there, let's say like Jupiter. Jupiter in turn has 100 moons that go around it. Does that make Jupiter the center of the solar system because all these other things revolve around it? Or is it still the sun, because Jupiter itself moves around it.

If you were to look at the universe along the lines of the Newtonian model (which I also don't accept), then the sun really is NOT the center of the solar system, despite popular belief. What's at the center is the barycenter of the solar system, which occasionally (depending on how the planets are aligned) isn't even within the physical boundaries of the sun. In that scenario, even the sun is rotating around the solar system barycenter.

But then when you expand outward, what is the center of the universe? Well, it's the barycenter of the entire universe. Who's to say that the barycenter of the entire universe isn't the earth, and that God doesn't magnificently, like some amazing clockwork, balance the entire rest of the universe around it, always keeping the earth at the barycenter of the entire universe? We have Sacred Scripture repeatedly indicating that the earth is fixed in its foundations and does not move. And the Fathers of the Holy Office who condemned heliocentrism as heretical largely leaned on a unanimous consensus of the Fathers that the earth is in fact motionless.

Then there's the notion of "mathematical center" of the universe (we're not really talking about the solar system really). Where is that? What are the dimensions of the universe? What if the edges of the universe are not even regular, like a circle?

If you look at the Tychonic model (of just the solar system), then the center of motion is not really the mathematical center.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #53 on:** July 17, 2022, 08:37:33 PM »

There's some great reading here if people are interested:
https://www.geocentricity.com/bibastron/ts_history/index.html
from Walter Van der Kamp

https://thenervousbreakdown.com/tag/association-for-biblical-astronomy/

cassini · « **Reply #54 on:** July 18, 2022, 04:20:19 AM »

There is another of Walter van der Kamp's booklets that is very important.

The M&M experiment of 1887 did not show the 30kms/s 'fringe' expected if the Earth orbits the sun. All it showed was 5kms/s. This 5kms/s was brought down further after more tests, a 'fringe' of inertia up to 98% correct expected if the earth rotated, or if the universe rotated. Heliocentrism needed the goose and the gander (30kms/s) result, but geocentrism needed just the gander (-5kms/s), a rotational inertia. So, the M&M test proved geocentrism,

But the Earthmovers were not having that and up to this day have tried to explain why the M&M test failed. This gave rise to Einstein and his STR.

‘Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west as his predecessors 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 Russel.

So, Walter said, let us test this one is as good as another compromise on the M&M test. It works if the universe is confined to the Earth, sun and planets. But both REVERSED must also show stellar aberration and stellar parallax. Try as you can, you will get stellar parallax but you cannot get both reversals to find aberration. In other words, it means that the M&M test is evidence for a geocentric universe.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #55 on:** July 18, 2022, 06:31:57 AM »

Quote from: cassini on July 18, 2022, 04:20:19 AM

The M&M experiment of 1887 did not show the 30kms/s 'fringe' expected if the Earth orbits the sun. All it showed was 5kms/s. This 5kms/s was brought down further after more tests, a 'fringe' of inertia up to 98% correct expected if the earth rotated, or if the universe rotated. Heliocentrism needed the goose and the gander (30kms/s) result, but geocentrism needed just the gander (-5kms/s), a rotational inertia. So, the M&M test proved geocentrism,

I think I recall something about this. As I briefly understand it, he's saying that if in fact M&M had been invalidated due to the alleged "Lorentz contraction" or else relativity, then M&M should have shown 0 movement. Or did I misread that or misremember it?

cassini · « **Reply #56 on:** July 18, 2022, 07:19:14 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on July 18, 2022, 06:31:57 AM

I think I recall something about this. As I briefly understand it, he's saying that if in fact M&M had been invalidated due to the alleged "Lorentz contraction" or else relativity, then M&M should have shown 0 movement. Or did I misread that or misremember it?

With their ether drag theory for an orbiting Earth redundant, the Earthmovers had to get the Earth orbiting again, by way of another ad hoc of course. And that is why in 1892, a ‘brilliant’ Irishman called George Fitzgerald (1851-1901) suggested that all matter experiences a physical contraction as the Earth forces its way through the stationary ether, and it was this contraction that caused the F-arm of the interferometer to shrink and thus cause the resistance found.

‘Hold on a minute’ interrupts a first-year science student when discussing this nonsense at his university physics class in Trinity College Dublin. ‘We can easily check this out simply by measuring the F-arm and comparing its length with the S-arm and if one is shorter than the other you have a viable theory, yes?’ ‘Actually no,’ answers Mr Fitzgerald, ‘You see the ruler you measure with, will also shrink exactly the same extent as the F-arm, and because both will shrink the same relative to each other that difference in lengths won’t be detectable.’ ‘What’ exclaims our student, ‘even if I use a ruler made out of the hardest tungsten? ‘Yes, it would,’ says Fitzgerald with a straight face, ‘the mathematics show they will always be the same.’ ‘But that surely is nonsense,’ the student retorts. Fitzgerald replies: ‘Obviously my boy, you are not cut out to be a theoretical physicist, so I recommend you turn to some other career, like farming.’ And if you think he exaggerates Einstein proposed a 50% shrinkage. That, dear reader; is the ‘length’ the Earthmovers go to in order to keep the Earth moving.

In 1897, Michelson summarised the situation after his experiment failed to fin an orbiting Earth.as follows: ‘In any case we are driven to extraordinary consequences and the choice lies between these three:

1) The Earth passes through the ether (or rather allows the ether to pass through its entire mass) without appreciable influence.
2) The length of all bodies is altered (equally) by their motion through ether.
3) The Earth in motion drags with it the ether even at distances of many thousands of kilometres from its surface.’ - Swenson: Ethereal Aether, p.118.

Michelson’s hypothesis number two, the shrinking arms one, the one that came out of the same stable as Alice in Wonderland, was taken up in 1904 by the Dutch physicist, Hendrik A. Lorentz (1853-1928), and, although he could give no physical cause for it, he supposedly showed ‘mathematically’ that it was consistent with the governing equations - the electromagnetic equations. These figures had electromagnetic forces causing the moving particles of matter to bind together, even though there was no way of demonstrating his theory. Lorentz however, not being one to seek a reputation for nonsense, admitted later his equations had been extrapolated, i.e., if you know the answer first, then you can make up any mathematics that will give you that answer. Lorentz is also quoted asserting; ‘Briefly, everything occurs as if the earth is at rest.’

Michelson, we see, was desperate. His first conclusion is a viable theory if the smaller 3.5kms/s was not found. His second option is of course the Irishman Fitzgerald’s wacky ad hoc. For his third option he chooses the ether-drag theory that Sir Oliver Lodge seems to have falsified five years earlier in 1892. Incredibly however - for these men were after all, supposed to be the world’s leading physicists - Michelson omitted a fourth logical possibility based on the outcome of the experiment; 4) that the Earth does not move in orbit, but that the geocentric universe rotating around the stationary Earth every day could well be the reason for the interferometer’s original 3.5 kms/s interference found (a speed later found in 1925 to be 98% expected from rotation). Now unless all options are considered, the test-results are not being addressed according to the true scientific method.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #57 on:** July 28, 2022, 05:47:24 PM »

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #58 on:** August 02, 2022, 05:41:22 PM »

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #59 on:** August 02, 2022, 08:27:40 PM »

Quote

There are only two possibilities: 1) St. Robert Bellarmine and the members of the Holy Office were correct that geocentrism is de fide; in that case, Pope Benedict XV was wrong (and was teaching heresy) when stating that the Earth may not be the center of the universe;

To be fair, if a pope uses "may not" in an encyclical, that's hardly a definitive teaching. Not all encyclicals are infallible, by nature. It depends how they are written. Benedict's "openness to science" (similar to Pius XII on theistic evolution) is neither a teaching, nor a decisive statement. In my opinion, both were horribly wrong for opening pandora's box but there is no authoritative nature in any of this. In other words, Benedict XV was just wrong (as was Pius XII) and St Robert and company are still correct.

Quote

or 2) Pope Benedict XV was correct that the issue has not yet been settled (and the Earth might not be the center) and St. Robert Bellarmine, many theologians of the Holy Office and the Holy Office’s 1633 sentence against Galileo, etc. were therefore wrong for declaring heliocentrism to be heretical and considering geocentrism to be de fide.

The Holy Office of 1633 is correct.

Quote

If #1 is true, that means that Pope Benedict XV was teaching heresy in his encyclical. It also means that he and other numerous other popes (as will be explained below) were ignorant of the true theological status of geocentrism.

No, the 3rd possibility is that Benedict XV, like Pius XII, were either liberal or listened to liberal advice. Their encyclicals were not heretical and neither were they authoritative. When speaking on science, you can't judge such as a "teaching" in the same way as an encyclical on the sacraments. Infallibility only protects faith/morals. The matters of science (those discussed in the Bible) are part of Faith but also outside of it.

My opinion = they were convinced that "new facts" had emerged to possibly change the Church's views. Theology cannot change, but science can still discover. So since Faith and Reason are not in opposition, it is *possible* for new facts to emerge which can partially (but not substantially) change the Church's views...only in the realm of science. That's why Benedict used "may" to denote theory and also why Pius XII said that "further investigation" is allowed on evolution.

But we know now that these "new facts" are lies and so all of this is water under the bridge. We return to the Church Fathers and 1633 as our authority.

Author Topic: Sun and Earth (Read 7503 times)

forlorn

Re: Sun and Earth

cassini

Re: Sun and Earth

Yeti

Re: Sun and Earth

cassini

Re: Sun and Earth

cassini

Re: Sun and Earth

Viva Cristo Rey

Re: Sun and Earth

Yeti

Re: Sun and Earth

Ladislaus

Re: Sun and Earth

Ladislaus

Re: Sun and Earth

cassini

Re: Sun and Earth

Ladislaus

Re: Sun and Earth

cassini

Re: Sun and Earth

DigitalLogos

Re: Sun and Earth

DigitalLogos

Re: Sun and Earth

Pax Vobis

Re: Sun and Earth